Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/1/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 1, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Ault STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Lon Cahill, Fire Prevention Bureau; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1065, VARIANCE 1608 - TISHMAN WEST: Request to allow construction of an 8 story office building within 660 feet of an R-1 zone and to allow reduction in parking stalls and increase the number of compact stalls at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and City Parkway North. (Note: Negative Declaration 653 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, explaining that the request is to allow the construction of an 8 story office building. A Conditional Use Permit is required to construct a building in excess of two stories or 30 feet in height within 660 feet of a Single Family Residential Zone. A Variance is requested for reduction in parking stalls and an increase in the number of allowed compact stalls. He pointed out that the subject property con- tains 4.215 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and the City Parkway North, known as Manchester to the north of Chapman Avenue. The property is zoned C-2 and is vacant. The proposed building will be 109 feet 32 inches high above grade (excluding a roof top mechanical room which adds an additional 16 feet in the center of the structure). It is situated 140 feet from the Single Family Residence Zone to the north across Chapman Avenue. ~,, The parking stalls will be reduced from 512 to 507, as well as there being an increase in the percentage of compact stalls from 20 percent to 50 percent. The ratio of building height to distance from the Single Family Residence Zone is 1 to 1.28. The bulk plane ratio is not a develop- ment standard, it is used to initiate a Conditional Use Permit procedure which the applicant is following. Mr. Murphy pointed out that 512 parking spaces are required for the proposed 157,538 gross square feet of office space. 507 off-street parking spaces are proposed, which would be made up of 253 regular (9 ft. by 20 ft.) size stalls and 254 compact (8 ft. by 16 ft.) size stalls. The applicant states that the additional 5 spaces will be added at a future date when adjoining parcels are developed. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant had originally filed the variance for a reduction in stall width to 8Z feet. Upon reconsidera- tion, stall width has been revised to the standard 9 feet with a resulting variance for a reduction in number of stalls. It was pointed out to the Commission that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for Major Commercial development. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 653. Planning De cembe r Page Two Commission Minutes 1, 1980 Due to the availability of historic data on compact car use for similar buildings in The City complex and because of the reduction of five parking stalls represents less than one percent of the total required parking and will be made up at the time of future developments, Staff recommends approval of Variance 1608. Because of the buffer provided by Chapman Avenue and because of the high rise nature of existing office development on the south side of this primary arterial street, Staff feels that the proposal for an 8-story building is technically acceptable. Input from neighboring property owners should be considered, however, before a decision is rendered on Conditional Use Permit 1065. If the Conditional Use Permit is approved, Staff recommends that it be approved subject to the 16 conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner Mickelson asked where the height Mr. Murphy replied that the City Council has of the ordinance on the new limitations. He effect about the first week in January. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Walt Charters, Engineering Manager for Tishma Commission in favor of this application. He concurs with the findings in the Staff Report ditions set forth in it. limit study stands. adopted the first reading thought it would be in n West, addressed the stated that the applicant and agrees to the con- There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mickelson mentioned that he has a client who is building a seven story building. He had a rather extensive traffic study done which substantiates that 48 to 70%, depending on the location, of the cars in a commercial office center now are compact. Also, a PM peak hour study was done on Lake Forest Drive near I-5, where they found that 57% of the cars traveling at the peak PM time were compact cars. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 653. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1065, Variance 1608, for reasons as set out by Staff, with the finding that a recent traffic study substantiates that 48 to 70% of the cars in a commercial office center now are compact, and that 57% of the cars traveling at peak PM time are compact cars. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance are to be subject to the 16 conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Commissioner Master asked if this is the residential area where they recently had a presentation come before the Commission in the Manchester/ Chapman area and he was told that it was. Commissioner Master stated that he had a reservation with regard to development in this area. He was surprised that no one from that area was here to oppose this project. He felt that more concern had been taken with a previous application involving the City of Santa Ana than what they seem to be demonstrating here regarding a residential development 100 feet away within the City of Orange. He was not against an office development here, but had reservations about the bulk of the building. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Three C~ Chairman Coontz felt that this is not a very tall commercial building as compared to the one they have just been studying. She pointed out that probably the people in that area were not as much concerned about what was built across Chapman Avenue as what was built right next door to them. Commissioner Mickelson had this concern also, but he thought there was some considerable difference between an eight-story building and a 22-story building. The City Center area has long been planned for this type of building concept and people have accepted this fact. As long as it has not encroached across Chapman Avenue, people are probably accepting this. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 935 - LINCOLN BUILDING JOINT VENTURE: Request for rezoning from C-1 to 0-P at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Orange-Olive Road. (Note: Negative Declaration 638 has been previously accepted and no further environmental review is required.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application, stating that this is a request to allow a change of zone from C-1 to 0-P (Office Professional) District. The property in question contains approximately .4 acre of land located on the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Orange-Olive Road (700 East Lincoln Avenue). It is zoned C-1 (Commercial) and currently contains an abandoned gas station. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that on September 9, 1980 the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit 1046 and Tentative Parcel Map 80-765, creating four air-space office condominiums on the subject property. One condition of approval was that a zone chance to 0-P be applied for. Therefore, the applicant is requesting rezoning from C-1 Zone to the 0-P Zone in accordance with the City Council's direction. ~. It was explained that the applicant's proposal remains unchanged and consists of development of a 7,748 square foot, 2 story office con- dominium with provision of 31 parking spaces. The land use element of the General Plan designates this area as local commercial. