Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California November 15, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer. .PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25, 1982; Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the minutes of October 25, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 1, 1982: Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the minutes of November 1, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-82, TENTATIVE TRACT 11838, VARIANCE 1698 - THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY: A request to change the City of Orange General Plan Land Use designation from Public Institution to Low Density Residential (2-6 units per acre). The request is to create 42 single-family lots and develop some interior lots with less than the required front yard setback and some lots with less depth or width than re- quired by the City Code on property located on the southeast side of Villa Real Drive at the northeast intersection of Meadow Grove Road and Feather Hill Drive. (Continued from the September 9, 1982, the September 20, 7982, and the October 25, 1982 hearings.) (NOTE: Negative Declaration 775 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application, stating that Tentative Tract 11838 still contains 42 lots, as per the original application, although it has been revised since .the October 25th meeting to correct Lot 8 frontage width. to 60 feet to meet the City Code. Consequently, now there are only two lots which require a variance, being Lots 27 and 34, 34 being a flag lot and 27 being located at the end of a cul de sac. Lot 13 requires a depth variance instead of the two others which had been adjacent to it. The lots are now 7,046 sq. ft. vs. 6,600 sq. ft. in the former submittal. h1r. Lanz pointed out that in their packet the Commissioners would see a traffic report showing 402 to 504 residential trips from this site vs. 522 which would have been generated by an elementary school if it had been built on the site. He explained that Staff has confirmed these numbers. He also pointed out that there is a detailed review in the Commissioners' packets of the initial study supporting Negative Declaration 775. The Orange Unified School District has submitted their forecast had the site been used for a school., details of the purchase and sale of the site and history of the site since the district had it. PLANNING COP1MISSION MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Two Mr. Lanz then explained that the October 14th memo also supplied the Commissioners with data regarding the tract which surrounds the parcel in question, showing that the lots average 10,000 sq. ft. in size, the pads in the two tracts already developed averaging 9,900 sq. ft. and 8,900 sq. ft. respectively around this tract. Staff has detailed the location of the utilities at the curb and the grades of streets at the intersections of Feather Hill and Meadow Grove. He pointed out that the traffic engineers have approved the offsetting of Millbrook and this particular cul de sac as being very functional. Mr. Lanz told the variance set back that Staff review clearance, which not very clear in in the report. Commission that Staff concurs now with the 18 ft. requirements on the buildings, with the condition site of the houses and location drawings for site is their main concern. He explained that this was the report because there was a typographical error Staff recommendations remain essentially the same, recommending acceptance of Negative Declaration 775; recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 3-82 because it seems to be consistent with existing zoning and the surrounding land use; recommending approval of variance 1698, including the front yard setback with a special condition that the Staff review the setting of .the housing and drive locations, plus 10 standard conditions, as stated in the Staff Report. Staff also recommends that they review the setbacks in the ordinance, this being something that should be studied across the City. They also recommend that Tentative Tract 11838 be approved, subject to the conditions set forth in the Engineering Plan Check Sheet and Addendum #1, for the reasons that it generally conforms with the surrounding development and is consistent with the existing zoning around the site. Commissioner Coontz asked what the average lot size and .pad size was for this particular application right now. Mr. Lanz replied that currently this shows as 9800 sq. ft. for the average lot size and the average pad size is 7046 sq, ft. Commissioner Coontz then asked questions regarding Mr. Lanz' reference to the variances, asking whether the report number of 1688 was correct or his number of 1698 was. He replied that the number should be 1698. She then referred to the state- ment made by Mr. Lanz regarding a study to be made for the eventual changing in the code so that the setback will be changed, wondering whether this determination has been made or whether it is going to be studied for the possibility of a change. Mr. Lanz responded that it was his understanding that as long as there are staff prints and visibility at these locations it is not objectionable to Staff to have an 18 ft. set- back when the curb and sidewalk are together. This would apply citywide and would apply only when the street is adjacent to the curb. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that this is already an option in the City's public works standards. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Dave Langlois, representing the applicant, the Fieldstone Company, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he was in concurrence with the items in the Staff report and, there- fore, did not think that they needed to be reviewed. However, he did wish to review some of the concerns which the Commission had back at the initial meeting on September 9th. He .explained that basically three concerns .were raised at that meeting which the Commissioners had asked th e applicant to address. First was the justification for granting the variance. He felt that the nature of the variance has been explained by the Staff, but he pointed out that this is an unusual site which they are working with, in terms of both the shape and the topography, since it is developed on a71 four sides, having streets on three sides and some homes on the fourth side. This land was a]so partially graded for a school site. They have tried to avoid a mass grading of the site which would disrupt the existing topography. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Three Directing the attention of the Commissioners to the exhibits which had been placed on the board, Mr. Langlois pointed out that this site is really a two-level site, one end being at a higher level with a slope running through the property to a lower level. He then showed the Commissioners on the exhibit exactly where they are doing the maximum level of fill. One area will be filled from 0-20 ft., while another will be filled from 0-10 ft., with two cut areas of 0-4 ft. and 0-10 ft. respectively. Basically, the rest of the area will be cut and filled to 4 ft. of elevation. He explained that they are trying to work with -the natural terrain in that area and have not changed it very much. They are not altering the view because they are leaving the two slopes intact. He then pointed out another exhibit showing a cross section of the Tentative Tract Map and explained what they are doing in greater detail. Chairman Nickelson asked if this would be a balance on site or would they import or export and Mr. Langlois replied that it would be a balance on site. Mr. Langlois then brought up the questions regarding traffic which were raised by the Commissioners. He felt that the Staff had pretty well answered these questions, but he did address them briefly. He pointed out that the Staff Report indicated that the traffic with an elementary school on this site would have been greater than the traffic calculated for this proposed development, particularly during peak periods. In summary, Mr. Langlois pointed out that they are not asking for a change in zone, the underlying zone is R-1 (_6,000 sq. ft.). They are proposing average lot sizes of 9800 sq. ft., which is 63% more than the code calls for, and the Staff has pointed out that the lot sizes in the adjacent area are around 10,000 sq. ft, Therefore, they are very close to the lot sizes in the neighborhood. Designwise, they feel that the houses which are being proposed will be compatible with those in the surrounding area and he felt that the public acceptance is good. He pointed out that many of the homeowners had asked a question about three-car garages and expressed concern that if there is not adequate garage. capacity that there could be an impact on the neighborhood. He explained that 71% of the homes proposed here will have three-car garages. Donald L. Daniels, attorney with offices situated on East Chapman Avenue, Orange, representing the Nohl Ranch Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this proposal. He thanked the Commission for the continuance which was granted at the October 25th meeting, .giving him the opportunity to review the matter with his clients. They are requesting a denial of this application for two reasons: 1. The minimum lot size, the density, the minimum pad size, the maximum house size, the average house size, number of garages per house and the current proposed architecture is not compatible with Tracts 6266 and 6796, which completely surround this proposed development. It was Mr. Daniels' opinion that these are the only tracts which should be considered for comparison. 2. It was felt that the applicant has not established any hardship for the variance which they have requested. Mr. Daniels explained that Jack Gorman, Chairman of the committee for the Nohl Ranch Homeowners Association, had been appointed to investigate this proposed tract and would address the issues of the minimum lot size, density, minimum pad size, maximum house size and average house size and how they compare with Tracts 6266 and 6796, He pointed out that all of the homes in these two tracts have three car garages. Four of the proposed twelve two-car barages in the proposed development face Meadow Grove Road and this is inconsistent with the other types of housing in the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Four Regarding the proposed architecture, it was felt that this is not in keeping with the architecture in the other two tracts and, as a matter of fact, Mr. Langlois has stated that this type of house is what they are presently planning to build if they are able to get their requested approval. However, he also indicated that they might change their minds about that in the future. The Nohl Ranch homeowners feel that if the application is granted there should be some type of review of the house plan and the architecture which will eventually be built there. This does not mean that they approve of the proposed changes. They just want some assurance that they will have some voice in the future if eventually this matter is approved and Fieldstone is allowed to build his development. Mr. Daniels also pointed out that the houses which are proposed to be developed in that area are not as expensive as the houses in the sur- rounding two tracts. It was felt that if these homes are built there they will have a tendency to cause the value. of the homes in the sur- rounding area to decrease in value. He did grant that this is an unusual site, as Mr. Langlois has pointed out. He also pointed out that many of the residents in the area purchased their homes with the representation that the area would be a future school site. In the interim, the school district agreed to make the area a parklike setting and agreed to maintain it for the use of the local homeowners. The green area was then developed and maintained and this was an agreement between Lusk, the city of Orange and the school district. It was also represented to the homeowners in the two surrounding tracts that either this site would eventually be used for a school or that the park area would continue. It was felt that the homeowners should have been able to rely on this representation because it is a well known fact that the Orange Unified School District has developed and maintained park sites in other school site areas until such time as they might be used for school purposes. Mr. Daniels stated that he did not fault the school district for deciding to dispose of the property and, after reviewing the statistics, he felt that the school district did what was probably proper. However, he also felt that the people who live in the surrounding tracts have a right to be concerned with the development of that area, which is an island in the middle of their neighborhood. This is not a continuation of a develop- ment. It is a new development being placed right in the middle of an established community. The homeowners relied on what they were told when they purchased their homes and are now being faced with a very different picture. If they .cannot keep the green area, at least they have the right to expect the city to protect the value of their homes and see that any construction in that area conforms to the general plan of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed plans do not. Mr. Daniels went on to talk about hardships, pointing out that if these variances are not granted then Fieldstone must change the plans somewhat. Perhaps they would not be able to get as many lots on the property as they would like and this hardship, if you would like to call it that, could affect their profit structure. However, they had an opportunity to review all of this before they made their bid on the property and it was Mr. Daniels' opinion that if the return on their investment is not as high as they would like this type of hardship should not be considered here because it is really a financial hardship. He said that if the variance is approved as requested it wi71 only increase the density of the area and that would have a negative impact upon the surrounding two tracts. He thought that density in this particular case is something that is very important. Mr. Daniels pointed out that the Commissioners could see from the large amount of people attending all of the meetings concerning this application that they are very much opposed to the radical changes proposed for their neighborhood. He explained that a petition would be presented to the Commission, signed by 264 residents of the area who are opposed to this particular plan. He felt that if they are going to be denied their green area which existed there for several years, then they should be given Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Five some protection to preserve their planned community and something which would not adversely affect the value of their homes. Mr. Daniels noted two further items: 1. If the proposed plans are followed by Fieldstone, there would be quite a few houses that would have wooden sidings, as com- pared with the stucco construction of the homes in the surrounding area and he pointed out that wood siding creates a greater fire hazard than stucco. 