Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/5/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 5, 1981 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, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Master STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 Commissioner Coontz asked fora correction to the minutes on page 14, paragraph 3 - "...She wondered which of these categories was grouped in order to...", add: "...arrive at the 60% figure which the report indicates is the percentage of white collar workers in Orange." Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve the minutes of September 21, 1981, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11486 - LINDQUIST - Item #3 on the Agenda, under "New Hearings". Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant had requested that this item be dropped to the end of the agenda, in order to give applicant's attorney time to get to the hearing, Chairman Mickelson explained to the audience that this item would be taken in its turn on the agenda and it would be decided at that time whether it should be moved to the end of the agenda. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 955, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1152, TENTATIVE TRACT 11636 - QUIST: Request for prezoning from County R-4 to City RM-7 and consideration of a 9-unit Planned Unit Development on the west side of Ocean View Avenue, north of Lincoln Avenue. (8721 and 8731 Ocean View Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 732 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to prezone property from County R-4 to City RM-7 and to allow development of a 9-unit planned unit development. The property contains .614 acre of land and is located on the west side of Ocean View Avenue, 152 feet north of Lincoln Avenue. It contains two single family residences and is located in unincorporated area zoned R-4, The applicant is requesting prezoning to RM-7 to facilitate annexation into the City of Orange, as well as approval of a conditional use permit and tentative tract map to permit development of a 9-unit planned unit development. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the density proposed for the project is 14,66 dwellings/ac., with off-street parking of 18 enclosed and 5 open parking spaces, for a total of 23 parking spaces, or 2.55 spaces/unit. Density standards fora planned unit development in the RM-7 zone are 16.33 dw/ac with .25 off-street parking spaces/unit required. ,t ~ Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Two Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the residents of the Olive community have addressed the Planning Commission and City Council regarding their desire to protect the character of this area by maintaining present street widths and not having curbs, gutters, and sidewalks installed with development. City Counci 1 has directed Staff to work with the residents of the area to develop acceptable street standards. Staff feels that it would be appropriate to receive a bond for public im- provements at this time with no physical work to be performed until such area standards are adopted. It was pointed out that the general plan designates the area for medium density (6-15 dw/ac) residential development. Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be technically acceptable, but requested that a preliminary grading plan be sub- mitted because of the topography of the site. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 732 be accepted. Staff feels that this project is acceptable, particularly in light "" of the fact that a project of similar density was constructed im- mediately west of the subject site. Staff therefore recommends approval of the proposal for the reasons that the proposal is con- sistent with the City's adopted General Plan; and that the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. Approval is recommended with the 21 conditions listed in the Staff Report, together with the conditions set forth in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Mr. Soo-Hoo further pointed out that the density proposed, if this property is annexed into the City of Orange, is comparable to the density proposed for the County of Orange. He also explained that the Fire Department has requested an on-site fire hydrant on the property. Chairman Mickelson asked if the property which was approved immediately west of the subject property some weeks ago was approved in the same manner by the City Council. Mr. Soo-Hoo answered in the affirmative. Chairman Mickelson then asked if they also approved the condition to leave the streets unimproved. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that it was his understanding that the Public Works Department is now studying possible standards for the Olive area. In the meantime, bonds are being posted and the dedication i s being made with the i ntenti on .that i f th e street standards are modified all of this can be adjusted. A final decision has not yet been made, however. It is still under study at this time. He pointed out that this is essentially the only occasion the city would have to gain dedication for improvements. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Bud Quist, 2957 Catal pa, Newport Beach, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He showed a rendering of the plan for the proposed 9 units, explaining that these units wi 11 al 1 be two-bedroom, 1 2 bath units with two-car garages . There wi 11 be two parking spaces in front of each garage. He stated that they would not object to having a fire hydrant on the site. He pointed out that the units will be two-story and will be set up for young adults, as they are hoping to keep the cost within the affordable housing category. He spoke to the subject of the streets, explaining hat he had spoken with Mr. Nance and Linda Graves and they had dis- cussed how the Olive Heights area looks now and what the future will be i n that area. He is not objecting to curbs and gutters, but Orange has an opportunity at this time to preserve the character of a particular area. Therefore, he was suggesting a few modifications o a couple of the conditions. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Three Concerning Condition #9, he recommended that Ocean View be improved with rol 1 ed curb being placed 20 feet from the centerline and with no sidewalk in the parkway. That sewer facilities be installed to City of Orange standards , He explained that the office building on the opposite side of the street has rolled curbing and it is thought that this could be a way to gradually do without a curb further up the street. Mr, Quist also suggested that Condition #2 of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet read as follows: Dedi cate and construct Ocean View Avenue to mo~di fi ed City standards with a rolled curb 20 feet from the centerline and no .sidewalk in the parkway, He then went on to explain why he thought these conditions should be modified as suggested. He pointed out that there are two old buildings on this property which will be removed when they start to build. He also pointed out the beautiful trees which are in this area and which he intends to keep. Chairman Mickelson pointed out the property which has been improved next to this proposed project, stating that the Commission had left the condi ti ons more open than Mr. Quist had suggested, stati ng that the improvements be constructed subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works . Mr. Quist was i n agreement with the condi - ti on being worded i n thi s manner, He explained that he had viewed this project from an engineering standpoint and pointed out that the drainage further up the street turns a corner. Therefore, we are talking about a very minor amount of drainage coming across this property. Richard Wurth, 8571 Ocean View, Olive, addressed the Commission, wondering what the price of these uni is would be. Richard Aldrich, 8701 S. Palm, Olive, addressed the Commission, stating that the residents of that area are not here in opposition to this application. However, they are