Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/6/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 6, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, 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 Engi Weer; Lon Cahi 11 , Fire Prevention Bureau; Bert Yamasaki , Director of Planning & Development Services; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF PIINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, ]980 Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve the minutes of September 15, 1980 as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED I N RE : NEW H EA.RI NGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1057, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 80-768 - J.L. WILLIAMS & CO., INC. Request to allow conversion of two industrial buildings into five condominium units for property located on the south side of Fletcher Avenue east of American Way. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Mr. Murphy explained to the Commission that applicant has asked for withdrawal of the application, finding that it was not his prerogative to go ahead with the subdivision of ownership at this point in time. Staff recommended that Commission move to allow the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 1057 and Tentative Parcel Map 80-768. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault to allow the withdrawal from the agenda of Conditional Use Permit 1057, Tentative Parcel Map 80-768. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 10825 - INVESTMENT CONCEPTS, INC.: Request to allow conversion of an existing 250 unit apartment to condominiums at the northwest corner of La Veta Avenue and Lemon Street. (Note: This project is categori cally exempt from Environmental Review.) (Continued from meeting of September 3, 1980.) Commissioner Mickelson stated that he would abstain from voting on this matter, due to a conflict of interest. Planning Commission Minutes October 6 , 1980 Page Two r Mr. P1urphy explained that this matter had been continued from the September 3rd Planning Commission meeting. He pointed out that the Commission has received a letter from Investment Concepts , Inc. , dated October 1 , 1980 i n which they amended thei r request to allow conversion of their 250 unit apartment project. P1r. Murphy pointed out three of the more significant items i n the amendment as being: 1. That all units would remain family units. This would no longer be a proposal for senior citizen housing or adult housing. 2. Notices of intent to convert wi 11 be given 240 days prior to the beginning of a sales campaign instead of 120 days. Al l tenants wi 11 have the right of first refusal to purchase the unit being occupied for a period of 60 days in accordance with State law. 3. The project will be phased so that approximately 60 units would be sold during each six month period, to be sold no earlier than September, 1982, with 60 unit phases being sold every six months until September of 1984. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant has i ndi Gated that he di d meet with the tenants of the project shortly after the September 3rd Plannina Commission meeting and the major conce rn of the tenants seemed to be that of relocation for those who would not be purchasing units. Mr. Murphy stated that if the Planning Commission would find the application acceptable, Staff recommended that two additional conditions be added to the 24 conditions listed in the original Staff Report of August 29 , 1980 , as fol 1 ows 25. Notice to convert wi 11 be 240 days , rather than 120 days as specified by City ordinance. Relocation assistance pay- ments will be adhered to during the 240 day notice period. 26. The first 60 unit phase of the project will not be sold until September, 1982 and additional phases of 60 units each will be sold at six month intervals from September, 1982 through September, 1984. Commissioner Master stated that he had not received the latest memorandum from Staff, or copy of the letter sent from Investment Concepts, Inc, and, therefore, had not had a chance to go over this latest information. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Representing George Chami, the applicant, Philip Smith, 22932 Rem61e Drive, E1 Toro, addressed the Planning Commission in favor of this application. He pointed out that with regard to the 60 units to be sold each 6 months, this was used as an example. He explained that if, in fact, 60 units would divide a building they would like to leave the building intact. This might mean 62 units, or some other odd number, but it would be very close to the example of 60 units. He further explained about the letter which was sent regarding relocati on. As was menti oned i n the October 1st letter to the Department of Planning, they have done a great deal of market research and have tried to gather as much information as possible which would relate to today. This is one of the problems with this type of a situation - to gather information that can be projected forward two years and sti 11 be valid. The best that they ,f Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1980 Page Th ree r could come up with is a trend of what is avai Table today that could be offered to the tenants as they are being relocated. He pointed out that they have also done detailed studies as to what is available through rental agencies. The last report is that there are 687 family units which rent in comparable rental areas within about a five mile