Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/3/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange November 3, 1980 Orange, California 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, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none 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; Bert Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; John Lane, R.dministrator Advance Planning; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 20, 1980: Commissioner Master pointed out corrections on pages 5 and 15 of the minutes. Page 5: Last paragraph, should be Commissioner Master making statement, rather than Commissioner Mickelson. Page 15: First paragraph, last sentence: Fluor handles 4000 people, rather than 6000 people. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to approve the minutes of October 20, 1980, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: REQUEST FOR 1 2 MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 963 - KWIZ/FM: APPROVED ON PLAY 21, 1979 To allow a FM transmitter building and 150 foot high flag pole type antenna on property east of Rancho Sa ntiago Boulevard and south of the intersection of Hewes Street and Rancho Santiago Boulevard. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to approve request for 12 month extension of time for Conditional Use Permi t 963 . AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Haet, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 933, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1062, TENTATIVE TRACT 11284 - THE IRVINE COMPANY: Request to pre-zone property from County A-1 to City R-1-7 and to allow a 171 lot subdivision utilizing private streets on the west side of Newport Boulevard, south of Chapman Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 650 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) .~ 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Two Mr. Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request for a pre-zone change from County of Orange A-1 to City of Orange R-1-7 (single family residential with a 7000 sq, ft. lot size); a tentative tract for the creation of 171 lots; and a Conditional Use Permit in order to create lots without a frontage on a public street. The subject property contains approximately 66.77 acres and is located on the west side of Newport Boulevard, south of Chapman Avenue, at the Eastern extremity of the city. The property is generally vacant, though a 4-H Club facility is presently located on the site. The entire property is in un- incorporated territory presently under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange and is zoned A-1. Mr. Plurphy pointed out that the Baldwin tract is under construction in the County of Orange to the west, with a proposed church to the south of this parcel, vacant land to the east and the Home Savings residential tract under construction in the R-1-20 zone to the north of this parcel. Newport Boulevard is a major arterial with an ultimate width of 100 feet minimum and Canyon View Avenue would be extended through this tract at a width of 80 feet. The applicant is requesting a pre-zoning to the R-1-7 zone to allow annexation into the City of Orange and subsequent development of single family homes and a conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow creation of 171 lots which would not have frontage on public streets. The applicant specifically proposes to create 170 single family lots with 1 lot to be reserved for recreation purposes. A private street system would be developed to a width of 48 feet for the collector and 44 feet for locals and cul-de-sacs. The collector would have sidewalks on one side while the balance would not include sidewalks. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant's yield of 170 single family lots converts to a density of 2.55 dwelling units per acre, which is within the general plan designated range of low density (2-6 units per acre) for this site per general plan amendment 1-79 Item "A". The applicant also proposes a half street section of 82 feet which would include a center median, 35 feet of roadway and a total of 40 feet of sidewalks, (bike trail) and equestrian trail with alternating strips of landscaping. It is noted that all these facilities are proposed wi th i n the pub 1 i c right-of-way . The site is proposed to be served by the Irvine Ranch Water District in lieu of the City of Orange. Mr. Murphy stated that the Staff Review Committee has reviewed this proposal and indicated the following concerns: (a) Because of the magnitude of the project a public street system should be developed. (b) Regardless of the public/private status of the tract, sidewalks should be installed throughout. It was specifically pointed out that school children would be walking to transportation points daily . (c) The street to the north which stubs into the subject property (.Chandler Ranch Road) should be continued within the subject deve 1 opment . (d) The ~Jewport Boulevard street section shown by the applicant should be reduced by deleting the equestrian trail and two landscaped strips surrounding it from the public right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Three Staff acknowledges the deli rabi 1 i ty of the equestrian trails . However, it is felt that it should be located within the tract itself. The primary consideration obviously is the cost of maintenance to the City of Orange. (e) The recreation area lot should be relocated north of Canyon View where it could serve a majority of tract residents without them having to cross the arterial highway. That provisions be made to allow the keeping of horses if desired by future residents of the tract. This site is surrounded by tracts where horses can be stabled, as well as horse trails. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 650 be accepted. The issue of the horse trail system is a most difficult one since the question of maintenance is unresolved. The Community Services Director does not feel that the City should absorb the responsibility of maintaining the trail. However, it is acknowledged that the development is not being proposed as an equestrian community and, therefore, residents would receive minimal direct benefits from such a trail. Generally the City has a number of alternative actions which are possible in this regard. (a) Accept dedication of the horse trail and maintain responsibility. (b) Require homeowners association to maintain the horse trail which would be located within the tract. (c) Create an assessment district which would result in the assess- ment of owners of horse oriented properties for maintenance of public trails. Mr. Murphy then showed the Commission a map detailing the horse trails in the Orange area. This map shows existing dedicated and city maintained horse trails in the area. He pointed out that there are some private trails that are intertwined with the city maintained trails. He then stated that the Staff is of the opinion that the proposed tract design is unacceptable because of the lack of sidewalks on interior streets, the intention not to continue an existing street system which has been planned to extend into this site, and because of the feeling that a public street system is more appropriate in this case. Staff therefore recommends that this project be denied. He also pointed out that in addition, the Planning Commission and City Council have a very basic decision to make regarding acceptance and maintenance of horse trails. The optimum situation from a cost and safety point of view would be maintenance by another entity with a modification of the trail section to show all trails abutting the street with any landscaping adjacent to the tract boundary. He went on to say that if the Planning Commission feels that the basic request is acceptable with implementation of the modifications as suggested by Staff, a continuance is also an alternative which may be considered. However, a variance application would need to be submitted and processed since, for public streets, some lots would not contain the required street frontage. Because private streets are being proposed at the present time, no such variance is needed. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposal merits approval, the conditions of the engineer's plan check sheet are suggested. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the second condition called out refers to dedicating and constructing the streets in the project. This, of course, would not be in conformance with the tract as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Four Commissioner Ault wondered why the Staff considered, in a develop- ment of this conformation, that public streets are so desirable over private streets. Mr. Murphy answered that because of the density of the project there have been problems with private streets. The density here is similar to several other tracts in the East Orange area. The police and fire departments are interested in providing public streets in subdivisions of this type. Commissioner Ault wondered what areas were giving the city big problems. The answer was Broadmoor and the tract at Meats and the Newport Freeway. These are areas where the homeowners' associations want the City to come in and police their area for them. It was pointed out that the matter of sidewalks or lack of sidewalks pro- posed problems also. The major concern is the safety of the children and places for children to play. Chairman Coontz suggested that Mr. Johnson speak to this issue. Mr. Johnson stated that there have been several applications for private streets. Some developments have been successful in getting private streets and some have not. The Staff has been against private streets, mainly because of the problems of fire and police accessibi- lity and control during emergency situations. They have developed a private street standard because of these requests and because they do not want to hassle on what is an acceptable private street in each and every development. The Staff's position is that generally private streets create a lot more problems to the Staff in policing and accessibility than they solve. Commissioner Mickelson spoke to the issue of the horse trail system. He asked if this is not part of an adopted system. Mr. Murphy answered that neither the County nor the City have an adopted trail system at the present time. Commissioner Mickelson wanted to know what would happen if this link were not put in, does this actually link anything up. Mr. Murphy showed on the map where the link would be, explaining that it would link Orange Park Acres area with Cowan Heights more than anywhere else. He felt that there were probably other ways of rerouting that system. Chairman Coontz asked how long ago this system was devised and was told that they have been working on this for about five years. She thought that at that time there was probably no way of knowing that the Irvine Company would be opening this area up and one of her con- cerns was the traffic problem to be faced on Chapman, which certainly ~ does not lend itself to a trail crossing. Commissioner Mickelson wondered why they needed the recreation lot. Mr. Murphy replied that perhaps the applicant could answer this better than Staff. He explained that there are horses in the area and there will be more horses in the area in the future, and it was Staff's suggestion that applicant have area available for horse stables. There might be people moving into that area because of the fact that it is horse country. It was pointed out that the recreation area is in the wrong place to be used for horse purposes. Commissioner Mickelson wondered how many lots would be affected by requiring a wider street and sidewalk, either on one or both sides, for all the smaller streets. Mr. Murphy replied that he did not know because although Staff suggested it as an alte rnative, feeling that it would not impact the type of development that much, that in essence, the same type of appearance could take place with a public street system. It was never investigated in terms of what they could accept in terms of even a modified public street section, rather than going with the full 60 ft. standard width street section. C Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Five Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Joe Perring, representing the applicant, The Irvine Company, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, addressed the Commission, also introducing Bill Fischel, the project manager for this development, who would be available to answer any specific questions which the Commission might have. He explained that when they began the planning of this area, they began first with an in- ventory