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that since Negative Declaration 638 has previously been accepted no further environmental review is required. The Staff recommends that Zone Change 935 be approved for the reasons that the proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding land use zoning and land use, and is also consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Natalie Wood, 1449 Palo Loma Place, Orange, representing the applicant, concurred with the Staff Report and awaited any questions from the Commission. There being no questions and no one else to speak for or against the application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to recommend approval of Zone Change 935, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report. U Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Four AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL PERMIT 1068 - MAIZE: Request to allow construction of a two-story second unit in the RCD Overlay district on the south side of Washington Avenue, east of Shaffer Street (524 East Washington Avenue). (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Jere Murphy presented this application before the Commission, ex- plaining that the property in question is presently zoned R-D-6 (RCD) (Residential Duplex, 6,000 square foot lot size minimum with the Residential Combining District Overlay). The RCD suffix requires a Conditional Use Permit for any two-story development. He explained that the proposal is for a second unit to be built in this duplex zone that is two stories in height. Mr. Murphy pointed out to the Commission that a petition was received from the people within this block, as well as the adjacent block to the north about 22 years ago, requesting that the Commission establish a change of zone from R-D-6 District to R-1 District. The Commission felt at that time that an application for a zone change of that nature should be prepared by the proponents and applied for by the normal process. He pointed out '`:hat no such zone change was applied for so it remains R-D-6 with an RCD suffix. Mr. Murphy went on to state that the proposed pro;~ect is for a detached two-bedroom residence at the rear of the subject property. A Conditional Use Permit request has been filed to allow a two-story building in the RCD Overlay Zone. -he subject property contains a .14 acre of land located on the south side of Washington Avenue, 140 feet east of the centerline of Shaffer Street. The property is zoned R-D-6 (RCD) and contains a single family residence. The surrounding land uses and zoning are single family residences and duplexes in the R-D-6 (RCD) Zone. He pointed out that Washington Avenue is a 60 foot local street and the public alley to the rear is 13 feet wide. Mr. I~lurphy explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a two-story unit partially over a three-car garage. In addition, one open parking space will be provided. The existing garage will be removed. Access will be taken from an existing. alley. It was pointed out that administrative adjustment 80-29 has been approved to allow a reduction in the separation between units to 142 feet (15 feet is required by code). This allows a turning radius off the alley into the garages of 242 feet (25 feet is required by code). The proposed second unit is to be 21 feet in height. The existing residence on the property is 21 feet 8 inches in height. The applicant proposes to use the same roof line, building materials and colors on the new residence as are found on the existing one. Windows in the new residence will be limited to the front and rear elevations. Mr. Murphy explained that Section 17.10.OlOA of the Orange Municipal Code states that the purpose of the RCD Overlay is to "preserve the established harmony, character, and scale of the existing neighborhood". It is noted that the surrounding residences are predominately single story. It was also pointed out that the subject property is within the boundaries of the Mile-Square Old Towne area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for low ~, density (2-6 units/acre) residential development. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Five Mr. Murphy stated that since the proposal for a second unit is being made for property zoned R-D-6, its general concept is acceptable. However, also to be considered is the fact that the property contains RCD overlay zoning which mandates the preservation "of the established harmony, character, and scale of the existing neighborhood". The question, therefore, becomes whether a second story proposal is ap- propriate in an area almost exclusively developed with single story homes. Ordinarily the Staff would not feel that such a proposal was acceptable. However, in this case, Staff notes that the existing building height will not be exceeded and that the existing building elevation will be matched with similar materials and colors. Because of the measures taken by the applicant to maintain the character of the area, Staff feels that the proposal is acceptable and recommends approval with 9 conditions, as opposed to 8 listed in the Staff Report, two of which are particularly important, they being: 5. That final building plans be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval. 7. That all requirements of the Public Works-Subdivision Section be complied with. #7 would also include that the driveway on Washington Avenue be closed, which is the present access to the west side of the property. Mr. Murphy explained that the 9th condition would be that there be no windows on the second story level on either the east or west side of the new structure, again to insure privacy for the rear yards of parcels on either side of the subject property. Chairman Coontz commented on the fact that Staff showed no elevation of the existing house on the property. Mr, Murphy explained that the Staff had slides of the existing house for the Commission to view. Commissioner Mickelson commented that he could see how they could eliminate windows in one bedroom, but that it would be difficult, if not impossible to remove the window on the end in the other bedroom. They would have to move the closet to that wall and try and find a window space in the dormer, which is actually an extension of the roof. Mr. Murphy replied that it might require substantial revisions of the design of the structure to accommodate no windows on either side of the building. However, that was the commitment that the applicant made with Staff prior to their preparing the Staff Report. Mr. Murphy then showed the slides of the existing home and the surrounding area. At this time Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, Martin Maize, 1640 Robin Road, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of the application and waited for any questions from the Commissioners. He did comment on the windows in the second story of the proposed house. He stated that there was no way you can look into the neighbors' yard from the window to the east, because of the carport and the building protrudes beyond that window. You would be able to see into the alley and see the roof of the garage on that side. He explained that he had discussed the windows on the west side with Kathy Braden in the Building Department and they had not really done anything on the plans, but they had talked about several things that could be done. He realized that they obviously must be put up into the north or south side of the roof, Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Six ',~.