radius of the apartment project. He explained that it will be about two years from now when they start the conversion, so this is a projection. Mark McCarthy, 401 W. La Veta, Orange, member of the Executive Board of the La Veta Grand Tenants Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He pointed out that they agree with the statement and the new proposal that their chief concern is relocation, but they do not feel that this has been adequately dealt with. One of the primary questions that they had was regarding availability. It was their impression that this was the primary question addressed by the Commission to Mr. Chami at the September 3rd meeting. A.t the tenant's meeting with Mr. Smith, representing Mr. Chami, this issue was discussed at great length, and he personally dialogued with Mr. Smith for about 15 minutes regarding what is available in the rental housing in the area. The tenants feel that much of the information on avail- able housing has been found through ads and this is a distortion and inaccurate. They feel that all o-F the reasons for the con- tinuance have not been resolved. They have no more information now than they had 30 days ago and there is no more basis for making a decision. Chairman Coontz asked Mr. McCarthy to comment on the 240 days' notice as opposed to 120 days and also the fact that apartments are to be sold as family units. He answered that 240 days is an empty gesture inasmuch as if this application is approved they know that they will have to move. They will really not have 240 days. In effect, they have two years. They still do not feel that this deals with the problem. He pointed out that there have been many conversions in the past several years i n the ci ty of Orange and finding housing for 60 or 250 families will still be difficult. They do not feel that this is an effective gesture to the families living in the apartments. Commissioner Ault asked how long the owner should have to dispose of his property. Mr. McCarthy answered that if he was a homeowner it would not be the business of the Planning Commission how or when he disposed of his property, but is more complicated than that. This involves 250 families who will not have anywhere to go. As long as there i s i nadequate rental housing i n the city, i t is city government responsibility to see that this housing is provided. There are gray areas between the right of Mr. Chami to dispose of his property as he sees fit and the obligation of the city government to see that these 250 families have a place to live. This is why an application like this comes before the City Council and the Planning Commission. Vicky Weston, 401 W. La Veta, Orange, Co-Chairman La Veta Grand Tenants Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She spoke regarding comparable units in the Santa Ana-Tustin-Anaheim area and wondere d why these are involved. These people live in Orange and want to stay in the city of Orange. She wondered if the 600 number of vacant units given earlier were veri fied vacancies . She said she has had experience working with ~, rental agencies. You are given a list and must go out and look Planning Commission Minutes October 6 , 1980 Page Four at them. Many of them are just taking applications and many of them have already been rented. The listings are not always current or available. She stated that she had called around earlier today and found 14 vacancies. Four had a lower rent, but were in a worse area of town, possibly with, a higher crime rate. There was less square footage and no air conditioning. She found 10 in a comparable area or better area. Only one had equal square footage and/or air conditioning. Chairman Coontz felt that there is no universal meaning for comparable. Ms. Weston explained what she thought comparable consisted of. She thought this would mean in the same rent range with the same amount of facilities. Lori Erlandson, 401 La Veta, #121, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she thought that comparable basically means that you have screens on your windows , no drunks or men carrying guns, the same caliber of people living in the area as they have now. Ken Hollingshead, 401 W. La Veta, Orange, Co-chairperson of La Veta Grand Tenants Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he felt the main issue here is the issue of money. One of the things that as renters, they get the impression that because they are renters they are second class citizens. He further stated that they have received two proposals from Investment Concepts, Inc. The first proposal was a 10% mortgage situation. The new proposal is now 12 z%. They have since pursued this and have found that, pursuing the sources they were given, this is not even a possibility. It wi l l be more l i ke 13 or 14%. As renters , i f they were i n the financial position to buy, they would buy. But they are renting because they cannot afford to purchase. Financially, they would like to be in a position to purchase. At the rates that are being proposed, less than 5% of the people would even be eligible to purchase and most of those people are moving out of the area be- cause they have found something more reasonable. He felt that this is an emergency situation. There is very little rental housing available. He waited three months to get into the apart- ment in which they are now residing. They do not have any place to go i n the city of Orange . They fee 1 pride i n the ci ty of Orange and wish to live here. From a renter's standpoint, there