2. Since 6266 and 6796 are surrounding this area it is suggested that the CC&Rs which are proposed should meet at least the minimum conditions that are in the CC&Rs for these particular two tracts. He said that he had not reviewed the differences that might be between these two CC&Rs, but thought that this is something which should be checked on by the city in the event that the application is accepted. Jack Gorman, 2432 Millbank Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed project. He spoke in greater detail on some of the specifications which are of great concern to the homeowners in the area surrounding the proposed project, He pointed out on the map on the board the adjacent area on the northwest side of Meadow Grove Road, stating that on the southeast side of Meadow .Grove Road are all two-story stucco houses, ranging in size from 2755 sq. ft, to 3250 sq. ft, He explained that the proposed houses are going to look quite small and out of place being directly across the street. One of the basic concerns of the neighboring residents is that when Lusk developed that area even though it was a tract there are enough differences in the houses, the facias and setbacks and in amenities, to make it an interesting area. No design was so radical as to look as though something was picked up and set in the midst of some semi-uniform homes of which there are better than 500 in Nohl Ranch as developed by Lusk. The residents are also concerned about street parking. The Staff Report states that it is acceptable to have two-car garages, However, in both tracts, 6796 and 6266, there are no houses with two-car garages. They all have three- car garages.. The residents are very concerned about on-street parking. Mr. Gorman then made some comparison figures, stating that the maximum house size in his tract is 3250 sq, ft. and the maximum house size in the proposed tract is 2250 sq. ft. He felt that this is a radical difference and will make a big difference in the esthetics and the view that they must look at. The average lot sizes are fairly close - 10,000 vs. 9800, The major points of concern are the architecture and density. He agreed with the traffi c report given by Mr. Lanz, but di d not see anything in the report about traffic coming from the Presley tract, which will have an outlet onto Meadow Grove Road, and wondered whether that has been considered in the traffic report. Another concern that the residents have is that the city is maintaining the hill and cutting the grass in the green areas and they wonder if the hills will continue to be maintained if the sale goes through to the Fieldstone Co. and that they will not be allowed to deteriorate prior to construction. Deanna Pashier, 2459 Shady Forest Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this proposal, presenting a petition to the Commission which had been signed by residents who live in the area surrounding the site i n question. She sai d that of al 1 of the people she has spoken to at the grass roots level, the opposition to this project is about 9-1. She talked to very few people who thought it was a good thing to have cheaper homes put up in their area., Their feeling is that after the Fieldstone Co. has built these homes and sold them, the neighboring residents will be stuck living in this neighborhood for a long time afterwards. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Si x Mrs. Pashier pointed out that the reasons which have been set forth by Mr. Daniels and Mr. Gorman for opposing this project are stated in the petition. She also pointed out that a majority of the residents would consider a compromise. She told the Commission that the green area has been in on that site and used by the children for many years and the residents who have signed the petition respectfully request that the Commission not amend the General Plan, that they deny the variance and recommend that the green belt be retained for neighborhood use, if possible. She said that she had mentioned this to the Fieldstone representative when he came to speak to their executive committee and he replied that perhaps they would have considered that. The residents feel very strongly about this green area, since there is no other green belt in Nohl Ranch that is for the use of the community other than the regular school sites. This would be a great loss to the community to take away something that already exists and has been there for many years. Mr. Gorman again addressed the Commission, pointing out to the Com- mission that the proposed tract is four houses per acre. Tracts 6266 and 6796 are three houses per acre. Therefore, a lot more houses are being placed on this particular 10 acre site per unit than is there already. In order to accomplish this, the average pad size is 7046 sq, ft. The average pad size in the other two tracts is 8900 and 9250 so this is how the density is rising. Minimum pad size is 5400 sq, ft. i n the proposed tract, 7,000 i n 6796 and 7700 i n 6266. Dave Langlois again addressed the Commission, in rebuttal, responding to the statement that the architectural design is incompatible to the neighborhood. He felt that architecture is a very subjective decision to make. However, they think that even though the design is different than what is in that area, it is certainly compatible with what is in the area. He felt that the new designs and ideas in these homes reflects the state of the arts as they move ahead in the building business. He commented about the statement which was made about cheaper houses, pointing out that as they move into their next phase they will be going up over $200,00.0 for these homes. He thought it is only fair, when comparing new homes with existing homes, that you take into account the fact that the existing homes, generally speaking, have mature landscaping, patio covers, patios, swimming pools, possibly upgraded carpeting and drapes . Regarding the variances, he felt that. in each case, the three variances which they are requesting have all been fairly typical of the kinds of variances that have been granted by the city in the past for this type of hillside subdivision, considering the existing topography which they have had to work with. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master commented with regard to Paragraph 2 of the petition, which he read to the Commission and audience, which stated that residents had purchased their homes based upon the promise made by the developer and, indirectly, by the Planning Commission that the lower portion of this site would be a playground. He was disturbed by this statement as he did not think the Planning Commission had become involved in this directly or indirectly. Mrs. Pashier explained that this was her error. What she was trying to explain in the petition was that the people who purchased homes in the area felt that the lower portion of that site was always going to be a playground. The implication was there and now they are going to take it away. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Seven Commissioner Master asked a question of Mr. wanted to clarify a statement made that the is shown in the books. He wanted this clar side local streets. If this is going to be development then the statement is fine. In standards do differentiate between hillside developments. Johnson some time back and sidewalks adjacent to curbs ified that this is for hill- designated as a hillside other words, our public works developments and flat land Chairman Mickelson questioned Mr. Daniels, first stating that a major contention among the neighboring residents seems to be that this project is not compatible with the surrounding tracts. However, looking at the project objectively, he did not see any legal basis to require this piece of property to overbuild to the degree that the other tracts overbuilt on a voluntary basis. He pointed out that all of the houses in that area are built with lot sizes that are larger than the minimum required. He realized that part of the reason for this was that these are hillside lots and it is almost impossible to build on a small lot. He asked Mr. Daniels what legal basis he could give for requiring this parcel to exceed the zoning requirements just to be compatible with the others in the area. Mr. Daniels could not give a legal basis for this. He was merely pointing out that this is a particular concern of the residents in the area. They are aware that Fieldstone is meeting the minimum requirements of the zoning there, but they have a vested interest in the value of their homes and feel that if smaller homes are allowed to develop in that area, it will hurt the value of their homes. Commissioner Coontz asked Chairman Mickelson if there was documentation attesting to the fact that the previous developers voluntarily overbuilt. Chairman Mickelson thought it was obvious that this had occurred, but Commissioner Coontz felt that possibly there could have been some action as far as the public was concerned so that the lot sizes were larger. i~r, Daniels pointed out that there are some slopes in this particular area also an d this should be taken into consideration. Chairman Mickelson then asked Mr, Daniels if he could give any data to the Commission that will indicate that smaller homes on these lots will reduce the value of the homes in the surrounding area. Mr. Daniels said that he had no statistics at hand but he had talked to several people in real estate who had all expressed the same opinion that where there are less expensive homes surrounded by more expensive homes there is a tendency for the value to decrease on the more expensive homes. Chairman Mickelson asked if this was true, is that the proper police power of zoning to extract larger homes out the developer? Mr. Daniels. felt that it may or may not be. However, as has been pointed out, there is a very unique situation on this parcel of land. This is a situation where everything around this parcel has been developed and now something is going to be stuck into the middle of what is an already well established community. If this were something that was a continual growth he did not think that this argument would hold .true. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that she thought perhaps they were getting out of line by one person questioning someone who could only give judgemental opinions. She thought this should be strictly a discussion period among the Commissioners at this point in time. Someone from the audience asked for permission to address the Commission with further information along the lines which were being discussed. Chairman Mickelson agreed to reopen the public hearing for these comments. Marilyn McKee, 2425 Ridgepark Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she has been a resident of Nohl Ranch for eleven years and is also in real estate. She said that she has sold many homes in this area, of which the most recent sale was for $325,000, fora home located at 2402 Ridgepark Lane. She felt that it was important to point out that if there are going to be new homes in the area they should be equal in value to those which are already there so that the residents already there can look forward to their homes appreciating in value and not depreciating. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Eight Alex Petrovsky, residing across the street from the area in question, addressed the Commission, stating that he wished to speak further to the questions asked by the Chairman. He felt that it is the respon- sibility of the Planning Commission to take into consideration othe r factors than the developer meeting the minimum zoning requirements. Some of those other factors have been elaborated on at these meetings. He felt that actually there is a great deal of non-conformance. He stated that there a 25% difference in density, 33% in pad size, 25% in square footage, and 25% in size of garages. He also pointed out that the style of the proposed homes is substantially different than what is already there. All of their homes are stucco on the exterior. The Fieldstone houses are radically different in style than what is already there, with the exteriors being wood shingle, which poses a fire hazard. He pointed out that we are not looking at a continuatior of a new tract, we are looking at a new tract being placed in the middle of an existing area. Chairman Mickelson again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master asked for clarification as to whether this was to be considered a hillside development or not. Chairman Mickelson recalled that this was an option which the developer had to use,either with the sidewalk adjacent to the curb or the sidewalk behind the landscaped parcel. Mr. Johnson explained that basically it was an option, although it is shown as a preference in the standard. The reason for this is that in a hillside development rain water tends to come down the street and cascades over the curbs and, in many cases, it washes out the parkway. Therefore, people often concrete in that area anyway. Staff would go along with the sidewalk being placed next to the property line also, but usually this way meets the particular needs of the area. Commissioner Master commented that the reasons for this would be topography where they must cut into the hillside, and wondered if we have this situation here, where there is cut or fill required to accommodate the conventional sidewalk streets cape arrangement. Mr. Johnson responded that he thought in this case most of the slopes have already been established and he did not believe there would be any major changes in the topography. Commissioner Master wondered if we are setting a precedent which, in effect, allows less of a setback by