Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1986 - Minutes PC ~.. -G PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 15, 1986 Monday - 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Greek at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Hart STAFF PRESENT: Stan Soo-Hoo, Administrator of Current Planning & Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson., City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 1986 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of December 1, 1986, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1555- CITY OF ORANGE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND THE IRVINE COMPANY: Proposed police/fire .facility within the Planned Community zone located within the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan area.. Because of possible modifications of the site plan, both the Police Chief and Fire Chief request this item be continued to the January 19, 1987 meeting. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept this request and continue the item to the January 19, 1987 meeting. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED C '"•Planning Commission Minutes ,• December 15, 1986. Page 2. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1556 - ELITE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,. INC.: Proposed 74 unit seniors housing development within the C-1 zone location on the southeast corner of Glassell Street and Palmyra Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1108 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Soo-Hoo presented the staff report to the Commission. The subject property contains 1.33 acres and extends from the Glassell Street frontage to the Orange Street frontage. The site is zoned C-1 for local commercial. The code specifies that buildings that are built in this zone not exceed two stories or a height of 30 feet unless a conditional use permit is issued. The applicant is proposing to develop 74, 565 square feet units (one bedroom) to be occupied by senior citizens from the age of 55 years old and older. Because of the specialized occupancy proposed, the applicant is proposing 39 parking spaces. That translates to a ratio of approximately one space for every two units. -The code requirement for a normal one bedroom apartment is 1,5 spaces per unit.. However, the City has permitted in the past this ,5 standard to be used for seniors projects.. Vehicular access will be•from Orange Street and it will be via two driveways that lead into the property. The project will be predominantly two stories,; however, there will be a center portion, containing 11 units which will be three stories in height. This center portion will contain three stories; the actual measured height will be between 30 and 33 feet -~ basically 30. feet with. architectural features that bring it up to 33 feet. As far as conditions are concerned, Condition X22 should read: "That the developer shall enter into an agreement with the ~Redevelop- ment Agency which will Insure that not less than 20% of the housing units (15 )_ in the project will be made available to and occupied by low and moderate income persons prior to the issuance of any building permits," The staff recommendation on this project is for the Planning Commission to accept Negative Declaration 1108 and to approve the conditional use permit to allow this use - a three-story development - on this site. There are two primary reasons for this recommendation. First, the three-story portion will only exist for the center, central portion of the building where the balance of the building will be two stories. Second, the three-story portion will be restricted to 30-33 feet. Commissioner Master questioned Condition ~~1, Page 5, as to the correct wording. Mr. Soo-Hoo replied in the affirmative,. It is worded by the City's Building & Safety Division. The intent is that it be both accessible for the handicap and the units themselves be finished for handicap accessibility (grab bars, etc.). There is an option to construct it for subsequent addition for handicap accessibility, Tn this case, they want it all equipped immediately. • Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986. Page 3. Commissioner Master questioned Condition ~~15, Page 6, last word in second sentence. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated the word should be Building Division instead of addition. The public hearing was opened, Bob Nickelson, 328 North Glassell, speaking for Elite Development. The principals of this project were seated in the audience. They are excited about this project. Tt's an ideal location for the proposed use. This is an opportunity to provide senior housing in the City of Orange; a very nice project in close proximity to the needs of seniors, One bus stop is located directly in front of the project so public transportation is provided. The Senior Citizens Center is within walking distance. The site is adequate for the project as designed. Richard Hansen .and the principals took a lot of time to research the Palmyra Hotel and attempted to bring many of the design. characteristics of that Hotel into this new project. They intend to spend quite a bit of time~wth the residents in the neighborhood and Design Review Board members to work. out the details of this project. Essentially this is a wood sided building; not frame and stucco that might be expected. A landscaping plan was not available and it Baas suggested adding an additional condition, if the