of what their limits were. They were aware that there was development on all sides of Newport Boulevard, some of it at City of Orange standard development, some of it in the County, that being the Baldwin development. They were also aware that they were fronted by Newport Boulevard, which is a primary street, and Canyon View, which is a secondary arterial, having an 80 foot right-of-way, which in essence splits their parcel into two different parcels. He explained that they became aware of the design in the Baldwin tract for the bicycle trail and the horse trail to the south and, com- bining all of these things and being sensitive to the surrounding areas, while recognizing that they were working within the general plan density, they created the porject as it is now. They wanted to be compatible with the adjacent land uses and development. Mr. Perring pointed out that this is a gently rolling, hilly kind of area. Their desire was to be sensitive to all of these things and to be aware of that which was i n the community . They hope to create a development that both the City and the company will find functional and be proud of. He then referred to the maps before the Commission. Since their property was split in two, they wanted to develop a technique to combine the two parcels into one, so that they would be perceived as one single project. This was accomplished in two ways. One was by developing streetscape along Newport Boulevard that accommodated the existing horse trail and the existing bike trail. In addition, a setback from Newport Boulevard that would provide both landscaping and setback for the residential units that would back onto Newport. He explained taht the second thing they would accomplish would be to provide a spine road, running from one end of the development to the other - on the map this is "A" Street. They also wanted to develop some uniqueness in all four corners. For the interior streets, their goal was to design streets that were curvilinear for low traffic volume, and create an informal street scene. He pointed out that they have several cul-de-sacs and short streets which en- hances the residential character of the development and also helps to create more safety for the chi ldren. Mr. Perring also explained that they propose to provide streets in conformance to the street standards and they also propose a sidewalk along one side of "A" Street and planters at the end of all cul-de-sac streets. They have talked with the Staff all the time about the street sections and how they will function, and they are very much aware that the police and fire departments have some real concerns. One of these concerns is the parking question. They feel that the 36 foot right-of-way, curb to curb width, is in essence the same as that proposed in the city standards for standard hillside developments. He pointed out that they have talked with the Fire Department and they were very cooperative in terms of the radius of the cul-de-sacs. They were concerned on the first plan that was brought in that they could not maneuver on some of the cul-de-sac streets. However, The Irvine Company has worked with the~Fire Department to make these streets functional in that way. There has been a concern by the Police Department and the Fire Department about their closing off the entry point and eliminating or impacting the response time and it is not now Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Six their intention to have gates of any kind at any point, so that there will be entry at all times. Mr. Perring addressed the extension of Chandler Ranch Road. He explained that they have provided a traffic study to the Commission showing both if this road is extended and if it is not. This road is a curvilinear design with a number of intersections. On the west side toward Chapman Avenue there are a number of large lot estates which would take access onto this road. The Irvine Company feels that one of the goals they tried to accomplish was to direct traffic towards the arterial and away from through streets within subdivisions. They found that if Chandler Ranch Road is extended through their development that there is a potential for through traffic to come from Chapman Avenue to Newport, using Chandler Ranch Road as a cutoff to eliminate going through the intersection at Chapman and Newport. Their traffic study indicates that there will be a 60% increase in traffic on that road if it is extended through their project. They feel that if this road came through their development as a through connector from Newport to Chapman, there would be a potential for conflict with the traffic traveling ~ on the road. Mr. Perring addressed the subject of private vs. public streets. Regarding sidewalks, they began with a concept that they wished to create. He then requested the Commission's attention to some slides which were shown of various developments they have developed, some with sidewalks and some without. He then explained the differences in the various tracts when sidewalks were placed in the development and when they were not. He explained that the Newport Boulevard right-of-way was developed with the idea in mind of being consistent with what was adjacent. They wanted to provide the link in the horse trail that they felt was a part of the h1aster Plan along Newport Boulevard, recognizing that people living in Cowan Heights would want to go to the north, to be able to participate in the Irvine-Santiago trail there. In addition, the Broadmoor Tract developed a trail along Newport Boulevard to the north. Their project was to accommodate what was already in the area. They feel that their homeowners would have minimal interest in a horse trail and should not have to take part in the maintenance of it in their association. Mr. Perring explained that what they have tried to do is to apply valid design concepts to a piece of land that is not the ideal shape. They have tried to provide adequate access to the parcel and, at the same time, have an atmosphere of privacy. Their cul-de-sacs were the result of this. They feel that their development is one that the city can take pride in. With regard to what impact there would be on the development if public streets were put in, Mr. Perring explained that the schematic plan that is shown shows building sites of about 7000 sq, ft. In hillside development, much of the lot is