is very little available. He pointed out that this is a crisis situation. There are not 30% who can purchase, which is what the trend indicates. If this passes and the apartments convert, they will all be driven out of the city of Orange. Commissioner Hart commented on the changing of the interest rates. He explained that probably at the time they viewed the proposal, it would have been right, but in the last two weeks it has jumped 22 percentage points. The figure doesn't hold steady. The Commission is sitting here listening to people who feel like second class citizens and the Commission feels badly about this as they agonize over their decisions. They try to promote multiple housing. However, renting is a business and money cannot be made in the city of Orange so no rental housing is being built. Mr. Hollingshead stated that he realized there were two issues here. Business vs. human righta. Commissioner Hart explained that this is the fault of government. Mr. Hollingshead felt that the city is at a crisis point and soon the city must suffer because the rental population will be driven out of Orange. Commissioner Hart answered that from a legal stand- point the law allows Mr. Chami to convert. He could sue and probably win his suit if he were to be denied this right. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1980 Page Five Commissioner Ault explained that he has been on the Planning Commission for a long time. They were given several applica- tions for large apartment complexes during his time on the Commission and the local residents did not want this in their neighborhoods. Thereofore, apartments were limited. In his opinion, they must build housing on as many pieces of land as they can. Now the Commission is caught in a bind. What is right? To go for the owner or for the renter? It is a disturbing situation. Mr. Hollingshead mentioned that there are some strides being made in single family homes in the E1 Toro area fora reasonable amount of money. He is hoping that something of this nature will come out of this . We must work on th i s together. Robert Gilstrap, 401 W. La Veta, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He spoke to the right of the individual to sell his own property. However, he is concerned about the children. If apartments are not built, the children will suffer. He stated that he does know of a few apartment units in Orange. But unless something happens there will be no apartments built. As apartments become more scarce, rents increase. There is a larger population of renters and fewer units. He worries about the next generation. He is afraid that the Planning Commission is looking at it in a short term way. But what about the future? Chairman Coontz answered that the Commissioners' concern is for the future also. But even though they allow the opportunity for more multiple units to be built, they will not be built because of high interest rates, etc. Many cities are not interested in getting involved with the Federal government programs when they are told what they can and cannot do. There was further discussion between Mr. Gilstrap and Chairman Coontz with regard to the plight of renters when property owners do not want apartment units built near their properties. Mr. Gilstrap then questioned Commissioner Hart with regard to the owner of their apartment units not making money on his units. He wondered if they could see his records to find out where he is losing money. Chairman Coontz pointed out that the purpose of these meetings is to have input from Staff, the people involved, etc. and then each of the Commissioners makes an individual decision. Jeff Burns, 401 W. La Veta, #216, Orange, spoke with regard to facts and figures on diminishing housing. He explained that Dick Turpin had written an article in the newspaper very recently, stating that for the first time in 80 years the number of housing units are diminishing. He spoke to Commissioner Ault with regard to whether Mr. Chami had the right to dispose of his property. The question is not whether or not he has that right, but how he goes about it. If he put the whole complex up for sale, someone would probably come along and purchase it, but if he sells it unit by unit, he will double his profit. Whether he is making money or losing money probably depends on how many times he has refinanced it. He felt that a major problem within the city is being overlooked but no one has mentioned any figures about what this will cost the sur- rounding businesses. We are talking about approximately 14% Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1980 Page Six interest, plus principal and taxes, which will put the payments at around $950/mo. for each unit. This is an inflation of 137% per year. When this is amplified by all the conversions in the city, this money is being taken from the coffers of the businesses in the city of Orange. Chairman Coontz asked whether the renters would not still be spending their money in Orange. He explained that there would be less money to spend in gas stations, markets, etc. because of the inflationary mortgage cost. This is basic money flow. The city of Orange is being denied this money with an inflationary method. We are allowing inflation to run rampant in Orange and in every other city in the United States. Inflation is a fact of life, but it is overlooked. Chairman Coontz wanted to know how this applies to the condo conversion. Mr. Burns reiterated his economic theory. Andrea Wood, 401 W. La Veta, Orange, apologized