only concerned about standard bui 1 di ng codes being adopted wi thout keepi ng the rural atmosphere. They are primarily concerned with keeping the atmosphere which is now there. Linda Graves, 8582 Palm, Olive, addressed the Commission, stati ng that she would like to see the City Engineer consider Olive Heights as a whole. They would like to see someone who is qualified look at the hill as a whole. There are a lot of individual problems on Olive Hill and this needs to be looked at as an entire area. Commissioner Coontz asked if this was expressed to the City Council and Mrs. Graves replied that they have not been before the Council , However, the City Council has considered their petition and agreed to wait on those improvements. They have had no conversation with Staff, as they were waiting until after their next neighborhood meeting which was supposed to have been held this week. They would be happy to get together with members of the Staff. At this time Commissioner Master arrived at the Commission meeting. Gary Johnson then explained that the petition was considered and the .neighborhood concerns were reviewed. Council has asked that the Staff work to the end of establishing some standards in that area which would be compati bl e with the residents' desire, plus recognizing that i n the future the City may take over portions of the area as development such as this occurs. There are divergent types of development occurring and Council would like Staff to come up with answers to the problems Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Four there. He explained that a rolled curb gives a middle range as far as standards are concerned. They will be trying to work on proposals i n the comi ng months , but they cannot just turn off all development going on i n that area at this time. The al ternati ve should be 1 eft open instead of 1 ocki ng ourselves i n to any one type of standard. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr, Johnson if they had been in contact with any HUD representatives and Mr, Johnson replied that they had. The approach at this time i s that the County i s going to do a s tudy to see what development standards will be maintained in the County. The City of Orange would not be a party to any of these decisions. This creates problems for the City. This is why they have recommended .that a standard be worked up for that area, Hopefully, it will be compatible with the HCD study. Commissioner Coontz asked about any communication with that group. The answer was that there is no communi cation at this time, but they hope to have communication in the future, as they develop their standards. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that the question in regard to this application is whether there will be a modification to the regular standards now i n effect. He expl ai ned that this had been done i n the last action for the Olive Heights area. Mr. Johnson felt that this particular location is a little different than the one on Palm. He pointed out that Ocean View is one of the main entrances to the park and residents have voiced their concern over this fact. This means there wi 11 be people parki ng on that street in an overflow situation. There is a need to continue to accommodate the problems in this area. Sally Wurth, 8571 Ocean View Avenue, Olive, commented on the park, stating that the City put this park in and she is not happy about the residents having to accommodate the parki ng for the park when the Ci ty should have planned for this, If adequate parking had been provided there would be no problem at this time. Residents should not have to pay for poor planning. Fred Ramer, 3042 Sherry, Orange, addressed the Commission, stati ng that he owns property just to the north of the proposed project. He wondered how far the uni is would be from the property 1 i ne and what type of fencing is proposed, Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the closest unit would be 12 feet from the north property line. The project is conditioned for uniform fencing with the area. There is no requirement for a cement block wall. Mr. Ramer stated that he would like to see the Commission consider a block wall on the north property line. Mr. Quist again addressed the Commission, answering questions brought up by the residents, With regard to the price range of the units, he explained that they plan to keep the prices as low as possible. How- ever, right now they are looking at around $100,000. With regard to fencing, he pointed out that along the south property 1 i ne there i s an existing block wall fence. There is a proposed development going i n adjacent to this property di rectly to the west, but he has not tal ked to those developers as yet and does not know what type of fencing they would be proposing. However, they will certainly take that into consideration. They would want to put in something that is consistent with the overal 1 development i n the surrounding area . Commissioner Vasquez asked what kind of windows will look out over the residences to the north of the development, since these are to be two-story units. Mr. Quist answered that they are not planning to have much view to the north , The bedrooms are all facing the south and with the plans the way they are at this point, they will not be disturbing anyone's privacy to the north. He explained, showing on Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Five -the plans, what type of windows will be on the north side of the units. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 732. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES : Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 955. Commissioner Master asked if the City Council had given Staff directions for setting up standards for this area. He stated that he was sensitive to the residents' comments i n this regard and woul d like to set up a condition in this matter. Chairman Mickelson stated that he sees both the Commission and the Council as being sensitive to the desires of the Olive residents. He did not see the HUD people communi cati ng with the City Staff with regard to s etti ng up standards i n this area , Therefore, h e suggested th at a meeti ng be set up between the Staff and HUD, i n order to find out what is being planned, It was pointed out that there have been two different recommendations made by Council at different times. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vaszuez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1152 and Tentative Tract 11636, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report and the condi tions contained i n the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, with the addition of a condition providing for a deviation from the established curb and gutter standards to accommodate the present rural nature of that area, stating that the area be improved but not limited to sidewalks, curbs and gutters and sewer facilities to meet the City of Orange standards, with the posting of a bond acceptable at this time. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES : Commi ss i o Hers none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CP.RRIED Chairman Mickelson thought that Commissioner Coontz' suggestion of proposing that a meeti ng be set up with the Ci ty Manager to ask that the City of Orange move forward to get our Staff and the County Staff moving forward to the same needs be accepted. Commissioner Hart brought out an article which had been published in the Register, stating that Orange was acting like an octopus, taking in the Olive area. Commissioner Hart stated that he took exception to this statement, since he feels that the City's actions are only at the request of Olive residents . Chairman Mickelson felt that there has been some misunderstanding regarding some prior meetings of the residents at an earlier time. Commissioner Hart wanted it to be public knowledge that the request for a study has come from the residents in Olive Heights. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Six Chairman Mickelson stated that he would contact the City Manager and get some feedback in this matter. The Commissioners agreed that this should be done. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1153 - COUSIN CHARLIE'S RIBS-N-CHICKEN: Request to allow a restaurant in the M-1 zone on the north side of Katella Avenue, west of Glass ell Street. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application, stating that this is a request fora conditional use permit to allow a restaurant in the M-1 zone. The property contains 1.58 acres and is located on the north side of Katella Avenue, 235 feet west of Glass ell Street. It contains an industrial building which houses a number of commercial uses in the M-1 zone. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant proposes to operate the restaurant wi thi n a 1 ,932 square foot unit of a 24,003 square foot industrial building. Sixty off-street parking spaces were approved at the time the site was developed. Conditional Use Permit 746 was granted on December 15, 1975 which permitted retail use of 50% of the property based on provided parking. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that based upon Staff survey, al l uses on the site are retail with the exception of the computer programming school In addition, it appears that, though the carpet store appeals to re- tail traffic, it is primarily an industrial use. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the property is used primarily for retail purposes and that much more than 50% is used for this purpose. Other uses in the complex include stores which do business in picture frames, CB and auto stores, off-road equipment, stationery, tools, motorcycle accessories and clothing. Mr. Soo-Hoo also pointed out that scaling a very schematic diagram of the floor layout; Staff calculates that, wi th the propose-d` restaurant, the parking requirement for the complex would be approximately 92 spaces (60 spaces are presently provided) broken down as follows: Carpet store - 7 spaces Restaurant - 19 spaces Balance of complex - 66 spaces The Staff has reviewed the proposal and i ndi Gated that the parki ng lot appears to be heavily used and questioned the availability of spaces for this proposed use. Also discussed was the potential for illegal signing since the building is located away from the street. Staff foresees a number of potential problems with this proposal: 1 . I t exacerbates the violation of a condition of Conditional Use Permi t 746, which 1 imi is retai 1 use of the site to 50% by not only adding an additional non-industrial use to the site, but by proposing one which is a higher traffic generator (retail stores require parking at a ratio of 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area, while restaurants require 1 space per 100 sq. ft.) . 2. Hours of operation of the restaurant are simul taneous with that of the balance of the complex, therefore parking demand would not be off-setting. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Seven 3. Because of the present high rate of usage of parki ng facilities at this location, parking may occur on the street and in the driveway areas abutting the restaurant. I t i s noted that the street and driveways are closer than most parking stalls. 4. The Ci ty Traffic Engineer states that any attempt to "reserve" parki ng spaces for a specifi c use typi cally does not work . And, i n any case, i s unenforceabl e by the City. 5. Because of the need for exposure for this type of use and particularly because of its rather obscure location, Staff foresees problems relating to ilregal signing in an effort to gain i ncreased exposure to Katel l a Avenue. For .these reasons, Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit 1153. However, should the Planning Commission feel that the proposal warrants approval, approval should be granted subject to the three condi tions set forth i n the Staff Report. Commissioner Coontz wondered, other than policing the properties for i 11 egal signage, has the City done any thing about enforcing the original condition of 50 % industrial / 50 % ret~a~l usage? Mr. Soo-Hoo replied that this is very difficult to enforce and re- direct. He recalled that this was an experimental area. Commissioner Hart referred to the cover letter which came with the Staff Report which was not mentioned in the presentation. He asked for a briefing on the chain of circumstances in this regard. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the Staff has recently met wi th the applicant to explain its negati ve position and recommendation on this application. The applicant's response was that, since he re- cei ved permi is from the Bui 1 di ng & Safety Division for interior modifications (walls, electrical, etc.) to the unit, he had completed he improvements necessary to convert the unit i nto a restaurant. Because of this, he felt that the City is obligated to approve the conditional use permit. In reviewing the matter with the Building & Safety Division it was determined that, because the permit request was for interior work only, it was treated as a very routine plan check and the nature of the use was never questioned. However, it was learned that the building plans were approved on September 1, 1981 and on September 2, 1981 the applicant submitted his application package for this condi - ti oval use permit (to allow the restaurant) with the knowl edge that the public hearing was scheduled for October 5. Staff feels that it is cl ear that any improvements to the bui 1 di ng were made at the sol e risk of the applicant, since i t was obvious that a determi na ti on was not forthcoming on the acceptability of the restaurant until October 5. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the applicant also has stated that it was his impression that the conditional use permit was only for the serving of alcoholic beverages; however, the Assistant Planner who accepted the application distinctly recalls that the applicant was told that the application was for a restaurant and that the applicant acknowledged this and further asked if a separate conditional use permi t-was needed i f alcohol is beverages were to be sold. ~ Mr. Soo-Hoo stated, in summary, that the Staff does not believe that the applicant has been misinformed or misled in this. case to cause him to believe that the restaurant use had been approved. 'Obviously the building permits had been issued to permit interior modifications Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Ei gh t to the unit; however, Staff is satisfied that, at the same time, the conditional use permit requirement was explained also. The possibility exists that the applicant misunderstood the explanation, but the Staff cannto support the contention that this or the fact that substantial improvements have been made, obligates the Planning Commission to approve this application. Commissioner Hart wondered i f the plan check was compl eted one day and the application was filed the next day, would any work be done i n that time? The reply was i n the negative. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that malice aforethought could not be proved i n a matter such as this . Commissioner Master felt that one of the missing el ements would be the original applicant, who first came forward and asked for per- mission to use 50% of this area for retail use. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that these buildings have been there since 1976 and Staff has done nothing to enforce the decisions of the Commission made at that time. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Marcus Merchasin, 6301 Ownesmouth Avenue, Suite 1000, Woodland Hills, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission i n favor of this application. He stated that the applicant was led to believe that his procedure was a reasonable one. He has spent $100,000 on the project and now sees bankruptv~~ coming up. Mr. Merchasin gave copies of photographs of the location to the Commissioners. Commissioner Master asked if Mr. Merchasin would comment on the applicant's understanding with the owner of the property. Mr. Merchasin explained that further on in his presentation, he and/or the applicant would comment i n this direction. Commissioner Master explained that the owner of the property has no authority to make building decisions. The applicant had to come to the Staff and the Commission for permission to build his project. Mr. Merchasin proceeded to hand out to the Commission a list of the tenants, plus their parking spaces in the buildings in question. He also gave the Commi ssi oners a map of the 1 ocati on, together wi th a copy of plans which have the seal of approval of the Building Department of Orange. He also gave out a copy of the plans approved by the Orange County Health Department. He then went on to explain that when Mr. Woodward originally approached the Ci ty of Ornage to find out i f he could open a restaurant in this area he was told that he would have to go to the Heal th Department, etc . to seek approva 1 . H e pointed out that i n the two buil di ngs i n questi on, instead of i ndustrial there are mostly commercial uses here. This appears to be a strip type of mall rather than an industrial area. Mr. Merchasin then explai ned that Mr. Woodward went to the County of Orange to the Health Department and his project was approved. He thereupon went to the City of Orange for approval and obtained same. He was left with the impression that if he had to make application to the Commission it was already approved by Staff. Later the assertion that he was acti ng unreasonably, that he should have known that those who had approved of his plans had no authority would probably be stretching a point. Mr. Merchasin pointed out that Mr. Woodward is a lay person, he is not an attorney and not a man ex- peri enced i n b ui 1 di ng this type of thing . H e went to the appropriate authorities to receive the appropriate permission and received what he thought to be the proper guidance. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Nine Mr. Merchasin felt that the two reasons presented by the Staff regarding parking and signage problems are problems which can be overcome. He pointed out photographs which had been taken on Saturday afternoon, showing parking areas and the kind of traffic in that area. He explained that people come in and out of this type of restaurant during lunch and dinner peaks and then taper off in the evening. The restaurant would be open from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. This would avoid any problems with personnel from other stores when they come to work in the morning. In the evening, around the dinner hour, other stores would be closed. This shows that parking would not be as critical as suggested by the Staff. He pointed out that of the parking spaces at that location, counting both buildings, instead of the 130 spaces originally referred to there are 152. This is 6.9 spaces per business. Mr. Merchasin also pointed out what had not been commented upon earlier, that there are 14 spaces for owners and em- ployees to park their vehicles in the rear of the buildings. This would greatly assist the building in getting to the proper parking spaces. Since each of these businesses has been given a business 1 i cense at some point i n time, the City Staff must be aware of these businesses i n the area . Mr. Merchasin explained that there is only one other business that relates to food and that is a donut shop. He assumed that this type of establishment does not serve lunch or dinner. Therefore, a restaurant in this area would be good for generating bank and other businesses in the nearby area. Since they could walk to the restaurant this would mitigate the parking problem also. He pointed out that the building is just a bit too large for a chicken store. Bost franchises tailor the building to the use. Since this is a single owner situation and since the area is too large, the applicant does not need as large a parking space since some of this space is wasted. Unlike other franchise locations, this i s i n an industrial area and there wil 1 be much walk-in trade. He also pointed out that on Saturday the bank parking 1 of i s not used and they are currently discussing with th e bank manager the possibil ity of using the bank parki ng lot on the weekends. The walk-in type of situation would be a benefit to the community. There is also ample room next to the building for six additional parking spaces next to the chicken stand. Commissioner Coontz asked why the photographs had been given to the Commission. She pointed out that these photographs had been taken on Saturday when the area is empty. However, during the week there is an overflow here which spills over onto Glassell, which presents a dangerous situation. She didn't feel that these photographs were indicative of what the normal traffic pattern is during the week. Commissioner Hart pointed out that the chart shows that 40% of the businesses are closed on Saturday. Therefore, this is not indicative of the regular pattern of parking. He also pointed out that the applicant had his permits signed off on September 1st and came back to the City for a conditional use permit on September 2nd. Therefore, he could not have made these improvements i n one day. Mr. Merchasin commented that these improvements had been worked on right along. These improvements had been inspected and approved as time has gone on. Mr. Woodward had been informed that if he would apply that since everything else had been approved, the assumption was there that the CUP would be approved also. He didn't realize how serious the CUP was or that there was a possibility that he would not get it. When he saw the commercial use to which these buildings have been put, he assumed that his use was not out of con- text wi th what he saw. He was given the impression that the variance was merely a formality. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Ten Commissioner Vasquez asked how many people would be accommodated inside of this restaurant. Mr. Merchasin replied that it would accommodate a maximum of 35. Commissioner Master commented that 50% of the facility was for other than industrial and pointed out that the Commission is not anti- business. However, various applicants have come into some of the facilities which were originally shown for light industrial applica- tions. Staff has gone on record as being against too much commercial in these industrial areas because of the parking problem. This property was originally approved based on the fact that no more than 50% would be commercial. He commended Staff for bringing these problems to the attention of the Commission. He stated that he is in empathy with business, but there are some constraints which must be placed in these areas. Chairman Mickelson questioned seating 35 people in this restaurant. He wondered if there were provisions for takeout orders. The answer was that the primary function of the reataurant is to be a takeout restaurant. The primary goal is not for sit down eati ng, but for take out. Commissioner Hart asked if the tenants were notified about this public hearing. He was told that the tenants were not notified of the public hearing, since they were not owners of the building. Win Austin, one of the owners of the buildings in question, addressed the Commission, stati ng that his son wi 11 be building this restaurant. The tenants have been told about this and are delighted because they wi 11 be able to wal k over to eat. Commissioner Coontz recognized that this problem is accumulative. However, we are criticizing th i s application. She wished to approve the application with a condition to flag this so that from now on, as businesses leave, all new uses must fall into the industrial category. She pointed out that in a sense we are penalizing this applicant for a number of mistakes made earlier. Commissioner Hart pointed out that Staff felt that the applicant had more knowledge of the ramifications than he says he had. He felt that there area number of misunderstandings here. Inasmuch as the 50% rule was not enforced, he did not see how i t could be enforced now . Commissioner Master was concerned as to how this could be implemented. There was discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Com- missioner Master wondered how this would be monitored. It was suggested that the Business License Department could monitor this. A license could be refused when they go over 50% commercial. Chairman Mickelson asked Staff if 50% commercial was a specific con- dition for both buildings. Staff replied affirmatively. Commissioner Master asked Mr. Minshew whether Staff has this authority and Mr. h1i nshew replied that the Planning Commission has this authori ty and coul d delegate authority to Staff. Commissioner Master asked for Mr. Murphy's comments in this regard. Mr. Murphy answered that Staff will do what they can to monitor this, although it is very difficult to do this through the Business License Division. However, they will try to adhere to these conditions as best they can. Mr. Minshew pointed out that the property owner has a duty to police these buildings as to the 50% commercial occupancy. This was originally a condi tion in the conditional use permit. It is the Staff's duty to point out to the owner that he is not living up to the conditions. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Eleven Chairman Mickelson asked how long P1r. Austin had owned this property and was told since 1975. However, Mr. Austin stated that h e was unaware of the 50% commercial since they had purchased from Dunn Properties. Mr. Vasquez commented that he i s di sturbed with regard to the parking situation, that there would be a dependency on a neighboring parking lot or parking alongside of the building. He thought that this type of thinking should be discouraged. Mr. Austin explained that they do not plan to depend upon this type of parking. The bank manager has told him that he has observed on several occasions where people have parked in their parking lot and gone over to the bank. Commissioner Hart thought that perhaps conditions could be placed as deed restrictions on the property so that future owners will know what the restric tions are on a particular piece of property. ~. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1153, subject to the conditions as set forth i n the Staff Report, plus the third condition as suggested by Staff that the plans be approved by the Crime Prevention co- ordi nator of the Police Department as being i n conformance with the bui 1 di ng security ordinance (7-79) ; and the addition of Condition #4 that the Planning Staff and the Licensing Division work together on flagging these properties so that the original conditions of 50% industrial/50% commercial combination will at some later date be achieved through attrition. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11486 - LINDQUIST: Applicant addressed the Commission, stating that his attorney had not yet arrived and he would therefore appreciate this item being placed at the end of the agenda. Lillian Breckenfeld, 2344 Mills Drive, Orange, addressed the Com- mission, in opposition to this delay, stating that she felt that i t is only fai r to the homeowners that thi s should proceed. Chairman Mickelson asked how many in the audience were here for this item. Several hands were raised. John Goul d, 1024 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission, speaking to Item #4 on the agenda, and stating that there were many elderly people and persons who must work in the morning who were attending this meeting with regard to Item #4, and they would like to see the meeting expedited. Commissioner Coontz stated that it is not the policy of the Commission to hear an item when the applicant is not present. The Commission decided to continue Item #3 to the end of the agenda. ZONE CHANGE 956, VARIANCE 1660, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1154, TENTATIVE TRACT 11646 - ORANGE CITY GROUP: Request to change zoning from RD-6 to RM-7 and consideration of a 17-unit Planned Unit Development with tandem parking on the south side of Almond Street, east of Maplewood Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 734 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twelve Jere Murphy presented thi s application to the Commission, stati ng that the applicant requests rezoning from the RD-6 zone to RM-7 .zone; a variance to permit use of tandem parking to serve as re- quired spaces; and a conditional use permit and tentative tract to permit creation of 17 condominium units. The property contains 1.06 acres of land and is located on the south side of Almond Street, 159 feet east of Maplewood. The property formerly contai ned a si ngl e family residence but is now vacant. It is zoned RD-6. The density proposed is 16.04 dw/ac. with off-street parking of 17 enclosed spaces, 17 tandem spaces and 6 open, for a total of 40 parking spaces (assuming that the Planning Commission accepts tandem spaces). This would break down to 2.35 spaces/unit and a coverage on the property of 60%. The development standards fora planned unit development in the RM-7 zone are 16.33 dw/ac. with 38 (2.25/unit) off-street parking spaces, with no tandem spaces permitted. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant proposes two-story units with one garage space attached to it, as well as an open space tandem to it. Units are arranged linearly along the west and east property 1 i ne with a driveway dividing th em, extending from Almond Avenue through to Washington Avenue. The area is designated low density (2-6 dw/ac . ) residential a nd medium density (6-15 dw/ac . ) residential on the General Plan. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and listed a number of reservations regarding it. Concerns include: a. The area as a whole is exclusively zoned R-1-6 and RD-6 with much of the latter also limited to single story development by the "A" suffix zoning. It was felt, therefore, that the appl i- cant's request for RM-7 zoning constitutes a spot zone which is not justifiable. b , The applicant's request to allow 2-s tory development i s not com- patible with surrounding residential development which is exclusively single story . c. Tandem parking as proposed would establish a precedent which could lead to future projects in the City proposing similar designs. In this case, residents not using garages (reserving them for storage for example) could create a parking overflow which could lead to street parking congestion on Almond Avenue and Washington Avenue. In addition, parking in the driveway could occur due to the anticipated scarcity, which could lead to circulation problems on-site. d. Other comments included the poor distribution of guest parking, the preference for having the north ern driveway 1 i ne up with Water Street, the lack of required trash enclosures, and the need for two-way circulation on the southerly driveway. It is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 734 be accepted. Staff feels that the existing zoning of RD-6 is proper for this site since surroundi ng zoning is excl usively R-1-6 and RD-6 and si ngl e story. It is not felt that a 2-story development built to maximum RM-7 density standards is compatible. In addition, Staff does not view tandem parking as an adequate al ternati ve to the parking requi rement. It i s anticipated that, rather than to endure the inconvenience of such a parking arrangement and/or to use the garage for storage purposes, future residents will elect to use the streets for parking, thereby congesti ng a relatively Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Thirteen low density residential neighborhood with parking from this project. Further, the applicant has not provided any justification in the form of special circumstances or hardships which apply to this property which may be used to grant this variation from the code when other developers of similarly zoned properties must adhere to i t. Mr. Murphy explained that though it is not specifically stated, it is apparent that the applicant feels that their proposal to provide housing i n this era of shortages of moderately priced housing justifies thi s proposal . However, Staff feels strongly that i t would be counter- productive to allow such a project at the expense of an existing low density area where the zoning is solely R-1-6 and RD-6. Staff strongly recommends denial of this project for four reasons: 1 . That the proposed zoni ng consti tutes a "spot zone". 