taken away in the slopes. This gives the people limited back yards. Their desire is to build a development that gives adequate back yards. Public street widths would take away from the property square footage and back yards would become very small. Commissioner Nickelson wanted to know what the lot size is. Mr. Murphy answered that the lots were a minimum of 7000 sq. ft. with a low density of 2-6 units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Seven Commissioner Mickelson asked the applicant why the need for a recreation lot and was answered that they felt this was the appropriate thing to do. Commissioner Ault wondered if in planning this recreation lot, whether they are planning on a one acre lot being a horse facility. The applicant answered that the need for equestrian facilities is limited and they do not propose this for their development. He explained that most of the yards would be large enough for swimming pools. Commissioner Master wondered what the ratio is for the recreation area. He was told that the City of Irvine ratio is 4.5 acre per 1000. It is a variable kind of thing. In Woodbridge, they developed park- land and worked with 3 acres per thousand. It was pointed out that this is a different kind of application than Woodbridge. Commissioner Master pointed out that the main fault with the recreation lot is the remote location and they would possibly use one at either end of the development. Mr. Perring explained that this is a rather difficult shape parcel and they must place the recreation lot where it fits best. Commissioner Hart questioned the statement that there would be no gates into the development and wondered why private streets would be open to public use. Mr. Perring explained that this becomes a question of whether the public would want to use these streets to go through. Mr. Perring felt that it was important that they deal with the issues of the private vs. the public streets in the discussion of this development. He thought that the private streets were the same from a functional standpoint as they would be if they were dedicated public streets. It is their opinion that the plan functions very well with private streets and they would urge the Commission to approve this. The second issue is Chandler Ranch Road. They feel that this could be a negative force in the area and they would encourage the Com- mission to deal with these two primary issues. Chairman Coontz questioned the Fire Department as to whether they had assessed not opening this street as far as adjoining traffic was concerned. Lon Cahill, City of Orange Fire Prevention Bureau, answered that they did assess this and the circulation on the other development connects to the west and there is circulation up that road without connecting it to that development. Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak to this issue. Commissioner Master questioned the staff regarding private vs. public streets, wondering if the private street standards are met, what are the problems with these streets. Chairman Coontz pointed out that most of the areas where they had problems were PUD's. Mr. Murphy stated that the people who speak the strongest about wanting public streets are probably the police. They have had problems in develop- ments with private streets, such as Broadmoor. After surveying people within these projects, there is a different approach from the citizen in these areas when he knows these streets belong to them. People tend to misuse these streets more because they feel that they are not subject to the same regulations as if they were public streets. People operate differently when they know the streets are private as vs. the public streets. U Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Eight Commissioner Master commented that they have the best of both worlds. They have police protection and established parking regulations and police jurisdiction, as well as having their streets privately owned and maintained. Mr. Murphy pointed out that this is the other problem. Even though the police are given the right to enter into these streets, to provide certain services, because they are private streets with a homeowners' assoociation involved, often- times there are more problems. The police seem to find a substandard situation in these areas where the association is supposed to be doing their own policing and are not doing a good job of it. The police object to going into private streets to maintain them. Commissioner Ault stated that it was new to him that some of these developments are in bad shape because of their private streets. Chairman Coontz pointed out a movie made a couple of years ago in a study shown pointing out these problems. Commissioner Mickelson commented that he was bothered by the lack of sidewalks. The history is that after the tract is occupied, the citizens petition the city for sidewalks later on. ~! P1r. Perring responded to this concern by stating that there is some difference between n av and previously. They have a lot of experience in this area at this time. They must make disclosures to real estate people and have buyer notification and they can work the no sidewalk situation into that kind of disclosure. In addition, they can record a document so that the knowledge that there are no sidewalks is carried on from buyer to buyer. Chairman Coontz wondered about upkeep of private streets. Mr. Johnson answered that up until five years ago it was the rule that all tracts have sidewalks. Once people realized that this was the way the city intended this area to be, people accepted no sidewalks. He feels that a continuous street needs sidewalks, perhaps on both sides. On cul-de-sacs this would not be necessary. The owners feel that this is their domain. If there is going to be any give and take, this should be looked at realistically and see what the need is - not the desire. Commissioner Ault pointed out that Orange Park Acres did not have to have sidewalks. They wanted rolled curbs and gutters. Mr. Johnson explained that when the people purchase in the city, they want all of the city amenities. The people in the county are happy with no side- walks and no street lights. He explained that Villa Park has had a problem with rolled curbs on their public streets. Private streets have a more controlled situation. We could expect to get this type of complaint if the rolled curb concept is approved. Mr. Johnson also explained that the spine street, which is "A" Street, is not scheduled to have rolled curbs. There will be a sidewalk on one side. Chairman Coontz pointed out that nothing will be rural pretty soon. Sidewalks on one side is better than no sidewalks at all. She questioned the horse trail. This might accommodate the people of Cowan Heights, but the City of Orange should not have to pay for this trail. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to this subject. Chairman Coontz felt that this is a tremendous traffic project for Chapman Avenue. There should be no trail here at all. Newport and Chapman is a very busy intersection. She thought one of the reasons for the designation of the trail is because of the 4-H location. But this will be moved to another area. ~~. Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Nine The applicant stated that it was their understanding that they will be relocated up near the college and he pointed this out on the map. Commissioner Hart stated that there was an alternative. He thought that if horse owners would pay for the trail with an assessment, this could be maintained. Commissioner Mickelson agreed with this and stated that he would like to see an adopted trail system and create an assessment district, and those developments that are equestrian oriented be assessed for the equestrian trails. If it happens to run alongside or through a non-equestrian development, then they are still assessed for it. But that development should not be. Ne commented that his inclination was not to require the horse trail. Commissioner Hart stated that if there are any protests, perhaps the protesters would be willing to pay these assessments. Mr. Perring responded with regard to the horse trail. He pointed out that their plan is sensitive to the solution of the problem there. Taking it out would create a gap, but they would not fight too hard ~ about this. Commissioner Mickelson stated that he has always been opposed to cutting off internal local circulation. He could see where this would function all right and he thought that the traffic report which was turned in was a good one. However, he was bothered by the idea that we put all these little fingers out to arterials and we keep complicating the whole transportation system by doing this. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the public vs, private streets. There was concern about police being able to patrol private streets. Question was asked how wide a standard residential street is and the answer was that it is 36 feet curb to curb. Normally there is a 60 foot right-of-way on the flatlands, but there are also hillside standards which call for 52 foot or 56 foot right-of-ways, depending upon whether it was a collector street or not. Commissioner Hart then asked if a 5 foot sidewalk were placed on either side, that would make it a 46 foot wide street. He couldn't see where this would be a problem. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 0 Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Staff did not have a problem with the fact that they do not have enough street section. He thought that it was the fact that if they were going to take the right-of-way over they would need area in back of the curbs to provide utilities and street trees, etc. Commissioner Mickelson asked why there could not be a 4 or 5 foot sidewalk along a vertical curb. The applicant answered that their proposal provides a different type of character with. rolled curbs. They do not want to kill the project over this,-however. Their pro- posal is to have no sidewalks with rolled curbs. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 650. Commissioners Coontz, P,ult, Hart, P~taster, Mickelson Commissioners none Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Ten Phil Fischel, Project Manager for The Irvine Company, addressed the Commission, speaking to the subject of the significance of 4 or 5 foot sidewalks, explained that because of the amount of slope in the rear and side yards of these units, it is tight just getting a 25 to 30 foot deep back yard. This is based on a 20 foot setback on the garage front from back to curb. If they add a 5 foot sidewalk to those streets, the setback goes back, the whole house moves back and they wind up with less back yard. Commissioner Ault felt that this is a good proposal. He agreed with the rolled curb and no sidewalk. He felt that the Commission is overemphasizing sidewalks. The children can be taught to take care of themselves with regard to rolled curbs and sidewalk on one side only. He also felt that there should not be a main arterial through the tract. Moved by Commissioner Ault to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 933, Conditional Use Permit 1062, Tentative Tract 11284. Motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Coontz stated that she would go along with the proposal for private streets. She agreed with the non-opening of the extension of the arterial, but she did not think the horse trail is needed. Perhaps a Master Plan for horse trails is needed and perhaps it should be more in line with what the proposed developments are with the future of the extension of the City of Orange. As far as traffic problems are con- cerned, she did not think horses can be mixed with cars. She felt this was pie in the sky if they link up with Orange Park Acres. Commissioner Master felt that sidewalks should be included on both sides of the private streets. He has concern for the Police Department going into these streets. Mr. P1inshew explained that there are standards put into these proposals which address themselves to these problems. Commissioners Hart and Mickelson agreed with what had been discussed at this point. Commissioner Hart wished to comment on the Water District problem. He wished to see this issue brought into the motion. Mr. Perring commented with regard to the City's concern about this area being served by Orange Water District. He wished to emphasize that if this becomes a condition of approval, and, of course, that can't 6e done, then the approval would become null and void. They like to see conditions of approval where they have the ability to deliver. However, Irvine Ranch Water District is not The Irvine Company and they have no control over it. He was not sure that making this a condition