bringing the curb and sidewalk adjacent to it. Commissioner Coontz thought it was very obvious that we are setting a precedent. This does not conform with what is already there. That is the problem - it is not in a new development, but in a development which adjoins one which was built a number of years ago. She pointed out that this is a fairly new ordinance and Mr. Johnson agreed that this is a new standard which dates back only some five years. It was his understanding that Tract 6796 has .similar minimum setbacks. It would not be precedent setting in this respect because it appears that it has been done in other areas in the city. Commissioner Coontz asked if the study of this ordinance which has been requested is for the purpose of making this kind of situation standardized and not optional and Mr. Johnson replied that this is true. Commissioner Coontz stated that she thought compability is an important decision for the Commission to make and it is certainly something which was considered in May of the other applications which came before the Commission. Definitely there is a difference in the pad size and lot size. In a sense, what the Commission is doing is dictating not only increased density but a certain architectural constriction which they would not have in a larger lot and pad size. She felt that we are increasing the density through the back door. She did not see a strong reason for accepting the requested variances. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Nine AYES: ""~ NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Master did not see how the city could defend itself in court if they were to say that a larger house must be built on a lot. Commissioner Hart did not think they should be discussing the architectural design of the houses since that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. He had trouble finding something wrong with a $200,000 house in the area, However, price of the housing is not germane to the decision. The decision they must make is whethe r the lot sizes are legal within the zone and if they should grant the variances that are requested. He felt that the argument should be on whether the variances. are valid or not, pointing out that two lots are affected by the lot width - lots 27 and 34. The way he saw it, if one of the lots was taken out there would be no need for a variance. Commissioner Coontz did not think there was justification for the variance and Commissioner Hart agreed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend acceptance of the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 775. Commissioners Nickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master Commissioners none Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED AYES: NOES ABSENT: Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 3-82 for the reason that the proposed residential use is generally consistent with existing zoning and compatible with surrounding land uses, Commissioners Nickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master Commissioners none Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend denial of Variance 1698 for lot width, lot depth and setback on certain lots, for the reason that no justifiable hardship was shown. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Nickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Chairman Nickelson felt that he could not .support denial of the variance because he could see some hardship in this case. He felt that the surrounding development contains similar deviations from development standards. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend denial of Tentative Tract 11838 because the subdivison map cannot be approved without the approval of Variance 1698. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Nickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Mr. Daniels stated that he would be out of town from December 1 through 10 to attend his daughter's wedding and would appreciate the City Council taking this into consideration when setting up their hearing date for this item. Planning November Page Ten IN RE: Commission Minutes 15, 1982 NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 971 - CITY OF ORANGE: A request to rezone property from the R-M-7A zone to the MH zone i n conformance with the existing use on land located on the north side of La Veta Avenue, approximately 800 feet east of the center line of Tustin Street (1925 East La Veta Avenue - The Tustonian Mobile Home Park). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that the property in question contains 9 acres of land located on the north side of La Veta Avenue approximately 800 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Street (1925 East La Veta Avenue, The Tustonian Mobile Home Park). The property is developed with an 85 unit mobile home park and is zoned R-M-7-A. The request is to consider a change from the R-M-7-A zone to the MH Mobile Home zone. n Mr. Lanz explained that this is the fifth of nine mobile home parks hearings which the Council directed the Commission to hold and to con- sider rezoning mobile home parks to mobile home zoning. Staff has reviewed this particular site and found that the mobile home park is compatible in its land use with residential land uses to the north, south, east and west. Although the .property abuts the Newport Freeway on the east,'its use for a mobile home park seems appropriate, due to its poor .freeway and arterial highway accessibility and its abutment to Santiago Creek on the north. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 971. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. He then asked for a show of hands in the audience of those who were in favor of this zone change. Many hands were raised. Since there seemed to be no one to speak to this zone change, Commissioner Coontz asked how many people had received a copy of the Staff Report and read it. Apparently very few people had read the Staff Report and she explained that a copy was available in the Planning Department. She then requested that some of the concerns listed in the Staff Report be brought to the attention of those in the audience. Mr. Lanz stated that the Staff had expressed the following concerns: 1. That it appears the intent of the City Council to stabilize existing mobile home park housing in the City by rezoning them to the Mobile Home Park district may not be accomplished by this procedure. It is presumed the park owner would simultaneously request a new zone and initiate the public hearing process. However, if a rezone request is not processed simultaneously with the decision to merely go out of the mobile home park business, no public review would be rewuired wf~ile tenants were required to relocate. City Staff differs in their opinion as to whether going out of business constitutes a change of use. 2. Rezoning to mobile home district may be giving tenants of a park a false sense of security. 