2. That the proposal is not compatible with surrounding land use or zoning. 3. That the applicant has not demonstrated that special circumstances apply in this case which would justify a variance. 4. That approval of this project could result in parking congestion on Almond and Washington Avenue. Chairman Mickelson asked for the General Plan designation in this area and was told i t was 1 ow to medi um density . When Chairman Mickelson asked how this would be applied, Mr. Murphy replied that the General Plan would probably accommodate the density as it is proposed, and that is therefore not the question in this case. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Ron Davis, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that they have studied the area very carefully and do not understand the opposition to this project. Even though the area is zoned R-Residential, there are other uses in that area. Much of the parki ng problem is created by the people who work i n the area, not by the people who live there. He explained that the con- figuration of the lot is such that they feel it will accommodate a 17-unit development. Density does not seem to be the real issue, if he understands the Staff Report correctly. The opposition appears to be the placing of the units on the 1 ot, the aspect of spot zoning, and the incompatible use to surrounding areas. Mr. Davis pointed out that this is a rental area, so he does not see why this project would be incompatible. He also pointed out that there i s a scarci ty of land in this area and they feel if this project is approved they can offer a home that people in this area can afford. He spoke to the concern about surroundi ng one-story residences. He thought that they can attend to this by a privacy wall and good landscaping. Mr. Davis stated that they would like clarification on the General Plan and would like a zone change fora 17-unit project. Without 17 units the project is not profitable for them to do. Commissioner Hart pointed out that the cost of land is an economical issue and the Commission is not deciding this on the basis of ,~ economi cs . Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Fourteen Jack Nanigian, 1039 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he was speaking on behal f of many people i n the audience who are adamantly opposed to this proposal. He spoke to several areas in which they are opposed. 1 . The high density nature of this development, neighboring residents feel, would create an overcrowding in that area. It was originally designed for lower density. Some of the problems resulting from this high density would create friction in life styles. 2. Traffic flow - the proposal i ndicates that the alley or access to garages is one-way, entering from Almond on the north, pro- ceeding south to a right hand turn onto Washington. This would apparently require purchase of some property from the church because this would require an easement. This would be a one-way arrangement and would put an increase of traffic onto Washing to n, creati ng problems for the residents i n that area. 3. Increase i n traffi c flow would present greater danger to elderly people living in the area and school children going to school • in the area. Mr. Nanigian pointed out that he has been a resident there for nine years and night time parking is the problem, not the day time parking. He stated that he had circulated a petition and had obtained 58 signatures. This petition was submitted to the Commission. This petition is in opposition to the proposed project. He pointed out that there are no two-story buildings anywhere in the immediate area. He saw this as a large problem. This is a peaceful neighborhood, with quite a few elderly people living here. He did not see these units as adding to the peaceful atmosphere. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that the assumption that this would be a one-way drive is incorrect. There is room for this to be a two-way street. With regard to the possibility of purchasing property from the church, Chairman Mickelson saw this property as having room enough to have 16 foot access on a private property for easement, without the purchase of property elsewhere. Rev. Charles Smith, Pastor of the Orange Church of the Nazarene, the church which abuts the property in question, addressed the Commission, explaining that the church is not necessarily against this project, but th ey are concerned about some of the i ssues . He pointed out that the middle line of the street is not the property line. It was his understanding that there is a city easement along the property line. Therefore, he would like clarification on this item. He stated that it is also his understanding that there will be only five guest parking spaces. Their church has a pre-school which is in session every day and he was concerned as to how high the wall would be and if there is parking at the end near the church he could foresee problems. They would like clarification on these issues. Chairman Mickelson explained that the plan shows a 10-foot storm drain easement along the north boundary line, with a six-foot block wall along the south, east and west boundari es. Flo Kinder, 1342 E. Hickory Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She stated that she and her husband own a duplex at the corner of Maplewood and Washington. They are not residents there, but they are owners who take an interest i n their property. Therefore, they are concerned about the noise factor with this project. There is no room for an easement between this ~, property and the church property. She pointed out that the duplexes Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Fifteen have reciprocal agreements in their driveways. Therefore, people do use the street to park. She was a parking problem here. She pointed out that construction of any buildings next to their property will have to allow for a five foot easement for Southern California Edison Company, since they are carrying the burden right now of the whol e 10 foot easement required. There are irrigation pipes presently located all along the westerly boundary. She handed a copy of a letter to the Commission, written from her and her husband. John Gould, 1024 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stati ng that no one can deny that there is a parking problem. During the evening there is little area for parking and during the day the people working in that area take up most of the parking spaces. W.P. Rogers, 234 S. Maplewood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, and asked for clarification of Negative Declaration 732. Ch airman Mickel son explained what a Negati ve Decl aration i s and what issues it speaks to. Mr. Rogers wondered if noise is included in an environmental study and was told that it was. He explained that he felt that noise will be a problem. The area is too small for such a small, tight project. There will be a garage for each apartment, but this will probably be used for storage and the people will park around the neighborhood. He pointed out that it was described that the project would open out onto Washington. However, Maplewood wasn't mentioned. He explained that traffic will swing out onto Maplewood and create more traffic there. He thought that tandem parking was a new thing and should not be allowed. Mr. Rogers asked if there will be a wall separating this project from other areas. He was told that there will be a wall . He thought that this will be in conflict with the General Plan. Ernestine Ransome, a property owner on Maplewood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, wondering if this is setting a precedent. She wondered if it is along range plan to relocate the Fire Department and will that property some day be open for development. Chairman Mickelson explained that this is a county facility and he did not know of any plans to relocate it. Gary Johnson reaffirmed this statement. It is open to