of approval raises the consciousness level any more than it already is. Commissioner Mickelson stated that this should be handled separately. Commissioner Master wondered if the plan check sheet should be checked off as to what is pertinent and what is not. Commissioner Hart commented that Condition #6 is confusing. Mr. Johnson clarified this for him. He explained that instead of stubbing the street, the city wants a knuckle. They are just working with a street right-of-way. There was discussion about Condition #11 which spoke to water and sewage, P1r. Johnson explained that this condition is there under the assumption that they are going to be served by the City sewer system. He explained also that we have the only gravity flow sewer in the area. Every other sewer would have to be comped. What they are saying is that in order for the District 7 people to treat the sewage, they must annex into the district in order to be compatible, or be legal. He did not think this was a point of con- tention. Mr. Johnson pointed out that Condition #2 seemed to be the only condition that probably needs reworking. Planning Commission P~linutes November 3, 1980 Page Eleven Chairman Coontz felt that the horse trail condition should also be eliminated. However, Mr. Johnson wondered if the Commission would want to keep their options open by creating a landscaping area that could be changed to horse trail later if it were wanted or needed. It was pointed out that Condition #8 calls out landscaping along Newport Boulevard. Condition #3 could be eliminated and just speak to Condition #8. Commissioner ~9ickelson wondered if they would eliminate the bike trail Mr. Johnson explained that this is not a class 1 bicycle trail. If the county plan does not mesh with ours, we may have to put in some type of a bike trail adjacent to the curb. This has already been discussed, although they have not arrived at any conclusion as yet. They have not yet come up with a final plan. Mr. Perring commented on Condition #2, which stated "To dedicate and construct "A" through "R" Streets per local hillside street standards. Canyon View Avenue to be dedicated and constructed to arterial stand- ards." He wondered if the Commission intends that the standards for putting in sidewalks would be hillside or private street standards. It was explained to him that this would be private street standards - not public street standards. Condition #2 should be amended to indicate the Commission's concern or desire. "Dedicate" should be stricken and for "A" Street to include private sidewalks both sides. Instead of "hillside", it should be changed to "private". Mr. Perring then brought up Condition #7, which states: "Subject to a permanent desilting basin being constructed at the corner of Chapman Avenue and Newport Boulevard as approved by the City Engineer." They have a problem with this. He explained that they are aware that silt is there when the area is graded. However, they do not feel that this is totally their responsibility. They suggest that they be re- quired to work with the City Staff. Mr. Johnson explained that they have looked at this and have a meeting set up to discuss this problem with The Irvine Company and Home Savings and the Baldwin tract. There has been water concentrated on The Irvine Company property. This is a mutual problem, but if they can't get any concern, they must go to the nearest thing they have, which is the development of this new tract. Chairman Coontz wondered if they could add the words, "contribute to", which would infer that they would not do this by themselves. Mr. Johnson thought that wording would be acceptable. He needed something that would allow them to work to protect the downstream facilities. The word "participate" was suggested, rather than "contribute". Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to recom- mend approval of Pre-Zone Change 933, Conditional Use Permit 1062 and Tentative Tract 11284, subject to the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet as modified, as follows: Condition #2: Construct "A" through "R" Streets per local private street standards, including sidewalks on both sides. Second sentence left unchanged. Condition #3: The lands-cape concept along Newport Boulevard to be reviewed and approved by City Staff. Condition #7: Change to read: "Subject to participating in the construction of a permanent desilting basin...." AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Twelve C Mr. Johnson commented that the motion made previously would require 36 foot curb to curb plus 6 foot sidewalks beyond the curb at the streets. Commissioner Hart explained that Item 2 called for con- structing "A" through "R" Streets per local private street standards. The private street standard calls for sidewalks on both sides of the street. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1064 - VANDERSLUIS: Request to allow sale of used automobiles in the M-2 zone on the north side of Katella Avenue, east of Batavia Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 652 has been prepared in lieu of an Environ- mental Impact Report.) r= Mr. Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit in order to engage in the sale of used automobiles in conjunction with the leasing and restoration of classic automobiles in the M-2 zone. Although this specific use is not called out in the industrial zones, Staff felt that the use was similar to automobile sales and service uses which require approval of a conditional use permit. The property is an irregular shaped parcel containing approximately 1.65 acres of land located on the north side of Katella Avenue, approximately 465 feet east of the centerline of Batavia Street. It is zoned M-2 and contains a vacant industrial building on the south part of the property, while the north part of the property is being used to store construction materials. The property is sur- rounded entirely by industrial units in the M-2 zone. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that Katella Avenue is a major arterial with a 120 foot width. The Land Use Element of the City of Orange General Plan designates this area as suitable for industrial development. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant proposes to restore, display and sell classic cars in the existing industrial building. The cars will also be displayed outdoors along the Katella frontage of the property, which will comprise the auto sales area. The breakdown of square footage and parking requirements for each particular use is as follows: ^~ Office - 1643 sq. ft. = 7 spaces required. Warehouse - 2206 sq. ft. = 3 spaces required. Repair area - 1282 sq. ft. = 3 spaces required. Inside display area - 4855 sq, ft. = 6 spaces required. Outside display area - 2440 sq. ft. = 2 spaces required. for a total of 21 spaces required. The applicant has provided for twenty one parking spaces as required. Nine of the required spaces will be located in the front of the buildings and 15 spaces will be located along the chain link fence located behind the building that bisects the property. The applicant is intending to keep the remaining portions of this property (to the north) in anon-automotive industrial use. He also proposes to incorporate a sidewalk and landscaped area along the Katella frontage as approved by the City Engineer. Access to the property will be provided off of Katella Avenue via a 26 foot driveway on the west side of the property and a 20 foot driveway on the east side of the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Thirteen Mr. Soo-Hoo explained to the Commission that the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer have reviewed the applicant's plans and have requested some revisions which the applicant has agreed to comply with. These include a reciprocal driveway access agreement with the applicant's neighbor to the immediate east of the property in question. This agreement must be in the form of a signed letter from each of the two parties involved. The two driveways will then be joined. Additionally, the parking spaces that were originally located along the rear wall of the building will be deleted. The revised plans also include a six foot wide sidewalk and a six foot wide landscaped area, along Katella as approved by the City Engineer. Staff is concerned that the use not resemble a typical used car lot, which is specifically permitted only in the C-2 zone. Staff prepared Condition #1 so as to discourage this use becoming simply the sale of used automobiles. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 652. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1064 because the proposal is consistent with the intent of the City of Orange General Plan and compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning. Also, the applicant has agreed to conform to the development requirement as specified by the City of Orange Zoning Ordinance, the City of Orange Planning Department, and the City of Orange Public Works Department. Should the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1064, Staff recommends that it be subject to the 12 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Master questioned what "classic car" means. How does one keep this from getting out of hand? Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that there is a fine line where this is concerned. The understanding is that they will be reconditioning classic Thunderbirds . Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Jake Vandersluis, 1150 N. Collins, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that it is his intent to only restore classic Thunderbirds, vintage 1955-1957, plus the sale of parts and sale of these automobiles at the 741 W. ~, Katella Avenue location. Commissioner Hart asked if there was anyone making replicas of these automobiles and Mr. Vandersluis answere d yes. Commissioner Hart then asked him if he would be doing this and Mr. Vandersluis replied that possibly he would. Commissioner Hart pointed out that this would not then be a classic car. Chairman Coontz had questions regarding the parking stalls in front becoming display stalls. She pointed out that there is a BMW repair garage nearby. Commissioner Ault pointed out that you are dealing with a specialized fancy car here. It was also pointed out that Katella is a main east-west arterial. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 652. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Fourteen Q Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve Conditional Use Permit 1064, subject to the recommendations of the Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Plaster NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Nickelson MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1063 - CITY OF ORANGE: Request to allow conversion of an existing single family residence into an office in the 0-P zone at the southwest corner of Center Street and Almond Avenue. (.,Note: Negative Declaration 651 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr. Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit in order to convert a single family residence into an office. The property is located at the southwest corner of Center Street and Almond Avenue and contains approximately .13 acre of land. It is zoned 0-P (Office Professional) and contains a single family residence. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that virtually no activity would take place at this facility outside of regular work hours (8 a.m. - 5 p.m.) since only a minimal field shift works during evening hours and, of course, their responsibilities are away from the office. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and feels that it is acceptable. A general concern related to possible parking problems and a suggestion that street parking directly in front of the site be time limited was made. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 651 be accepted. Staff feels that the proposed use is appropriate in the 0-P zone and that off-street parking is available in the City's main parking lot. A standard condition of approval where a site abuts the residential zone is installation of a 6 foot high block wall. This condition would normally 6e implemented for the south property line. However, Staff understands that there is a very real possibility that the City may ultimately purchase the property to the south in the future, which would negate the need for such a buffer wall. A suggested modified condition therefore is to require installation of such a wall should the property to the south not be purchased by the City within 5 years. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1063, subject to the seven conditions recommended in the Staff Report. Commissioner Ault questioned a 6 foot wooden fence which is already on the property and did not think this should 6e torn down to put up a block wall. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one in attendance to speak to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. n Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Fifteen AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 651. Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve Conditional Use Permit 1063, subject to the conditions recommended by Staff. Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (CIRCULATION ELEMENT) 1-80: John Lane presented this amendment to the Commission, stating that there are three items included here: Item A - Reclassification of a 0.34 mile reach of Orangewood Avenue between Freeway 57 to Eckhoff Street from a secondary to a Primary Arterial Highway classification. The amendment is initiated by the City of Orange. Negative Declaration 647 has been prepared for this amendment. Item B - Addition of a 0.7 mile long corridor for the future extension of Canyon View Avenue east of Newport Boulevard to Wier Canyon Road as a proposed Secondary Arterial Highway to the Circulation Element of the City General Plan. The amendment is initiated by the City of Orange. Negative Declaration 648 has been prepared for this amendment. Item C - Deletion of a 0.27 mile long corridor planned for the extension of Eckhoff Street between Collins Avenue and Katella Avenue as a Secondary Arterial Highway. The amendment is requested by the City of Orange. Negative Declaration 649 has been prepared for this amendment. Mr. Lane pointed out that if this road were put in to connect Collins Avenue and Katella Avenue, it would go through the Orange County Sheriffs' pistol range and bridge a flood control channel. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one in attendance to speak to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master commented on the Eckhoff extension from Collins to Katella, wanting more information about this. Mr. Lane replied that this is presently shown on the Pn1aster Plan as a secondary arterial highway. There is presently a street in that section up to the Orange-Olive Flood Control Channel. It is a 50 foot wide street that is developed with curb, gutters and full improvements on the east side only. On the west side is Inland Chemical Company which takes their access from Collins. He didn't think they would ever provide any street improvements themselves. He pointed out that Eckhoff in that area would be a tremendously expensive street, which would not be worth the cost for the use it would receive. Looking at it realistically, it will not happen. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declarations 647, 648 and 649. ~ AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Sixteen Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault accept General Plan Amendment (Circulation Element) 1-80, sections A, B, and C, subject to the recommendations made by AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED to Staff. IN RE: MEMORANDUM FROM JERE MURPHY WITH REGP,RD TO COMP~ISSION RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS RESULTING FROM RECENT LUNCHEON MEETINGS BETWEEN STAFF AND COMMISSION: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES NOES: ABSENT: Mr. Murphy explained some of the items brought out by the individual discussions, more specifically: A desire for staff recommendations on all applications even though those recommendations may be contrary to adopted or ad hoc City policy. 2. A desire for more field trips and study sessions. 3. Need for greater amount of communication between Planning Commission and City Council. 4. More discussions in staff reports of a]ternative actions and supporting findings in staff reports. Mr. Murphy pointed out that there had been a suggestion of afield trip to review recent development; and a study session, as well as a presentation by Bruce Ramm regarding problems of private streets. A study session was set by the Commission for Monday, November 24, 1980 in the evening, to discuss private streets. Afield trip was set up for November 22, 1980 from 9:00 a.m. to noon, including lunch. Chairman Coontz thought that the City Council should be thanked for the opportunity the Planning Commission had to meet with them. She asked that a thank you note be prepared by the Staff for her signature. Chairman Coontz brought up that it had been suggested that there be appointments made to the City Council's Economic Policy Subcommittee. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master that Commissioners Coontz and Mickelson be appointed to the Economic Policy Subcommittee. Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Chairman Coontz also brought up the fact that an appointment must be made to the Beautification Committee. She went on to explain the duties of this committee. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Paster to appoint Commissioner Ault to serve on the Beautification Committee. Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED •_.' Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1980 Page Seventeen IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to reconvene at 7:30 p.m, on Monday, November 17, 1980 at the Ci vi c Center Counci 1 Chambers , 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. ORDER. SS . OF ADJOUR~,!ME~LT COUP!TY 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 November 3, 1980; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on I~!ovember 4, 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 November 3, 1980 was held. . ~ EXCERPT FROP1 THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE OP.P~NGE CITY PLANNING COf~MISSIGN HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1980. The reaular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, h1ickelson ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault that this meeting adjourn at 10:00 p.m, on P1onday, November 3, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Plonday, November 17, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Oranae, 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, ~lovember 3, 1980. Dated this ath day of November, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. er Murphy, .i ty Tanner .Secretary o t e Planning C~mmissio of the of Orange. ,~