- Nicholas Neddy, 625 E. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he had personally cir- culated a petition in the neighborhood on this. He has a petition signed by 14 people in the immediate area opposing the structure. They are ,primarily concerned with, not only the increase in traffic in the area, but also the potential invasion of privacy with a two- story structure. They are aware that the area is zoned for duplex, but the people do not like this. They definitely do not want a two-story structure. Chairman Coontz questioned him about his proximity to the proposed structure and he explained that he lives about a block away. He explained exactly where he lives in conjunction with the proposed structure and then went on to explain that he went down the north side of Palmyra and up Washington with his petition. 14 people oppose this, a few were not at home when he came by, and only one person stated that he did not care one way or another. Mr. Neddy stated that the people are not happy with the present zoning. Commissioner Mickelson asked if the other parties immediately adjacent to this property signed the petition. Mr. Neddy replied that the people to the east of the property had signed and to the west were not at home at the time. Two people across the alley on Palmyra had signed. Commissioner Master commented that if the neighborhood is strongly op- posed to the existing zoning, they should be entering a petition to change the zoning. Then this kind of thing couldn't happen. Bob Knaack, 610 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. He explained about the petition that was circulated two years ago, with regard to a change of zone, and presented to the Commission. Because of negative response, it was not applied for. At that time, 20 out of 22 people in this block signed that petition. Only two have moved since that time and the rest still feel the same way about the zoning. Regarding this particular development, he is opposed because the larger unit is basically twice as large as the unit which would normally be in that area. This means more people and more traffic and this is what the citizens are concerned about. Many of the people are elderly and not able to get out. Therefore, they signed the peti- tion but did not appear tonight. Mr. Neddy explained that two years ago, when this was brought up, there was another neighbor who wanted to build a two-story structure. That is what started this down zoning. Everyone is concerned about the fact that if one two-story goes in, there will be more and more and soon it will change the whole character of the neighborhood. Chairman Coontz explained that two years ago the Commission was not for or against. They were suggesting that the people go through with a request for zone change . Mr. Maize again addressed the Commission and stated that the flow of design on this project was to try to eliminate the problems which were just brought up with regard to a two-story house and the view of another yard. He felt that the profile has been kept as low as pos- sible and the exterior matches with the rest of the house. This will clean up the property. There being no one else to speak for or against the application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Seven 1 Commissioner Mickelson questioned the Staff as to what the parking requirements are for a duplex, with the answer that three enclosed and one open space are the minimum. Chairman Coontz pointed out that most of this area is zoned R-D-6, which goes below La Veta and covers most of Almond almost over to Glassell, some of it being east of Cambridge. Commissioner Hart felt that the discussion at this point in time should not be the validity of the zoning. The concern is with whether a two-story building should be allowed. Commissioner Mickelson felt that a two-bedroom unit could be built in a single story concept on this property. He felt that the question of density and traffic is not before the Commission - only whether or not a two-story unit should be built. Chairman Coontz thought that the comment made by the applicant about cleaning up the property was very valid because the boundaries of the alley are questionable, with all kinds of overhangs, illegal buildings, trash, etc. She didn't think it would be easy for the fire department to get into this alley to protect the area. Commissioner Mickelson stated that he wondered what the Council had in mind when they created an overlay zone here, because he felt that the applicant had a good idea for the best use of the property within the letter of the law. Commissioner Master asked the Staff if something like this were to be approved and the citizens then came back requesting a zone change, is there legally a precedent set and could the zone be set back to R-1 zoning without the RCD overlay? This unit would get built and if there were a zone change, nothing else like it would be built. Mr. Minshew answered that there would be no precedent set. If there were to be a zone change there would be no more buildings built like this. Commissioner Mickelson explained that a legal non-conforming use would be created out of this second unit and that is all that would happen. The remainder of the lots would be restricted to a single family dwelling. Chairman Coontz pointed out that if a petition for zone change were to come up, the Staff would have to consider the effect it would have on the entire area. Mr. Murphy stated that his understanding of what Commissioner Master was asking was would a recent approval of a duplex in an R-1 zone be a precedent for a court case. He went on to say that if the Commission had any real reservations of what the nature of this area should be, they should hold off on approving any application until such time as there is a zone change. Commissioner Mickelson moved, with a second from Commissioner Master, for continuance for two weeks to give the applicant the opportunity to meet with the Staff and discuss how much redesign is necessary and also to give the applicant an opportunity to talk to some of the neighbors, which he possibly has not done. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Eight ~, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1069 - COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN: L. Request to allow an elementary and secondary school within an existing church facility at the northeast corner of Orange-Olive Road and Briardale Avenue (1855 Orange-Olive Road). (Note: Negative Declara- tion 655 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, explaining that this is a request to consider allowing an elementary and secondary school in an existing church facility. The subject property contains 4.461 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Orange-Olive Road and Briardale Avenue. It is zoned C-1 and contains a church. Mr. Soo-Hoo further explained that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a school to be located in a C-1 zone. The site presently contains a sanctuary, office building and associated parking. Anew sanctuary is presently under construction. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the applicant proposes to use the existing classroom building for a school. The existing sanctuary and office building will be used occasionally for special events. 220 parking spaces are available on the site. 190 spaces are required for the church to meet code requirements. Adequate drop-off area is provided on-site. The northeast corner of the property is proposed for use as a play area. Two sand volleyball courts are being constructed in additional to the asphalt parking area which is unused during the week. It was pointed out that the applicant is proposing an initial enroll- ment of approximately 50 students in grades Kindergarten through 4. A maximum enrollment of 270 students in Kindergarten through 8 is anticipated. The existing sanctuary building might be converted for classroom use for this future expansion. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area as Hiah Density (15-24 units/acre) Residential. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the Staff recommends that the Planning Com- mission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 655. Staff also recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1069 although concerns about the proximity of the play area to the neighboring residential area are expressed. If the Planning Commission shares the Staff's concern they may suggest to the applicant that the play area be moved to another part of the site. Approval is suggested with one condition as set forth in the Staff Report. Chairman Coontz expressed some confusion with regard to the volleyball courts, since she understood that there is an existing one. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that there are courts under construction at this time and he pointed out their location on the vicinity map. Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Soo-Hoo if he was correct in under- standing that the Code requires 190 parking spaces and they are pro- posing 220 spaces, of which the 16-32 in an area which he pointed out on the map are a part of these 220 spaces. Mr. Soo-Hoo answered that this is correct. Commissioner Mickelson asked if they would be using that surface for a playground during the day and parking on Sundays or meeting nights. Mr. Soo-Hoo replied that this was so. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. .7 Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Nine Bill Burke, 1811 Tanager Drive, Costa Mesa, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant, Covenant Presbyterian Church, stating that the volleyball courts are now under construction and have already been approved. They are not asking for approval in this area. They do concur with the Staff Report and have no problem with it. He did want to explain that they do not intend to limit the play area to the segment under discussion. They would propose to have perhaps a ball diamond on the asphalt, a tether ball court and other play areas, but they are not going to be all confined to the back area shown on the map. He did not think that noise would be a problem in this facility. ~~ L Chairman Coontz explained that there have been problems before where play areas are adjacent to residential areas, one of the problems being the use of courts at night. Mr. Burke did not think that this would be a problem in this facility. The volleyball courts have already been approved and are under construction. They do not intend to use the volleyball courts in the evening in connection with the school. In fact, he doubted very much if they would be used at all by the school. They plan to be more oriented toward tetherball, kickball, etc., but not the volleyball courts. He explained that the church is very sensitive to the wishes of the surrounding residents. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if they intend to expand the school either up or down, like perhaps a day care center or pre-school, or addition of additional grades. Mr. Burke answered that they would not plan to add any more grades other than Kindergarten through 9. They will not go into seclndary level above grade 9. However, they do plan to have an extended day care center available but this will not be opened up to the general public. At this time, they plan to have day care available only for students in the school. At the present time they have no plans for a pre-school. He explained that one of the changes they will be making is to build a fence around the area. Commissioner hlickelson's understanding is that pre-schoolers must be fenced off from traffic. Mr. Burke answered that they will have a fence, but they do not plan a pre-school at this time. He then pointed out on the map where their areas will be and where they plan to put a fence. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart commented that in light of the difficulty they had on West Chapman with a play area, he would like to see an additional condition pertaining to the hours of use for the volleyball courts, like perhaps 8 a.m, to 5 p.m. Chairman Coontz agreed that the hours should be restricted. Commissioner Master pointed out that this play area is also used by youth groups and this could place a hardship on them. Commissioner Hart replied that they should just be sure that there be a time restriction. Commissioner Mickelson asked Staff if the volleyball courts were a part of the site plan approval on the church. Mr. Murphy replied that in essence they are a part of the Conditional Use Permit allowing the original church use. This is what Mr. Burke was referring to. Staff's concern is with the additional hard court areas in close proximity to the residences. Commissioner Mickelson agreed with that concern. It was agreed that the play area hours should be restricted from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. V Planning Commission Minutes December 1 , 1980 Page Ten Commissioner Mickelson wondered if the applicants would not accept this. Mr. Burke stated that they would have a problem with the hours being imposed. He explained that the church has been used for activities for some time with no restrictions on the time. He would hate to see restrictions imposed on a day school that would create problems for church activities that have already been permitted. Commissioner Hart explained that they had a very serious problem with a volleyball court which was somewhat distant from a church facility that was not supervised. The neighbors had very serious problems in this area. Mr. Burke explained that the church has been using this facility for years, including volleyball courts, and have had no problems. There is a high density apartment building along the back of the area they are concerned about. If there were going to be a problem, someone would have shown up to speak in opposition.. He did not want to see a condition proposed that will haunt them. He thought they should address themselves to existing problems rather than future problems. Chairman Coontz explained that the Commission must be concerned with future problems as well as existing problems. She did not understand his reference to the multiple density as he described it, since the people who live in those apartments are just as concerned with excessive noise as those who live in single family residences. The Commission must be as concerned with the neighbors who live in apartments as those who own a single family residence. Mr. Burke pointed out that there have been no problems up to this time with their volleyball courts. It will be difficult to segregate school use from church use. It was explained that most of their play area will be just south of the parking area pointed out on the map. They will be starting only with Kindergarten through 3 or 4 and will not be going to 9th grade immediately. It was also pointed out that the young people have already been using this area for play and there have been no complaints. The main purpose of the volleyball courts is for the church. If it is restricted, it will hurt the youth program of the church, rather than the school. Chairman Coontz asked where the line for the apartments is along the back property line. This was pointed out and there was further dis- cussion among the commissioners regarding the restriction of this area. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that the Commission had previously permitted these volleyball courts as part of the church area. Com- missioner Hart withdrew his condition, but wanted it in the record that this was a concern. Commissioner Mickelson asked Staff if the curbs had been installed yet and Mr. Murphy answered that he thought they had been poured very recently. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if they could allow the church under this permit to remove or not install the landscaping so that there would be room for a kickball area. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 655. AYES: NOES: ~ ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson Commissioners none Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Eleven Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1069, subject to one condition stated in the Staff Report. Commissioner Mickelson asked for clarification as to whether the application is for Kindergarten through 4 with the intent to some day go to grade 9. He wondered if the intent was to approve through grade 9, or just to grade 4. It was explained that the application is for Kindergarten through grade 8. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1070 - OUR SAVIOUR'S LUTHERAN: Request to allow a pre-school and day care program in an existing church facility at the northwest corner of Cambridge Street and Lomita Avenue (800 North Cambridge Street). (Note: Negative Declara- tion 657 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application, which is a request to allow a pre-school and day care program in an existing churcn facility. He explained that the subject property contains 2.87 acres of land and is located at the northwest corner of Cambridge Street and Lomita Avenue. The property is zoned R-1-6 and contains a church. The site is surrounded by single family residences in the R-1-6 zone. Mr. Murphy pointed out that, specifically, the applicant proposes to utilize the existing Sunday School located at the northern portion of the property to accommodate the proposed facility. The applicant is licensed by the state for 87 students, for which 10 staff members are needed. Children range in age from 2 to 9 years old, with younger children attending the pre-school and older children served by the extended day care program. The facilities would be open between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Two play areas are provided to insure that younger and older students are separated. One play area is located immediately north of the classroom buildings, while the other is further north, located adjacent to a single family residence. Parking and child drop-off is possible in the church's existing 188 car capacity parking lot which takes access from Lomita Avenue. No vehicular access is available to Barkley Street, since the driveway to that street has been purposely obstructed. Mr. Murphy explained that a Conditional Use Permit was previously granted by the zoning administrator to allow use of a trailer as an office for the E1 Modena Headstart Program which was located on the site, in November, 1975. It was understood that this site was being used temporarily until permanent facilities could be located. The Conditional Use Permit was granted for a period of 1 year and annual extensions were granted until the trailer was removed this year. The Headstart Program no longer utilizes this site. However, a day school operated by the church began operation in September of this year & a number of area residents protested the fact that the new day school was operating with a Conditional Use Permit and generally in- dicated a negative reaction to such a proposal. It was pointed out that the proposal meets zoning development standards for establishment of such a use, including provision of off-street parking which calculates to 16 spaces. Also, the land use element of the General Plan designates the area for low density residential development. w Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Twelve Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 657. As has been pointed out by area residents, the compatibility problems have arisen as a result of pre-schools on the site and specific grievances will undoubtedly be aired at the public hearing. Staff notes that technical standards can be complied with but acknowledges that the play yard's proximity to single family residences renders the situation less than optimal. Staff finds that it is difficult to render a specific recommendation in that the specific concerns of area residents are not known. One possible measure to mitigate problems generated by the location of the play areas next to residences, however, could be their relocation to another portion of the site such as the vacant area west of the classroom building. Nevertheless, Staff does not feel that a recom- mendation can be made since the main variable will be the nature of the neighbor concerns and the possibility of mitigating significant valid concerns to acceptable levels. The church people have been encouraged to meet with the local residents to try and solve problems. Should the Planning Commission determine that the request is acceptable, the Staff recommends approval with the 5 conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Bob Theilen, 811 N. Handy, Orange, a member of Our Saviour's Lutheran Church, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant, explaining hat his reason for being enthusiastic about the pre-school at Our Saviour's fits in with his conception of how to handle asocial problem. There is no question but that the need for pre-school and day care centers is becoming greater and greater every day. He pointed out that even though people are making more money than ever before, they are still faced with the fact that in order to keep even, the wife must go to work. When this happens, there is a problem regarding babysitting. A Christian pre-school can be the answer. This way the problem is being solved without extra taxes, etc. He explained that comments have been made as to why the church cannot just take care of itself on Sundays and let it go at that. However, their pastor feels that the church is needed in the everyday world. Pastor Len Dalberg, 1917 N. Ebonywood, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that his purpose was to tell a ''r little of the history of the congregation. He explained that the property was purchased in 1960. The building housing the school is known as Moreland and Hansen Hall Complex. He pointed out that in 1975 E1 Modena requested a lease for the Heads tart Program. They were desperate and had no place to go. Their church met this need by allowing them to use the facility for about five years. After they left, the church asked the geustion about what they should do with the property on an every day basis. One need which came up most often was a good, clean day care center with an adequate staff. It was decided to open their own state licensed day care center. He explained that they were later informed that they needed a Conditional-Use Permit or the operation of a day care facility. They opened in September and he was informed that a group of neighbors had begun a petition to the City Council, opposing the pre-school. Pastor Dalberg pointed out that they have met with these neighbors and the consensus was that no accord was met on the issues that were raised. They are prepared to answer reasonable requests. They want to operate a good pre-school and also want to be good neighbors. He then read a letter written by Mr, and Mrs. Gruen, who he explained are one of three neighbors who live adjacent to the church property. The letter stated that they had no objection to the pre-school and that it did not bother ~ them. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Thirteen Paul Sundeen, 2309 Cottonwood, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission as a member of the Church Council of Our Saviour's. He stated that the pastor's statements regarding their concern that the facility be used more than just on weekends is sound and the congregation has endorsed the idea of a pre-school. The facility was vacant five days a week and they have enough manpower in the congregation to help manage the pre-school and day care center. They also have the op- portunity to solicit financial assistance, which is something that is necessary to get a program such as this underway. This was all pre- sented to the congregation last year and they approved it last year. Cary Heddy, 2873 E. Gerald Circle, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that she is the director of the pre-school and day care center. She explained that they serve children aged 2 through 9. There is a great need for this type of facility with the economy the way it is today. Both parents must work in order to survive. When the school was originally planned, they set a goal of 20 children to start. By August they had reached over 60 registered students. They now have a capacity of 85 students. Less than 1% belong to the church. She explained that the school provides a balanced hot lunch for these children and many one-parent families feel strongly about this help to them. She pointed out that of the 85 children in the pre-school, 51 families have both parents working. There is an added benefit here in that they take elementary children in the family through the extended day care part of the program and take them to and from elementary school. Not only are they creating employment for eleven people, but they also work with senior citizens. They have a group of women who volunteer their time and help with the children and also make things for them. She explained the schedule of the school each day, showing the Com- ission how often the children are outside in the play areas. They open at 7:00 a.m. with the children being inside from 7:00 to 8:30. They go outside from 8:30 to 9:00. They then return to the classroom and are there until 10:00. They then start having staggered recesses from 10 to 11. The children are then inside until 11:30, outside until 12 and then in for lunch and down for a nap until 3:30. They are outside for about another half hour until about 4:00, at which time they come in for a snack and then are back outside until about 4:45. They are then inside until 6:00 when the facility closes. Ms. Heddy further explained that they have two playgrounds and the children are segregated by age. She pointed out that the total play- ground time is about 32 hours of their 11 hour day. She stated that they have removed the Big Wheels because of complaints of the noise they generate. She then pointed out on the map where the two play- grounds are located. She explained that all ages of children use both playgrounds, depending on the time of day. Mike Durbin, 2545 E. Tennyson, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he and his wife both work and their two children are in this pre-school all day. They took a lot of time to pick a school for their children because of their concern for the upbringing of their children. They previously had their children in another school which was inadequate. This school is neat and clean and the children are learning well. They are well disciplined and well mannered. He explained that there is some noise, of course. But with ages of 2 to 9 years, there must be some noise. They have taken some steps to mitigate the noise and they are in agreement with these steps. Mrs. Mike Durbin, 2545 E. Tennyson, Anaheim, then spoke, stating how pleased they are with the high quality of the staff at Our Saviour's. Most of them have beyond nursery school teaching credentials. The school is very clean and has exceptionally good meals. With regard to the noise factor, she pointed out that the play area is predominantly Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Fourteen grass with some sand. The cement area is closer to the church buildings, She agreed that many children will generate noise, but the grass and sand absorb some of the noise. She explained that the fence is at least 6 ft. high. Although they are not members of this church, they are happy to have their children there. The director of the pre-school then asked for a show of hands of people in the audience who support the pre-school. A large number of hands went up. She also had a letter of support, signed by 200 people. She then read a letter from the Anaheim School District regarding the need for pre-schools in the area. The Commission Chairman then asked those people to speak who oppose the application. Scott Craig, 825 E. Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he and his family live adjacent to the church playground. He explained that he and his wife have two children and are not against the concept of day schools or church. He then read a letter, dated 9/17 to Mrs. Deanna Clark, signed by property owners in close proximity to the church, expressing the concern of these neighbors about the fact that the original Conditional Use Permit was taken out for temporary use by the Head Start program and the fact that the church was now running a pre-school without the proper permits, He felt that they have put up with the noise conditions for 42 years and were told when they moved into their house that the condition was temporary. Prior to the Headstart program moving out, a tall jungle gym facility was put in, rather like a tree house. He explained that he works for the Orange County Probation Department and numerous times he has gone out in his back yard and found teenagers smoking pot in the treehouse. This has since been removed, but there is other play- ground equipment which attracts neighborhood children and, therefore, they have this condition 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Verdon Craig, 825 E. Barkley, Orange, then addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she has sympathy for working mothers, as she worked and had to have her children in places like this facility. She understands the problem, but does not feel that her children's care should infringe upon the rights of others. She explained that when she took the petition around, she spoke to Mr. Gruen, who told her that he and his wife did not have trouble with the noise level because they were both hard of hearing. He did not sign the petition. Mrs. Craig passed pictures around to the Commissioners and explained what they meant. She explained that the sandbox is 8'8" away from their home. The Jungle Gym, where most of the children spend their time is 4'7" from their 5 foot fence. Mr. Craig then displayed items which have been thrown into their yard by the children. Mrs. Craig explained that rocks are thrown into their yard and at their car, She also explained the picture of the swing set which is just outside of their home. The neighborhood children take the ladder of the set and attach it to their fence and climb into their yard. They are most concerned, since they are responsible for any injuries or dog bites which might occur while these children are in their yard. She then showed more pictures and explained that the children play in a very small area from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Craigs have talked to Pastor Dalberg and this has been changed. She explained that the noise level is heard at all times even through closed windows. They have invited the pastor and the council members to their home to listen to the noise level. •~ . Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Fifteen They are very opposed to this program, due to the fact that it does not seem to be in an appropriate area in such close proximity to their home. They are not against the pre-school center but do not wish it to be 4 feet from their home. Kay Robinson, 815 Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she concurred with all that the Craigs have said. She lives three houses from the playground and the noise is very evident, even that far away. She pointed out that she is not against children, having worked with them for many years, She is aware that there is a need for this type of school, but in a residential area the noise is extremely loud throughout the day. They have tried for the past three weeks to cut down on the noise but she is afraid that as time passes, it will start again. Arvella Bluer, 864 N. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that the southwest part of their property adjoins the church property to the north. They have had continual noise all summer and could not leave their windows open. Since Cambridge has become a rather busy street, the only place of quiet they have left is their back yard and with the noise of the children there is no quiet place. She pointed out that the fence of the playground sits 4 inches inside of their property. The children throw things into their yard and the noise level is very bad. She was surprised to hear that the children are only in the play area 32 hours a day, because it seems continuous. Marty Martinez, 815 E. Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he thought he might have a solution to the problem. He pointed out that the recommendation of Staff to move the playground to the west would just compound the problem. He pointed out that the existing playground has 150 sq, ft. There is a grassy area between the school and the church, consisting of 7900 sq, ft. where the play- ground could be placed. Then there would be a buffer of the school buildings between the playground and the family residences. This area is located west of the wall on Cambridge. Bob Theilen again addressed the Commission in rebuttal. He explained one thing should be kept in mind, and that is the fact that there are other pre-schools and day care centers around, but they are operated as profit making programs. They cannot offer the quality that the church is providing, because the church does not have the expense of a building, etc. He explained that when the Headstart Program used their facility, they had no idea how long they would be there and they would probably have been moved out a little quicker had the City Council done things a little differently on the building that they eventually built. The trailer was put in for that program, but they will not be putting one in for this program, as they do not need it. The tower which was on the back of the property also belonged to Headstart and has been removed and they have no intention of putting one of those in again. With regard to the pot smoking problem, he explained that as far as they know, they do not have any of their pre-school children smoking pot and they do not intend to let them start. They do not anticipate the problem from outside young people, because of their supervision and the fact that their staff is in evidence all day. With regard to the comment that a staff member was not supervising the children properly, this staff member has been fired for that reason. Outside supervision has been increased. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Sixteen .r-- Regarding the things thrown over the wall of the neighbors, it is possible that this could have happened on Saturday or Sunday. They are looking into a chain link fence to alleviate some of their problems of this nature. However, the biggest problem seems to be the noise. He said he got the impression that it was agreed that the noise level has improved since the neighbors' talk with the pastor. They do not think the noise level will go back up. They have modified the program so that very few children are in the area at one time. They have taken away the Big Wheels and increased outdoor supervision. They have made definite improvements. They have restricted their hours to after 8:15 a.m, to 6:00 p.m. and he felt it would be hard to determine to what degree the pre-school is affecting the environment of the neighborhood. Commissioner Mickelson commented that Mr. Martinez had an alternate solution to the noise problem and asked for a response from the applicants on this. Chairman Coontz asked for this area to be defined so as to be more clear. Mr. Theilen stated that they had thought about this idea but had not thought that there was enough square footage available. This is something that they can measure and look into. He explained that there is a state requirement of 75 square feet per child. They are state licensed for 87 children. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Martinez to verify his figures on the vicinity map, which he did. Mr. Theilen explained that the back area that they now use fits their needs very well. They would have to go to the State Board with any new plan. It would .involve extra expense also. However, they will look into this situation. He pointed out that the day care program does not have the funds to make this kind of a change. e. Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart felt that they have an area of understanding where the church and the neighbors will consider Mr. Martinez' suggestion. AYES: NOES: ~ ABSENT Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue this hearing to the next meeting of the Planning Commission on December 15, 1980, so that this and other items can be worked out. He saw the need for a day care school and the church is a good place for it. If the neighbors can be shielded from the noise, this would be a good solution. He suggested to the applicants that they get together with the neighbors and resolve some of the problems addressed tonight. Chairman Coontz stated that she concurred with the fact that it is a worthwhile activity and day care centers are much needed in Orange county. Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson Commissioners none Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Q Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Seventeen ~: TENTATIVE TRACT 11325, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1071 - ORANGE GLENN VILLAS, LTD.: Request to allow development of a 14 unit Planned Unit Development at the terminus of Coral Avenue, east of Tustin Street and south of Grove Avenue (1935 North Tustin Street). (Note: Negative Declaration 656 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to consider allowing a 14-unit planned unit development. The subject property contains .88 acre of land and is located at the terminus of Coral Avenue, approximately 335 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Street and approximately 160 feet south of the centerline of Grove Avenue. The property contains a vacated single family residence and is zoned RM-7. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that access to the site would be via Tustin Street, a primary arterial, and emergency access would be via Coral Street, a local. The site is landlocked with a 30-foot wide access easement to Tustin Street and a proposed easement for exit only traffic to Coral Street. There is a private easement involved and applicant has indicated that he has spoken to that property owner and will be able to acquire those rights. He is waiting for approval of this application in order to proceed with those negotiations. Due to the awkward shape of the lot, the access circulation system through the lot will be rather unique. There will be two-way access to Tustin through the easement. Per. Soo-Hoo explained that this proposal is for 12 two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom units for a total of 14 units, or a density of 15.9 dwellings per acre. Proposed parking is for 28 enclosed and 4 open spaces, for a total of 32 spaces, or approximately 24 per unit. The land use element of the General Plan designates the area for high density (15-24 dwellings per acre) residential development. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and had a number of minor technical adjustments to make but basically felt that the proposal was acceptable. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 656. Staff feels that the proposal is acceptable and recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1071 and Tentative Tract 11325 for the reasons that all applicable development standards have been complied with; that the proposal is compatible with surrounding zoning and land use; and that the proposal is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the project with one condition set forth in the Staff Report with regard to the Conditional Use Permit and the 9 conditions contained in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet per- taining to the Tentative Tract. Chairman Coontz found it interesting what had been stated about the access to this piece of property, because she had found that the cul de sac has been used as a playground and she would imagine that they would want to shut out the playground. She wondered if there would be pedestrian access or will it be gated off. Mr. Soo-Hoo replied that it would be gated off. It won't be an island gate, but would eliminate pedestrian traffic as well. Commissioner Mickelson commented that in reviewing the site plan, he thought that there will be a tendency to park along the walkway and park in front of Building 2 on the map, as opposed to using the garages, which would limit turning or coming out of the garages. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Eighteen He wondered if there could be a curb and could it be painted red or could there be a sign in that area. He thought the other potential problem is constructing a six foot wall between the alley to the north and the 24 foot drive to the south. He figured that wall would be laying on its side. Commissioner Hart thought that you could have reinforced concrete for the wall. There was further discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Chairman Coontz pointed out that there is a lot of access in that area without using these roadways. Mr, Murphy explained that there are some places that have steel barriers in front of their walls and this could be a solution for this area, Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. John Vann, 1000 Quail Street, Newport Beach, the engineer for the developer of this project, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He explained that this is a simple plan and pretty well self-described by the drawing. He did not have anything to add to the Staff's report. He felt that the Staff conditions were acceptable to them. If the matter of the block wall is a question it is a well taken point and cast in concrete could be the answer. He would recommend this. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if this were much more expensive than a block wall and Mr. Vann replied that it is, but if they have time to study the issue, they could come up with some solutions. A block wall can be built so as not to be knocked down. This is a townhouse project with a homeowners' association. The question of parking and locking the garages would be handled by the association. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 656. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ~, ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Tentative Tract 11325, subject to the 9 condi- tions as specified in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, and Conditional Use Permit 1071, subject to the one condition set forth in the Staff Report. Commissioner Master felt that the applicant and the Staff had done the best they could with the restrictions of the access and shape of the parcel. He expressed a concern with another avenue of entry onto Tustin Avenue, but he concurred that he did not know any other way that is viable. He is bothered by the additional ingress and egress onto Tustin just south of Grove, but apparently it is the only acceptable plan between the Staff and the developer. Commissioner Mickelson read Condition #5 in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, as follows: 5. Subject to dedicating an emergency access easement at the westerly end of Coral Street. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1980 Page Nineteen ~. He then asked if they wanted it worded exactly like that. Perhaps the applicant actually could not dedicate, but could provide a gate. Mr. Johnson pointed out that it depends upon how far the Commission thinks they should go. This is pretty much a standard condition. He explained that on the Moore project they had this and also off of Struck Street, Heim, etc. The Fire Department has asked that they have a right and they have an easement concept which is acceptable. Commissioner Mickelson thought that the way it was shown on the plans it is not strictly an emergency easement, it is free exit to the residents of this project with no entrance from that street. He thought that the provisions for the emergency access could be different. Per. Johnson said that he assumed that the Fire Department had discussed a method whereby they could get in from Coral Street to the develop- ment. Certainly there was no intent for it to have any use other than for emergency vehicles. If they wanted that entry to be used for their own people, it is up to them. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the access to this property. Mr. Johnson explained that he wasn't sure what the applicant's rights were in this regard. But he believed that this was a piece of property that was connected to the Coral Street Apartments originally. It had access only to the Tustin Street frontage. Commissioner Mickelson asked a question regarding "subject to dedicating vehicular access rights fo~ functions." He did not understand this condition clarification. Mr. Johnson explained that the intent of the city get into the development for emergency situations areas. Condition #2, city related and asked for was to be able to and to patrol the AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED The Commissioners asked what the price on these townhouses would be and the General Director and owner of the property, Jim Glenn of Huntington Beach, explained his plans for the property. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. tc reconvene on Monday, December 8, 1980 at 5:15 p.m., after which it will then reconvene at 7:30 p.m, on Monday, December 15,-1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of ,the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on December 1, 1980; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on December 2, 1980, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of December 1, 1980 was held. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 1, 1980. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson P,BSENT: Commissioner Ault Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson that this meeting adjourn at 10:15 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, December 15, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman, Orange, California. I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, December 1, 1980. Dated this 2nd day of December, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. Jer Mu p y, City Planne & Secr tary to he Tanning Commission of the City of range. ~s~