project is approved, to come back with a final landscape plan. The elevation drawing on the wall is an attempt to show how the landscaping is envisioned. The two large trees on Orange Street will remain and there will be heavy landscaping to soften the edge of the building and to screen the parking area from view. There have been two neighborhood meetings and many residents expressed concern about density and parking lot proximity. It is felt by having the 39 parking spaces activity will be very low than any number of permitted uses that would be allowed in that C-1 zone. The trash area adjacent to Orange can be moved back into the interior and shield it to some degree, which was a legitimate complaint of the neighbors. The staff of the Redevelopment Agency has met with the applicants and it is proposed to enter into an agree- ment with the Agency that 20% of the units will be for low and moderate income people. Those speaking in favor. of the project: John Chestnut, 1166 North Handy, is a volunteer at the Orange Senior Citizens Center. There is a dire need for senior housing. 'The project will add a lot to the City of Orange. Twenty-one people spoke in opposition to the project: Stu Livingstone, 238 East Palmyra, a major concern with this project is whether or not the people are discussing the issue of senior housing, or if the people are discussing the project itself.. Concerned about the tremendous impact this project will have on the neighborhood. All the neighbors realize there is a need for senior housing, but people are overlooking the project itself. The staff report does not take into consideration what a 74-unit high density building is going to have on the community. Questioned the General Plan and how the proposal is consistent with it. Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 4. They were under the impression that the General Plan was to make sure that anything constructed in Old Towne was sensitive to the area and protected the neighborhood's best interests.. Asked the Commission to please address the project - what is being constructed - and take the emotional issue of seniors housing out of it. Chuck Haupt, 314 East Palmyra, lives l~ blocks from the development. Stated he and his wife were excited about a seniors housing project in the neighborhood., but after reviewing the plans are concerned about the density and the project being out of character with the surrounding neighborhood of single family homes. The plan exceeds the density level by about 231%; a conflict of land use. On a lot which is comparable to ten homes and whch.is zoned C-l, 74 dwellings are being crowded i.n. They welcome seniors to the neighbor- hood, but adamantly refuse to allow their 100 year old neighborhood to be turned into a slum by this insensitive development. Bob Moore, 334 South Glassell, represents .the Orange County Apartment Association for the Bast 14 years.. He attended a meeting 30 days ago in Santa Ana to hear a similar hearing regarding density and it was voted "no". Dale Rahn, 350 North: Harwood, resident and President of Old Towne Preservation Association. As an Association, they are opposed to this project. Design Guidelines need to be addressed.. Read the objectives of the llesign Guidelines and stated the project does not adhere to those objectives. The proposed density will affect property values. The project is not aesthetically compatible to the existing historical neighborhood . Because the project fronts on three streets, it falls into two separate sections of the guidelines; namely,. Chapter 3, Spoke Streets and Chapter 4, Residential Quadrants. Chapter 3 was cited and read addressing the set backs. Front yard set backs shall be 15 feet from the property line. Both Glassell and. East Palmyra are considered the front of this property.. The proposed project is only 12 feet from the property. In reference to Chapter 4, the set backs should be 20 feet from the property line; again, the project is only 12 feet in its set back. The proposed project needs to be lowered to 30 feet, or two stories,' whichever is less; and the South Orange and East Palmyra set backs need to be 20 feet - not 12 as proposed. Dr. Barbara Towne, 205 East Palmyra, with a professional o.f.fice at 262 South Glassell -- living and working within one-half block of the proposed project. Shares the concerns already expressed. The project is clearly too dense, too large and inappropriately placed in the heart of the Old Towne historical district. Concerned with the atmosphere of Old Towne and the Design Guidelines which was established to preserve it`s historic integrity. Her 1888 home and business have been restored to the Old Towne Design Guidelines. There appears to be a double standard discriminating against the individual homeowner and in favor of the big developer. Another major concern is the traffic problem that already .exists on .Glassell, Glassell/Palmyra is referred to by the locals as "suicide corner". '' Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 5. Chairman Greek asked Mr. Soo-Hoo to explain the difference between the Planning Commission/Design .Review Board and respective responsi- bilities to understand what happened in the past. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated a primary .distinction should be made that there is a Design Review Board which is the City~s architectural review body that reviews each development in the City for compatibility with the individual neighborhood and surrounding buildings. This is independent with the 01d Towne Guidelines; the Old Towne Guidelines have been adopted, but have yet to be imposed on specific property. Tt is not technically being implemented at this time. The words have been adopted, but they have not been attached to specific property. Chairman Greek stated the Commission's function is not to rule on the exterior of the building. That will be handled by the Design Review Board at a different time. Planning Commission will only consider the conditional use permit. Lisa Blanc, 368 South Orange, reviewed the Orange 20A0 Community Planning Project Summaries. The Summaries discuss the findings and recommendations of specific committees, formed last year. The traffic situation was quoted from the Summaries.. Special needs for seniors have not been addressed involving traffic. Expressed concern about heavy congestion, traffic impact on adjacent residential streets, on-site parking very inadequate and referred to the parking study which was done by Weston Pringle and Associates.. She stated they based their decision on a study of two facilities in Anaheim, which. had similar characteristics to the proposed project; however, she does not agree with their reasons.. Suggests the City conduct their own independent parking study to determine the adequacy. Many residents, including Ms. Blanc, would like to .volunteer to work on a committee to help research senior housing.. Ron Huber, 363 South Orange, showed a slide show and gave his reasons why the project should be denied: Density, ingress/egress, height, visual impact and parking, Feels it is possible to design a new building and to blend it with the Old Towne surroundings. Further studies need to be conducted on the architectural integrity, density, and the impact the project would have on the Old Towne environment. Norman Fast, 205 East Palmyra, lives across the street from the proposed project. His business is also located within one block of-this development. Two issues were addressed: 01.d Towne historical policy, objectives and planning; and infrastructure impact. His house was constructed by C. Z, Culver as the overflow house or the annex to the Palmyra Hotel. Feels comparison of the project to the Palmyra Hotel and Culver House is an insult.. The only resemblance are the gable roofs and the ship wood siding as .seen in the slides. The developer and Planning Staff are not paying attention to details.. He had a copy of the final report prepared by the Orange 20.00 Committee and read their assumptions under Preservation; also addressed the Committee's concerns, as stated in the report. Asked the Planning Commission what their priorities were for the neighborhood. Existing infrastructure appears to be inadequate. Feels this project is not Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 6. sensitive to Old Towne; it's out of character with the neighborhood and it ignores infrastructure problems. This modern high density building is clearly in the wrong. place. Laurie Alexander, 361 South Glassell, four doors down from the propsed project, lives here because she loves the neighborhood; there is a secure feeling in the neighborhood. This proposed 74-unit project will have a constant turn over of residents -- transient housing. Scott Bales, 802 East Palmyra, circulated a petition in his neighbor- hood to get the neighbors. reaction on this development. No one is in favor of a development that only will allow 34 parking spaces that are off-street. The streets are already dangerous enough. This development will add to the dangers of living on Palmyra and Glassell. Margaret May, 214 East Palmyra, is not against senior citizens, but against the project. There is inadequate space for that many people. Parking is an impossibility. Would like the single family dwellings to remain as it has for the past 42 years. Objections are: no major market for the people to shop -- Ralphs moved -- and traffic problems. Would prefer to see a commercial type building for this location. Marge Meyer, 313 East Palmyra, feels we need senior housing; however, concerned about the quality of this project plus all the others ~+ mentioned earlier. While attending a neighborhood meeting questioned °.}~ if there was a proposal for keeping the seniors active. She was told by Mr. Mickelson that the seniors didn't need this; they were just going to sit and stare. She doesn't want this kind of facility for people her age; wants something that will keep seniors stimulated. Feels itFS segregation to restrict people from driving. Linda Kluck, 13418 Brazo Road, La Mirada, is not a resident, but is wanting to relocate to Orange. She really likes the 01d Towne feeling. The proposed development will spoil the ''look" of 01d Towne and the property values in the area will go down after the project is built. Teresa Smith,. 