3. Procedural options, such as an ordinance or an overlay zone re- quiring an impact report upon any use change in a park could be equally or more effective and less costly to process. Mr. Lanz explained that the Staff has prepared a report suggesting, in part, alternative methods of protecting mobile home park use, which the City Council received at their meetings of June 8th and July 13, 1982. The City Council has, in turn, reviewed this report at their September 30, 1982 joint study session with the Planning Commission and have for- mulated a set of policy and action considerations in response. At their October 12, 1982 City Council meeting, Council referred these action and policy considerations back to Staff for ordinance formulation to be followed by Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Committee comment before any final Council action. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Eleven There being no one to speak for or against this zone change, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 971 from R-M-7A (Residential Multiple-Family-Single Story) to MH (Mobile Home Park) for the reason that the proposed zoning is in conformance with the General Plan and surrounding zoning and land use. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 980, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1238 - ERMA LOUISE RODIECK: A request to rezone from the R-1-6 zone to the 0-P zone and to permit the operation of a beauty shop as an integrated use in an existing office structure on property located on the northwest corner of Lincoln Street and Collins Avenue (1407 - 1419 East Collins Avenue). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 794 has been filed in lieu of an Environ- mental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property is a rectangular shaped property located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Street and Collins Avenue, containing approximately .48 acres of land. The property is currently zoned R-1-6 (Single-family residential with a 6,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum) and contains a small office center. The applicant requests a zone change from R-1-6 to 0-P (Office-Professional) in order to bring the center into conformance with the existing use and allow the applicant to expand the use to include a beauty shop (permitted in the 0-P zone, with a conditional use permit). Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant proposes to operate a beauty shop with five operators. The City of Orange parking ordinance requires two parking spaces per operator, bringing the parking requirement for the beauty shop to 10 spaces. The remainder of the square footage (3944 square feet) will remain as office-professional use, requiring 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area (16 spaces). The combined parking requirement is 26 spaces, the applicant plans to provide for 27 spaces. Staff recommends that the Commission. approve Zone Change 980 with the Intent to Rezone Procedure to allow for improvements to the property to bring it up to reasonable present day codes, particularly with regard to the redesign and refurbishing of the parking lot. Should the Planning Commission approve Zone Change 980, Staff recommends that several items be completed prior to the reading of the zone change: 1. That the parking and circulation plan for the project be revised i ncorporati ng the recommendations of the City of Orange Traffic Engineer as follows: a. The driveway on the south s i de of the property (exiting on Collins Avenue) should be eliminated or moved westward and enlarged in width to meet the City Code for driveway widths. b. A "U" shaped driveway should be employed on the Lincoln Street frontage as the major access for the project. Both ends of the "U" shaped drive should exit on Lincoln Street. c. That the southeast corner of the property should incorporate a 45° cut and a handicapped access ramp as per City of Orange Public Works specifications. 2. That any revised plot plan must not reduce the number of parking spaces provided below that which is required by the City of Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Twelve Orange Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are: 2 parking spaces for each operator in the beauty shop and one parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area of office space. Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit 1238 for the reason that the proposed beauty shop does not meet the criteria as stated in the City of Orange Zoning Code (Sec. 17.36.020) requiring the beauty shop to be integrated and incidental to the existing office professional building. The proposal will not only serve the occupants and users. of tf~e existing office building but will generate business from the surrounding community, The City of Orange's policy regarding integrated and incidental uses is that such uses should not be highly visible to outside traffic and should be entirely enclosed within the major structure. Should the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1238, 2 special conditions and 11 standard conditions are recommended. Commissioner Coontz wondered whether this parcel could be used as a combination commercial/office-professional situation, since it always seems to be empty with no great appearance of occupancy. Mr. Murphy explained that lack of property exposure would be one reason for not zoning commercial. Staff would contend that the building is not designed as a commercial building. It is designed as an office building. He thought there could be a sign problem if commercial uses were allowed. It is also questionable whether adequate parking could be provided for a commercial use. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. John M. Kent, attorney for the applicant, offices located at 560 California Federal Building, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that the basic reason for Mrs. Rodieck's application was to provide a place for her daughter to have a beauty shop. They discussed this generally with the Planning Staff, who were very helpful to them. They had originally thought of requesting rezoning to commercial, since they felt that the present use is a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Kent gave a short history of the property, explaining that it had originally been owned by Jenny Brown, who was Mrs. Rodieck's mother. The present building was developed by her almost 30 years ago and has been used as an office building all these years, being occupied almost fully during that period of time. Now the building is not occupied as fully as they would like it to be. They talked with the Staff and decided that the best route to go would be 0-P, with a conditional use permit for the beauty shop. Since the Staff seemed to find this acceptable, he was surprised by their recommendation for denial of the CUP. However, they feel that Staff is certainly following code. They have discussed whether the shop could exist merely by having its patrons the people who are in the offices and decided it could not. Therefore, if they cannot have a conditional use permit which would allow for general use of one unit in the property fora beauty shop, they do not need to proceed with the application for rezoning. They would hope that the Commission will overrule the Staff's recommendation and grant them a CUP. They have reviewed the recommendations of the Staff and if the Commission believes that a CUP would be property, they would like then to discuss some of the suggested conditions. Mr. Kent explained that they have no objections to the conditions suggested for the zone change, recommending a "U" shaped driveway from the Lincoln Street side of the property. However, they would prefer that the driveway on Collins remain as is and perhaps be widened slightly, since that driveway has been there since the property was developed. He pointed out that they would be willing to provide the ramp suggested by the Staff for the handicapped, but feel there would be a problem then since there would be no corresponding ramp on the opposite side of the street where the Alpha Beta Store and other commercial uses are located. Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Thirteen This could create a liability for the city, as well as for the property owner. They have no objection to Condition #3. As to Condition #2, regarding signage, they are not suggesting that they have a flashing neon sign, but they would .ike to have a sign which would be compatible with the property, stating that the beauty shop is in existence there. They have no objection to special Condition #l. He spoke then to the standard conditions, explaining that regarding Condition #6, where they would place their trash enclosure, they felt that it would best work out on the northwest side of the building. Condition #8 regarding a 6 ft. block wall, he pointed out that the present wall has been accepted by the neighbors of the property all these years since the building was built. Commissioner Coontz wondered what the optimum. signage would be and Mr. Murphy replied that a single free standing sign of 24 ft. was allowed for the parcel of land, plus individual wall signs. She wondered what the limitations are on the wall signs. Mr. Murphy responded that they are the same as the free standing sign of 24 ft. He then clarified Conditions #5 and 6 for the Commission, stating that the trash enclosure being placed on the north would be unacceptable because it would be right next to the residential area, plus blocking the way for safety vehicles, such as police and fire. Condition #4 would be only for a 15 ft, cut off on the corner. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the State law requires that a ramp be put in o n the Alpha Beta corner by a certain time. Mr. Johnson replied that the State requires that ramps be placed whenever a new application is approved by the Commission. The ramp would be helpful even if it was only on one side. The city does have a program through some state money where ramps are being put in at demonstrated locations where they are needed. This is only on a basis of whether they can see there is a demand-and it would have to be more than just an occasional disabled person using that route. If there was a demonstrated demand on that side of the street, they could use these funds to do it. He explained that this will be a standard condition from now on, to be i mpl emented with any new development or any re- development because the state law has just changed, making this mandatory. Mr. Kent again addressed the Commission regarding the issue of the trash site. He explained that the west side of the property is next to residential use. If the trash site were required to be on the south side of the building it would not be placed near th e front of the property since it should be esthetically acceptable to the neighborhood. Therefore, it would be placed up against the wall which again would be '~ next to an R-1 area. So placing it on the north side of the building seems logical, since there are no windows on the north side. Chairman Mickelson explained that the Commission does not make the rules regarding trash sanitation and Mr. Kent would have to argue this poiht with the Staff. Commissioner Master pointed out that the question is one of safety. Ann Lockridge, assistant to Mrs. Rodieck for property management, addressed the Commission, stating that she was sure that the Commissioners were aware that this property is not a thing of beauty. She has spent quite a bit of time with Staff, as has Mrs, Rodieck and Mr. Kent, before they made their application, because they wanted to cooperate in every way. They were assured by the Staff that the proper thing was to ask for 0-P zoning with a CUP request and they had many extensive conversations with Staff regarding the placement of the beauty shop within the office complex. Therefore, they were startled to have the Staff recommend denial of the CUP. Without the CUP, they do not need the zone change. However, they have extensive plans for the entire improve- ment of this building. They will be upgrading the exterior and placing an attractive lighted sign surrounded by planters on the property. v Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Fourteen Ms. Lockridge explained that the trash bin is so visible where it is located now that everyone going by uses it and they are inundated with trash. They get furniture, mattresses, etc. placed in their trash bin and then are responsible for cleaning it all up. They would like to place a ramp to the place where they intend to put the trash enclosure and the trash people would manually have to pull the trash bin out. She asked Mr. Johnson if this would be a problem an dhe replied that he believed it would be. He thought that the trash people would insist that the trash bin be placed at the curb for pickup. They would then leave it at any angle. Sometimes the bins are left in the middle of the street and it becomes a great problem. Ms, Lockridge then asked if the enclosure could be sited right up to the curb and Mr. Johnson responded that this would also be a problem. He explained that Staff has a man, Mr. Thorne, who is the sanitation expert and he is a liaison between the trash contractor and the city. He thought that they would have to discuss this situation with him and he would make a decision. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend acceptance of the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 794. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson asked a question regarding the condition requiring a "U" shaped driveway, asking why this was required and exactly what it is. Mr. P~~urphy responded that they were attempting to get some kind of modification to the existing 12 or 13 foot drive on Collins, either to widen it and relocate it westerly or, if the applicant chose to eliminate it entirely, to provide a second access on Lincoln that would, in essence, provide a new drive or double access off of Lincoln, providing two ways in and out at that point, which would be satisfactory to Staff. He then pointed out on the map exactly what they would like to see done in that area. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the feasibility of a combination commercial/0-P zone. Mr. Murphy went into further detail with regard to this kind of a solution. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recom- mend approval of Zone Change 980 utilizing the intent to rezone procedure, thereby requiring the approval of plans for redesigning and up-grading of the parking lot prior to the reading of the ordinance; and approval of Conditional Use Permit 1238 with thirteen (13) conditions as contained in the Staff Report, with. the elimination of Condition #2 relating to limiting signage for the proposed beauty shop. AYES; Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT; Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERP~tIT 1239 - JEANNE LANE: A request to convert a single-family residential unit to medical office uses in the C-1 zone on property located on the east side of Glassell Street, approximately 133 feet south of the centerline of Almond Avenue (221. South Glassell Street). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) C Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Fifteen Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains .15 acre located on the east side of Glassell Street 133 feet south of the centerline of Almond Avenue (227 South Glassell Street). The property is zoned C-1 and contains one single-family residence. The residence is currently used as an antique shop and constitutes a legal non-conforming use. The applicant .requests a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of a single- family residence into a medical office use. She specifically proposes floor space of 1276 sq, fto of medical office use and 462 sq. ft. of storage use, with 7 parking spaces, which meets City Code. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and has expressed several concerns: 1. The applicant needs to obtain a reciprocal access agreement and reciprocal parking agreement with the property to the north. 2. The applicant needs to provide the necessary street dedications and improvements along Glassell Street. 3. Applicant needs to provide the property to the south with an offer of an irrevocable ingress/egress easement along the south boundary line in order that such an agreement may provide internal access between the properties at the time either property is redeveloped at a future date. 4. This dwelling has been listed in the City's Orange Historic Survey and .may have historical significance. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1239 for three reasons: 1. That the applicant's proposal is consistent with both zoning an dgeneral plan designation. 2. The utilization of the property for office use is acceptable, and is compatible with surrounding land uses if the property is permanently screened at the rear, as indicated in the applicant's plans. 3. The retention of integrity of this residence is desirable, as it is felt to contribute to the City's historical heritage. Approval is suggested, subject to the 16 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Hart asked if the reciprocal access and parking agreement is possible with the property to the north and Mr. Lanz responded that it is since the two properties now share a drive. Also there is a wall between the two houses at the present time and this is to be removed. He was under the impression that this agreement can be acquired. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Jeanne Kane, 2993-2 Cottonwood, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She stated that all of the conditions that have been made by Staff are acceptable. Regarding a reciprocal agreement with the next door property, she has already been in touch with Mr. Minshew to proceed with this as she has been in touch with the owners of the next door property and they are in agree- ment to having a reciprocal agreement for ingress/egress and/or parking. There being no .one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1982 Page Sixteen ~' Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve Conditional Use Permit 1239 for the reasons as stated by Staff and subject to the 16 conditions listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 82-766 - TOTTI: A request to create two lots from a parcel located on the west side of Lincoln Street, 450± feet north of the centerline of Collins Avenue. Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this Tentative Parcel Map is before the Commission because it involves a rather unusual lot split, creating two parcels from an existing pie- shaped parcel at the end of Locust Avenue just west on the right side of Lincoln, north of the project discussed earlier in the meeting. He pointed out on the map where the access to the parcel comes off of Locust Avenue at the present time, with a driveway to a wooden garage structure now existing on the lot, taking access from Lincoln Street. Therefore, the second parcel would take its only access from Lincoln Street, as opposed to the rest of the tract which takes access from either Locust or the other internal cul de sac in the tract to the west. The dimensions of the parcel, therefore, are rather unique and will require a special design and layout for the residence, as well as an access coming off of a street that is basically a commercial, quasi- apartment fairly busy street. Staff has no other reservations, other than the concerns just mentioned. He explained that Staff wished to bring this to the attention of the Commission and the conditions now being prepared for the Tentative Parcel Map are all of a standard nature. At this point in time, there are no special conditions. They wished to bring this unique situation to the Commission's attention because there might be other requests similar to this one in the near future. There are alternative actions which the Commission could take. They can just file the report, or take action to approve the parcel map, whatever the Commission feels is appropriate. Under normal circumstances, this would be a Staff action. Commissioner Coontz asked what was located across the street from the parcel in question and Mr. Murphy replied that it is across from the northwest corner of the Alpha Beta Shopping Center. It is just below the alley to the shopping center. The lot meets the minimum lot size requirements, being about 6,000 sq. ft. Chairman Mickelson asked what the intention of the owner was and was told that they intend to build another house. Staff's only concern is that they will be able to design it so that it does not require variances to the. city codes, particularly the matter of the front setback, as well as the diagonal lines causing problems with the corners of the building. Chairman Mickelson asked if this could be compatible with the other hoUSeS in the area in size, shape and architecture and it was decided that the Commission did not need to worry about this. f~loved by Chairman Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to receive and file this report, AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1.982 Page Seventeen Commissioner~Master requested that the study session for Wednesday, November 17th be moved up a half hour to 5:00 p.m. so that he could attend and be a part of the discussion, because of the sensitivity of the proposed development. Commissioners decided to move the meeting up to 4:30 p.m. Proved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to move the time of the November 17th study session up to 4:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at p.m. to be reconvened to a study session on Wednesday, November 17, 1982 at 4:30 p.m., and thence to a regular meeting on Monday, December 6, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. L~J C