for the emotional '~' state of the people in the audience, but she explained that we are talking about their homes. She wondered if this is a moral issue and therefore it is difficult to legislate. She felt, how- ever, that there are answers to this and it can be legislated. She believes they can recommend to the City Counci 1 and i t i s thei r job to legislate. This must stop somewhere. Tanya Campbell, 401 W. La Veta, #239, Orange, addressed the Com- mission in opposition to this application, stating that she has heard words to the effect that Mr. Chami is losing money on these apartments. She has done some very quick calculations and, at the rate of $375/mo. multiplied by 250, he makes $125,000 per year gross. Maintenance and other costs and expenses must be figured in, but if he loses money he can write this off as a tax shelter. Mr. Smith again addressed the Commission in rebuttal, stating that with regard to availability of rental housing in the area for re- location of tenants, they had provided all of the information they have gathered to the tenants. The tenants informed him that they had done several studies but they have not divulged this to the owners. He disagreed that there was no difference between 60 and 250 families being relocated. It is certainly easier to relocate 60 families as opposed to 250, particularly 60 in a six month period, spread out over a couple of years. Some of those residents will have until 1984 to relocate. He referred to the several comparisons which had been made with regard to the monthly mortgage and today's rent. If they are not comparable, then he is not sure where they are getting their figures. They do the best that they can to gather the best possible informa- tion that could be meaningful. Some of this information will not be meaningful two years from now. It is difficult to make compari- sons. He admitted that they had initially presented a 10% mortgage and had to go back and revise to 12-3/4%. They try to stay as current as they can. They offered the 10% discount and, in writing and verbally, made it clear that there would be no rental increases forward for 24 months. If this project is not converted, there would be about a 10% increase, just based on regular costs increases, and by 1990 this would amount to about $1000 rent per month. He pointed out that they have tried to be very responsible owners. They have tried to take good care of the property. The disposition Planning Commission Plinutes October 6, 1980 Page Seven of the property has been discussed hypothetically. But what if they closed the doors and everyone had to move? This makes as much sense as some of the other arguments. There is no question but that economics enters into this whole situation. Mr. Smith then stated that the owners had some suggested findings for the Commission and he distributed a list of suggestions to the Commission members. Chairman Coontz asked Mr. Smith questions regarding the four rental agencies mentioned in their report. He explained that all four of these agencies list available units and generate information. All four agencies operate in the same way. The individual pays a fee and for that fee, for varying periods from 90 days to two years , they receive free 1 i sti ngs . Those 1 i s ti ngs show the city, the rent, whether or not children are admitted, etc. From this information, you pick the area that you wish, the rental range, etc. He explained that he took the map and drew a 5 mile radius from La Veta Grand and from that area he got his informa- tion with regard to the available rental units. Chairman Coontz then explained that the reason she asked these questions was to clarify the fact that the Condo Conversion Code does not specifically say that the available housing units must be located in the city of Orange. It says "area". George Chami, Newport Beach, owner of La Veta Grand, commented on the fact that they have been developing for about 15 years and he is one of the biggest apartment unit developers in the city of Orange. He explained that if he were to be permitted by the city of Orange to convert his apartment buildings during the construction process, he could build all kinds of apartments. Orange could enter into an agreement not to sell the units for 10 to 15 years. his is an economical fact of life. They cannot build apartments for rent. They would have to charge $900-1000 per month rent. This is a very simple concept and he would be glad to meet with the Commission on this. He went on to comment that they are making terrific money on the La Veta Grand project. He has never refinanced a piece of property. If he were to refinance the property, the rent would go from $375/mo. to $950/mo. He feels that rental housing stock is constant. It does not decrease. It would only decrease if people move out of homes to apartment conversions and they are not doing that. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. At this time, Chairman Coontz complimented Mr. Hollingshead and Mr. McCarthy for their fine presentations. Commissioner Tlaster also commented that if there was ever a stigma of second class citizens attached to renters, he felt that tonight's presentations disproved that. They were highly intelligent presentations. He also complimented Mr. Chami on the operation that is being run at La Veta Grand. The renters wouldn't like where they are if the ingredients weren't there - the quality of life is good, the rental appears to be more than fair. Commissioner Master again wished to state that he did not receive the written information that the other commissioners apparently received, that he first saw this information at the meeting tonight. He felt that there are conflicting figures. l~ Planning Commission Minutes October 6 , 1980 Page Eight Commissioner Hart pointed out that one statement reads 20% are purchased by investors and the other paper states that 30% of the units are purchased by tenants. Commissioner Ault commented that this is a very emotional situation. However, he felt that the owner is leaning over backwards to give tenants a chance to find another place to live. In view of the fact that it is his property, he is com- plying with the code. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 10825, subject to the 24 conditions set forth in the Staff Report and with the addition of the two conditions as stated by Mr. Murphy, namely: 25 . Notice to convert wi 11 be 240 days , rather than 120 days as specified by City ordinance. Relocation assistance payments will be adhered to during the 240 day notice period. 26 . The first 60 unit phase of the project wi 11 not be sol d until September, 1982 and additional phases of 60 units each will be sold at six month intervals from September, 1982 through September, 1984. and in compliance with the findings set forth in Section 17.83.060 of Amended Ordinance 38-80. Chairman Coontz explained that she would vote for this, but she understood the problem regarding families losing their homes. She did not feel that renters were the only ones with these kind of problems. Many homeowners in California cannot continue to stay in their homes, because of the extreme inflationary costs. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioners Master, Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master wished it to be a matter of record that he abstained from voting on this matter because he did not receive the proper written information before this evening. PRE-ZONE CHANGE 931 - CITY OF ORANGE: Request to prezone property from County E4-1 to City R-1-40 in the general area of Mead Avenue and Orange Park Boulevard. (Note: Negative Declaration 641 has been prepared in lieu of an Environ- mental Impact Report.) (Continued from meeting of September 15, 1980. ) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application on behalf of the Staff, explaining that this item had been considered at the last meeting and was continued because of confusion regarding locations of properties involved, as well as the existing zoning and proposed zoning. The Planning Commission directed that another mailing be made to all property owners within 300 feet of the lots in question and this has been done. They were again notified of the public hearing and told specifically which properties were being con- sidered for prezoning, what the motivation for the prezoning was and also provided more specifics regarding the application. In addition, a map was sent to the property owners to eliminate any further confusion. As noted previously, the motivation for the prezoning is to provide city sewer service to property owners who are involved at their request. He further explained that this Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1980 Page Nine prezoning is a prelude to the annexation of the property into the city of Orange in the future. He also pointed out that, as noted at the last meeting, the R-1-40 zoning is comparable with the existing County zoning of E4-1. So essentially what is taking place is a change of jurisdiction only, since the proposal and the existing zoning are identical. Staff recommends that the Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 641 and recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 931. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Edward Felix, Cypress, addressed the Commission on behalf of his parents, who live at 11071 Orange Park Acres, stating that they are in favor of going into the city of Orange, after reading the information that they received. They feel that some of the area could stand some upgrading and hopefully this step will suffice. As he understands it, E4-1 and R-1-40 are approximately the same. He understands that the sewer problems are the issue. They feel this will be a good addition to the area. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 641. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 931, for the reasons stated by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1058, ZONE CHANGE 932, TENTATIVE TRACT 11259 - MOHLER CORPORATION: Request for change of zoning for portion of site from RD-6 to RM-7 and to allow a 14 unit planned unit development on the east side of Batavia Street, north of Chapman Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 645 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application on behalf of the Staff, explaining that this is a request for a zone change for the R-D-6 section of the property to R-M-7, and also a conditional use permit and tentative tract in order to construct a 14 town- house unit condominium complex. This property contains .88 acre and is located on the east side of Batavia Street, approximately 293 feet north of Chapman Avenue. The site is presently made up of three parcels, the one with frontage to Batavia Street con- taining a residence, while the two others are "landlocked" and are vacant. The former parcel is zoned RD-6 and the latter two are zoned RM-7. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow development of a 14 unit planned unit development, as well as a Planning Commission Minutes October 6 , 1980 Page Ten C zone change for the parcel fronting on Batavia Street, in order to change the zoning from RD-6 to RM-7 in order to have uniform zoning throughout the site. ,Applicant is proposing to build ten 2-bedroom units and four 1-bedroom units, for a total of 14. Parking wi 11 have 28 covered spaces and 4 open, for a total of 32 parking spaces. Proposed coverage of the property is 60%. He pointed out that the access to the development would be via Batavia Street. Emergency access would also be provided to a private access easement north of the property to both Batavia Street and Parker Street. Mr. Soo-Hoo further pointed out that the General Plan designates this area for high density residential development (15-24 dwelling units per acre). The Staff has evaluated this proposal and finds that it is technically acceptable. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 645. Staff feels that the proposal is acceptable for the following reasons 1. That predominant use in the area is that of multiple family residences. 2. All development standards for a planned unit development in a RM-7 zone are complied with. 3. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. 4. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of this project with the 14 conditions listed in the Staff Report for the Conditional Use Permit and also with the 7 conditions listed on the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. L~ Jim Van Tuyle, Santa Ana, architect representing the applicant, Mohler Corporation, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that they have taken a landlocked parcel and have taken their access off of Batavia as the entrance. They could have used Parker, but will be using th~.at as their secondary access. He pointed out that there is compatible zoning around this project. They feel that because on the north, east and south sides of the property there are large open areas their project will have no visual access to other housing. He pointed out that this project is needed because of the growth of the city. This will be more or less affordable housing. They are not that far from the circle. He explained that they have met all zoning requirements for RM-7. He also explained that it is not economically feasible for this to be apartments. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1980 Page Eleven `# Moved by Comm to accept the file Negative AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners issioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault findings of the Environmental Review Board to Declaration 645. Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1058, Zone Change 932, Tentative Tract 11259, for reasons stated by Staff, and subject to the 14 conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the 7 conditions listed in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED At this point, Mr. Murphy requested that the Planning Commission hear the Miller item under MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS out of order. This was agreed upon. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11087 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1041 - GENE E. MILLER: Stan Soo-Hoo presented this item on behalf of the Staff. He pointed out that the applicant appeared before the Commission on July 7, 1980 for consideration of a six unit condominium proposal for property located on the south side of Collins Avenue, east of Mallard Street. The key issue at that time was the applicant's desire to exceed Code density limitations since only five units were normally permitted for the site. The Commission acted to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. ~~ At the City Counci 1's meeting of August 19, 1980, the Counci 1 overruled the Commission's recommendation and denied the requested variance for increased density, though a five unit project was considered acceptable. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the Commission had before them revised plans which the applicant submitted reflecting five units on the site. It would now be proper for the Commission to review this proposal and forward applicable comments back to the City Council. He explained to the Commission that the site plan has been com- pletely modified to eliminate subterranean parking, the concept now showing two clusters of buildings containing a total of five units with parking provided off of a single driveway which bisects the center of the site. All development standards have been complied with. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the revised plan acceptable. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of the revised plans for Tentative Tract 11087 and Conditional Use Permit 1041 to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1980 Page Twelve Bill Dyer, who works with Gene E. Miller, applicant in this project, stated that the architect tried to capture a residential feeling that is not there. They worked with the Staff to see what they could do with a five unit plan. They found that the ground plane was short and the coverage was imposing a restriction on their density for circulation. They went to the homeowners' association to the east to see if they could use their common drive for access, but a right angle drive pattern, which they had on the previous plan, in going below grade allowed them the parking requi cements . The homeowners' associ ati on next door wouldn't even discuss allowing them the use of a common drive. He explained that this morning they had met with the architect and the landscape architect. The relief in the buildings from the front of the street and to the center of the courtyard wi 11 not be as sterile as they appear to be on the plan. There will be three detached buildings and one attached building. This is unique because it allows a lot of air to circulate. There will be a center courtyard. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: AMENDMENT 10-80 - CITY OF ORANGE: Proposed amendment to Orange Municipal Code to establish height limitations in the commercial zones. Jere Murphy presented this amendment on behalf of the Staff. He reviewed the request from the City Counci 1 and the study which was done on commercial height limitations. He pointed out that this study was requested by the City Council as a result of high rise applications in the commercial zones where there are presently inadequate or no Height regulations. The specific project triggering this request was a six-story building proposed for Katella Avenue, between Glassell and Tustin. He explained that the report itself is quite in depth and discusses other related matters to the subject of the request from the City Council, including where high rise buildings might take place in the city. He pointed out that this is a study in itself and could be added to the list of studies that should be undertaken by the Advance Planning Division. He thought that the other subject that had not been discussed in any depth was the matter f two story buildings in relation to being adjacent to residential areas. This is also a separate study, which is directly related, but yet a separate study. He explained that the request here was to look at the general height limit in the C-P, C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones. The study talked about all four zones and covers the majority of commercial property within the city of Orange. Commissioner Hart commented about the area that was established as a tourist zone. Mr. Murphy pointed out that there is no immediate effect in placing a 2-story limit in the C-P district right now, as the area zoned C-P is almost completely developed. He pointed out that the recommendation on the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones is to establish a bulk plane ratio of 1:4 measured to the nearest residential zone and that the height limit of 30 feet can be exceeded only when that ratio is met. He pointed out that one of the reasons for recommending these standards is that Santa Ana is using the same ratio. The existing high rise areas of Orange are adjacent to Santa Ana's commercial areas, as well as the 4:1 ratio has worked out quite well within the city of Santa Ana's recent experiences with their high rise buildings. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1980 Page Thirteen u Chairman Coontz pointed out that another thing that this report doesn't cover is public institutions. She mentioned the cultural buildings at Chapman College as a case in point. Commissioner Hart wondered in conditional use permit proceedings how much engineering and architectural treatment would be needed for the application. Chairman Coontz pointed out that this is not as restrictive as the one in Santa Ana where they even tell you what kind of trees you can plant. Chairman Coontz suggested that there be a divider page of a different color in the report so that recommendations be separated from other areas. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master felt that the study was highly professional and zeroed in on the problem and he complimented the Staff. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend to the City Council to approve the establishment of the following height regulations, as set forth by Staff in their report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STUDY AND RECOMh1ENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to set this item up for study session on Monday, October 13, 1980, at 5:00 p.m. By general consensus of the Commission, Staff was directed to make a study of where high rise construction should be located and the two-story residential areas. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to October 13, 1980, at 5:00 p.m, by Chairman Coontz at 10:00 p.m., and then to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, October 20, 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 ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere Murphy, bei nq 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 October 6, 1980; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on October 7, 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 October 6, 1980 was held. n EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORRNGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1980. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Mi ckelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart that this meeting adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, October 6, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, October 20, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby ce rtify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Corrunission held on Monday, October 6, 1980. Dated this 7th day of October, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. re l~~urphy, City Planner & Secretary the`; P1 anni ng Commis"s i on of t4~ e ty of Orange.