169 North Shaffer, lives in a 99 year old home and is a member of the Project Area Committee of the Redevelopment Agency, a . member of the Redevelopment Committee of Old Towne Preservation Association, belongs to the Economic Development Committee of the Orange Chamber of Commerce.. Funding was approved for this project last week at the Redevelopment. Agency meeting. Redevelopment money will be used on the construction of the senior housing project. Expressed concern of the Redevelopment Southwest Project Area that was amended to include Old Towne. Her fears included Redevelopment's approval of high rise, high density buildings in this area, soon becoming commonplace in the Old Towne section of Orange. She was told that Old Towne would only be enhanced and improved; not destroyed and made unrecognizable. Believes Redevelopment funds are being used to implement a zone change from commercial to residential use; the height ordinance of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines is .not being honored; the density ordinance of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines is not being honored; adequate parking for the residential neighborhood is being side stepped; the single fam~.ly dwelling locale of this neighborhood site is not being enhanced and -Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 7. improved,. but rather it is being severely impacted by a high density, two and three story apartment complex potentially with lots of traffic and not enough parking. This is not an enhancement; it is a threat. Ms. Smith made reference to the Chapman College proposal in voicing her opposition to the seniors housing project. Laren Gartner,. 315 South Orange, lives at the corner of Orange and Palmyra. Submitted a petition of 270 signatures of people opposing this project. Believes the residents will be impacted by increased traffic, increased parking on the already overcrowded streets, increased use of water and sewage, 24 hour per day use of the facility, increased emergency vehicular traffic; increased night lighting and activity creating an impact on their homes. An apartment complex of this size will change the lives of the residents forever. The project is too dense and will negatively impact the lives of the residents in this area. Nadine Bales,.. 802 Bast Palmyra, addressed the traffic problem and asked the Commissioners to drive down Ealmyra on their way home from work. There are many accidents; one fatality. The residents cannot handle anymore traffic on Palmyra. Clarence Braga, owns property at 354 South. Grand (residence) and 331 South Orange (rental), which will face the proposed project. He is strictly opposed to the project being accepted or built. Michael Harbaugh, 413 South Orange, has only been a resident of Orange for about two years. Finds. it appalling that the developer would consider this site a prime location to build an apartment complex. It seems the developer is the only person benefiting ffom this project. Judith McCoy, 22.5 East Palmyra, concerned about children and traffic; what will happen to the children with. the additional traffic in the neighborhood? Dan Determan, 331 South Orange, lives directly across from the parking lot. Has lived in Orange approximately 15 years.. Existing traffic is tremendous; parking is a problem. Brad Fast, 205 East Palmyra, addressed the parking space issue. Stated Mr. Mickelson said there were ,53 parking spaces for each unit and it's clearly not so. Whet has been proposed is that five of those spaces will be used for administrative purposes of-one kind or another. What it adds up to is that there are only 34 parking spaces for those 74 units, which is below the .50 limit that has been set as a precendent. This would be an unprecendented impact on the environment. Mr. Mickelson will try to cover the points that are significant. Wanted to apologize to Mrs. Meyer, whom he apparently insulted at the neighborhood meeting; he did not intend to do that and did not intend to say the seniors would sit and stare.. Would like to clear up the item on Redevelopment. There is a lot of misunderstanding. There has been no funding by Redevelopment. The City Council passed a ' -Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 8. resolution of inducement, which provides the mechanisms for such funding for this 20% of units in the event the project is approved. Tt does not qualify in any way to approve the project. There is no attempt by the Redevelopment Agency or the staff to change the zone. There is no violation of the codes and ordinances. The codes .clearly allow you to submit an application for height in excess of 30 feet. The primary bulk of the building in the three- story area is at 30 feet -- only the architectural features (the peaks of the roofs and the chimneys), exceed that by three feet. Also thinks everyone is comparing apples to oranges. The Commission is being asked to consider this without reference to the fact that it is senior housing. Doesn't believe that can be done because if it were considered as a normal apartment, it should not be approved. Without the features and limitations limiting it to senior occupancy, it is not appropriate. If anyone had tried to find a site in the City of Orange or in Orange County for seniors housing, it is like finding a needle in the haystack. Here is a project within close proximity to shopping of all kinds. There is a supermarket - Satellite Market - it has everything you want. In comparing this site to single family dwellings, residential development is not appropriate. Tt has- not been zoned for single family residential use for many years. In fact, when it was used for the. historical Palmyra Hotel, it wasn~t a residential use, but a commerical use. There has been some commercial uses approved on the site, but .have not been developed. There is the potential for other commercial uses. Thinks the use proposed is the one with the least activity in terms of noise, traffic generating capacity, compatibility with the surrounding area of any of the long list of permitted uses that would not have to come before the Planning Commission seeking a conditional use permit. The residential setbacks were compared stating the project should have a 20 foot setback on Orange and Palmyra. Again, it is zoned commercial and there is a 10 foot setback in the commercial zone. If you go up and down the streets around the area, you would find many of the residences sitting at 15, 16,.1$, 22 feet, some even a few feet less than that. There. is not a consistent 20jfoot setback for the residences. It doesn't seem appropriate that a 20 foot setback should be applied. There is a natural and appropriate fear that there is not enough parking provided. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the report and is satisfied there is adequate parking, Thinks .5 is adequate; it has been demonstrated that it is. The property will be deed restricted to the senior citizens use. The only way that deed restriction can be removed is with the consent of the City. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Master commented on the traffic issue. He heard several people state they would prefer a commercial use. If it went commercial to it's fullest capability, Palmyra and Glassell would be severely impacted. The traffic situation could be much worse with the current zoning if used to it's maximum use under the current zoning. Commissioner Scott stated the conditional use permit was before them for two reasons: senior citizen use and height. They could go back to two story and then need a conditional use permit for senior housing, is this correct? Plarining Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 9. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated there would still be a need for the conditional use permit in order to place residences on this site because of the commercial zoning. However, if this development were to be lowered to two stories, that would remove the need for the conditional use permit for height. Commissioner Master asked if the conditional use permit would be necessary for the density? Mr. Soo-Hoo said the density is permitted because of amendments that have been made to state law which affect local ordinances as well, permitting cities to exceed normal General Plan residential density limitations. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1108.. AYES: Commissioners Greek,. Master, Scott NOES; None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master addressed the issue of density and feels there are better ways the prof ect could be developed. Examples have been shown that would perhaps make it more appropriate to the 01d Towne atmosphere, Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 1556 without prejudice for the reasons stated above. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Mr, Soo-Hoo stated the action on a conditional use permit is a final action of the Planning Commission unless it is appealed to the City Council with 15 days of the. action, IN RE: MTSCELLANEOUS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP $6-420, LISTED ON AGENDA AS REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-764 - FRODSHAM: Proposed revised 16-lot industrial subdivision of 22.2 acres located on the west side of Glassell Street south of Fletch~x Avenue. A staff report was not presented. Commissioner Master is concerned as to how this fits in with the originally approved plan regarding impacts, use, parking, etc. Did not have the original plan for reference. Robert Sundstrum~ with the firm of .Williamson and Schmid, 17782 Sky Park Blvd., Irvine, There was not an originally approved site ' Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 10. plan or development plan that went in conjunction with Parcel Map 84-474. We processed that map back in October,. 1934. Zt was a simple subdivision of 16 parcels without the benefit of a concurrent development plan or building plan. ~~e believes the staff report at that time referenced that. They have gone through a number of iterations of a site plan utilizing the basis, which was the approved Parcel Map 84-474. The street configuration has changed slightly; it's still in the U-shaped street. The parcel sizes have changed based on the type of product that is being provided based on the site plan that is being processed through the City right now. Commissioner Master is looking; for answers concerning parking analysis, traffic - ingress/egress, to see how this fits with the whole development. Mr. Sundstrum stated they processed the 16 parcel parcel map before, based on the Industrial-.Development Standards. Tt was reviewed through the Environmental Review Board at that time based on the maximum amount of development that could be placed on 16 individual parcels with the U-shaped street, which is essentially the same as is before you this evening. Commissioner Greek said there was a copy of the old plan posted on the wall. At that time everything was going to be demolished and now they're trying to save some buildings, That's where the confusion/ problems come in. He would like. to see a map that shows the existing buildings and which of those are going to be retained. The existing buildings are dotted on the tentative map and are also shown on that site plan, The reason those are shaded in, are those that a part of the site plan that is being processed at the present. time. They are not processing the site plan on parcels 14, 15,.16, 1, and 2 at the present time. The reason the building on parcel 13 is being shaded in is part of the overall site plan that is in process now. The buildings on parcels 1 and 2 and parcel 16 are existing; they are not part of the site plan that is in process. The only effective difference between the old 84-474 is the change in the parcel sizes; the number of parcels is the same.. There have been some buildings located on-the old parcel 8 -- parcels 1 and 2 -- located there, which have been reflected on the revised 86-420. They accept the conditions attached to 86-420. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. McGee if there was adequate parking for each of the lots as indicated. Mr. McGee stated there is adequate parking for each of the lots as indicated. The one lot with the existing office building on the corner might need a little bit of assistance on the parking requirement, but there is a reciprocal parking and access agreement between that and the lot to the north of it. The applicant expanded on the prior comment. Parcel 13 does stand on its own for parking-per the Orange Municipal Code; however, there is a reciprocal ingress/egress easement across the property line. Each one of the parcels do stand on their own for parking.. -, _Planning Commission Minutes - December 15, 1986 Page ll. ''~` Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that "~~ the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Parcel Map $6-420 per the conditions outlined in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE; ADDENDUM FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1471 - NEXUS DEVELOPMENT: Request that site plan modifications be found in substantial con- formance with previously approved Conditional Use Permit 1471 and site plan. The project is located northwest of Garden Grove Boule- vard and The City Drive. Chairman Greek asked to be excused from this item due to a potential conflict of interest; however, will remain present and abstain from voting. Commissioner Master asked how this fits with the original plan? What impact is there of this modification? Mr. McGee stated what is being proposed with this site plan modifi- cation is the addition of an insurance office at the southwest corner, a two-level parking structure, storage buildings, and the modification of the proposed restaurant site to be used as a retail shops building. The majority of any increase in intensity of use will be the addition of the insurance office building. As the original approval was a conditional use permit for the height of a building, the site plan was a part of that. But the site plan was .not something which other than for the height of the building question, would not have come before the Planning Commission. The addition of 20,000 some feet. would generate some additional traffic, additional employees, but it is not seen as a very significant addition to the proposal.. The plans on the wall were studied by-the Commissioners and Mrt McGee, and the proposed changes were explained. Commissioner Master ha;d concerns about the us.e of the stors,ge areas, umy do they- .need two9 AIsA be~.fieves staff is concerned about. this.::, Mr. McGee stated this is true. Staff has been concerned about the potential ultimate use of those buildings as they .are on the property lines of the project directly adjacent to residential uses. There is a small amount of parking being added to compensate for those .buildings being there as storage uses. Staff has had discussions with the applicant in regard to trying to ensure they remain as storage uses and don't become something else like flower shops or whatever in the future. Have not come to a final conclusion on exactly how staff will do that, but have talked about placing a building code requirement, a ma,nimum stQxage type of constxuctican for the building . and having it not exceed that level of improvements within the building.. Therefore, in order to occupy it with something other than storage, ", Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1986 Page 12. the developer would .need to come to Planning for a permit. Staff rrw", is looking at some mechanism to ensure that it stays as a storage building. Commissioner Master asked if there was adequate parking if the buildings were used for offices? Mr. McGee thought it would run close, if not short, on parking if those buildings were to become offices. Commissioner Master felt if the existing parking could support some use of those buildings other than storage, then maybe the mix use isn`t such a bad idea. The applicant, Bruce Bearer, prepared a parking recap. According to his calculations using gross. square footage to come up with a ratio in excess of 150 spaces over code required parking. Believes they have 9,675 square feet of storage proposed. If that were converted to offices, they would need about 36 parking spaces. Commissioner Master interpreted what he just heard to mean they have a surplus of parking. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission determined the site plan modifications are found to be in substantial. conformance with Conditional Use Permit 1471. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES:; None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart ABSTAIN: Chairman Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Chairman Greek suggested having a pre-meeting at 6:30 p.m, before the meetings to review maps/plans. Mr. Minshew will check with Costa Mesa and Mr. Roberts to determine if there are legal implications involved with this. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m., to reconvene at a regular meeting on January 5, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. /sld C