conjecture as to what will happen to the corporation yard, which is located there. Commissioner h1aster stated that he had recently read in the newspaper that this property was not being used to its highest and best use and it would be put up fora better use of the property. Commissioner Vasquez stated that the county is currently undertaking a long term study regarding the County Fire Department and its location. Dick Kinder, 1342 E. Hickory Lane, Orange, co-owner of the property at Washington and Maplewood, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project. He pointed out that the property has several fruit trees which were cut down sometime ago. For a long time they called regarding the brush and debris from these trees which was up against the fence. Some of this has finally been removed, but there is still quite a bit of debris, which is a fire hazard. ti Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Sixteen Mr. Ninigian asked if there was a large water aqua duct under this property and, if so, is it feasible to place buildings on property such as this and have it be safe. Mr. Johnson replied that the water line which was there has been utilized as a storm drain immediately adjacent to the west boundary. There wi 11 be no structure bui 1 t over that easement. Mr. Gould asked if the exit will pass over the easement for the storm drain. Mr. Johnson explained that they will have to put a reinforced slab over that storm drain. This has been done in other areas . Ms. Ransome asked if these buildings will be purchased or rented. Chairman Mickelson replied that it is his understanding that they will be for sale. Mr. Lansing, 1102 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He pointed out that where the access is there is a 12 foot opening. However, he could not find out who owned the property. There is about three or four feet where they will have to come across someone else's property. This eliminates 3 or 4 par king spaces i n that area . Mr. Davis again addressed the Commission in rebuttal. He answered the statement that there are no two-story buildings within a five block radius. by stating that he has driven around the area and there are two-story dwellings in the immediate area. He explained that they are aware of the easements and they know about the parking problems that could be potentially created. This can be restricted in their CC&R's. They can even state no parking on Almond or Washington. He pointed out that they wish to improve this piece of property and increase the tax base of the city. The General Plan states that thi s many units can be placed on thi s property. Re the tandem parking issue - there is nothing in the city ordinance that says this is illegal. He explained that the storm drain problem will be dealt with. Mr. Davis pointed out that they are talking about 34 cars in this project. They will not be of significant impact in that area. 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 accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 734. Commissioner Coontz questioned the no answer with regard to traffic impact in the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Hart pointed out that there was no indication on the plan that Washington will be used. Chairman Mickelson felt that the problem is that it is difficult to traverse in the area when this project is built. It should not have access to Washington unless it is emergency only. Almond is enough to handle this property. He could only support the Negative Declaration if there is a finding that there be only access on Washington of a limited nature. Commissioner Hart and Commissioner Master accepted this modification to the motion. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Seventeen There being some troubl e with the audience not being able to hear the Commissioners at all times, Commissioner Coontz asked that Staff look into the PA system to see if there was a problem. Commissioner Coontz asked for the history of the "A" designation and was told that it is a result of the old downtown suffix. The area was built under the RD-6 district. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend denial of Zone Change 956, for the reason that the pro- posal is not compatible with surrounding land use or zoning and that the "A" suffix which is prevalent in the surrounding area is of historical significance and was not placed on the property back to the Staff, but came with the original zone. Commissioner Master stated that he was in support of the motion but would like more clarification with regard to other two-story buildings in the area. Mr. Murphy explained that those areas referred to by the applicant were not zoned through the "A" suffix. They are located i n the Palmyra area outside of thi s zoning that surrounds thi s property. He pointed out that there are places where the "A" suffix is not prevalent. Chairman Mickelson felt that there is a logical reason why the "A" suffix stops at Water Street. This property is zoned RD-6, but not RD-6A, Commissioner Hart pointed out that we are not discussing two-story issues on the zone change. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none P~10TION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend denial of Variance 1660 for the reason that no findings were made to substantiate tandem parking. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED ~. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend denial of Condi ti onal Use Permit 1154 and Tentati ve Tract 11646, for the reason that the design of the project is not compatibl e to the area or to the site. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Plaster, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11486 - LINDOUIST Request for reconsideration of modifications to a previously approved mobile home subdivision located east of the Orange Freeway and south of Almond Avenue. (Note: Revisions to Environ- mental Impact Report 662 have been submitted and should be considered.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 4,109 acres of land located adjacent to the east side of the Orange Freeway, south of Almond Avenue. It is presently vacant and zoned R-1-6, RM-7 and C-1, The applicant pro- poses to develop a senior citizens ownershi p mobile home park with 32 individually owned lots, with a density of 7.79 units/acre and guest parking of 11 spaces. All interior streets are to be private. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 19 81 Page Eighteen Mr. Murphy explained that Tentative Tract 11486 was originally approved in June of 1981 for 33 mobile home lots. At the time, however, primary access was proposed to Flower Street via an access easement across the southerly portion of the Orange County Medical Association property. Almond Avenue was proposed to provide emergency access only, When the matter was heard by the City Council , a 1 egal question arose regarding the availability of the easement for the entire project. Approval was granted, subject to legal verification of the easement. He pointed out that previous consi deration i ncl uded a General Plan Amendment (to medium density residential), zone change (to M-HO) , Condi tional Use Permit (to allow 1 ots without frontage on a public street), and a variance (to allow a mobile home park on a site containing 1 ess than 10 acres, for drives of 1 ess than 33 feet, and to allow waiver of requirements fora recreation area, R.V. parking, and a laundry facility), as well as the tentative tract. Mr. Murphy explained that major changes proposed at this time include: a. The movement of primary access to Almond Avenue. b. The reduction of lots from 33 to 32. c. Provision of R.U, parking d. Provision of a recreation area and building. e. Provision of a laundry facility. f. The use of the access easement to Flower Street for emergency use only. Gating would be i nstal 1 ed to accomplish this. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and feel s that the modification to the access points is not desirable and poses a burden on the residents of Almond Avenue. Specifically, Almond Avenue presently serves 15 single family residences. Though it is joined to Mills Drive (to the north) by an alley, it is apparent that this alley is seldom used. Almond Avenue, therefore, functions similarly to a cul-de-sac street. Primary access to this street could constitute an intrusion into an established area which Staff feels should be discouraged. A concern was also expressed regarding the adequacy of the accessway onto the site from Almond Avenue and the applicant was requested to prepare a detail drawing. The Environmental Impact Report for this project was previously certified. However, because of the circulation change brought about by the modification of access points, the traffic and circulation section was rewritten. He pointed out that the studies by the Traffic Engineer, as well as an independent traffic engineer hired by the City indicated that Almond Avenue could sustain the additional number of vehicles . However, Staff feels that this would be the i ntro- duction of foreign traffic into what is basically a cul-de-sac street and, therefore, is inappropriate. Staff has two major concerns regarding this proposal: 1. Moving primary access to Almond Avenue could have an adverse effect on that street. 2. No verification has been received to demonstrate that the proposed emergency access easement is indeed available for such a purpose. The alternative of having a single access is unacceptable from an emergency services standpoint. The latter concern can probably ditioning of approval. However, proposal and must be accepted i feels that the applicant should primary access to Flower Street acceptable location, rather tha be adequately addressed with con- the other is inherent with this f thi s al ternative is chosen. Staff be encouraged to pursue acquisition of as previously approved, or at another n to accept the present proposal. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Nineteen Should the Planning Commission feel that the request is acceptable, the conditions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet are recommended with approval. Commissioner Hart asked how i t was planned to gain access to Flower Street as an emergency access if they cannot do it as a direct access. Mr. Murphy explained that the City Council had asked this question about primary access and added that condi ti on. It is uncl ear and possibly can only be decided by the courts. The Planning Commission has the prerogative to ask for clarification. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Donald Greek, 7767 Diane Drive, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that his original proposal was for primary access on Almond and secondary access on Flower. Staff asked for a change to primary access on Flower. However, they do have an easement for access to Flower. The current situation is that Orange County Medical Association has created a cloud . They do not deny existence of an easement. They question how much they can use it. As an emergency access, they are of the opinion that they can use it as such until they get a court case. If they get a zone change they can create a court case. The issue cannot be settled until this case goes to court. If they do not have an approved project, they cannot go to court. Mr. Greek pointed out that the width of the easement is approximately 30 feet. The easement does exceed and they have the right to use i t, but they cannot overburden it. Then the question is what is over- burdeni ng? The court will have to decide how much is overburdeni ng. It was brought out that the City Council approved this project with the condi tion that they have proof that they can use the easement. He explained that any title company will back them up on this. So it must be resolved by the courts. In order to proceed with the project, they are asking for a change in the Tentative Tract Map. When they start construction the Orange County Medical Association might start some court action, at which time it will be resolved. Commissioner Hart felt that the Commission is being put i n a posi tion to approve something they have no right to do. Chai rman Mickel son felt that the case should be considered on its merits from a land use standpoint only. The problem could be ad- judicated in the courts and not here. Mr. Greek stated that his traffic engineer was here tonight and would answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Coontz stated that she could not tell from the report how many units are moved in and out of the project onto Almond Avenue and how often. Commissioner Vasquez questioned with regard to Almond what purpose there is for the street slanting to the middle, which he thought would cause it to flood during a rain, causing people to use the outer edges of the street. Mr. Johnson explained that this street was built around the time of World War I I to the standards of that time, with the drai n down the center. The City has not felt a need to reconstruct the street. He was not aware of any problems created by the street as i t is . Commissioner Vasquez thought that moving mobile homes into the park would probably be best using Mills Street. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty Mr. Greek stated that Almond Street, when it was originally built, had 15 or 20 more homes on it. It handled more traffic then than it will have if this project is built. Woody Johnson, a resident of Orange, and a realtor involved in the sale of this property, addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner, Mr. Armstrong. He does not consider Almond as a cul-de-sac because there is a connecting link between it and Mills Street. H e sees this as a connecting street. If the easement being discussed were a two-way street, then the connecting link between Almond and Mi 11 s would be also a two-way street and be suitable for bringing i n the mobile homes to the park. He felt that either of these streets would be capable of diverting traffic from either one and minimizing the traffic in the area. He referred to the 30 foot easement which had been discussed, stating that the Orange County Medical Association would be prohibited from building on this since it is an easement. He questioned whether it would not be paved, inasmuch as there will be a chaff n across that particular 30 feet prohibi ti ng traffi c from going in and out. The Fire Department would have a key to the chain placed across this area. It was explained to Mr. Johnson that this would have to be an all-weather road and must be paved for fire trucks to go across. John Gilway, representing the Orange County Medical Association, 300 S. Flower, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He spoke in response to the petition fora revision of Tentative Tract 11486 and Environmental Impact Report 662, explaining that the OCMA wished to reiterate a position of opposition. Their major objection as presented at the May 12, 1981 Council hearing on this subject were inadequacy of EIR 662 and easement restrictions on the proposed primary access road, off Flower Street. In addition, OCMA recognizes and supports the Staff's initial environ- mental study of December 10, 1980, concluding that the project might result in substantial air emissions or exposure of persons to locally elevated levels of air pollution. As regards noise, again OCMA supports the Staff's i ni tial findings that the project might result in an increase in existing noise levels and exposure of people to same. It remains questi onabl e that the City can be assured that al l noise attenuation standards will be enforced and more importantly, that age restrictions on sales to the elderly be enforced. Further, as regards traffic, Staff's initial study identified potential increases in traffic volume and related hazards. OCMA again supports this as a significant concern, and notably so as regards the safety and welfare of the proposed residents. OCMA has emphasized the 1 imi tation of the existing proposed access road and has , by necessity, pursued formal cl ari fi cati on of this position. To our knowledge, no title report has been produced that demonstrates that an easement exists to the benefit of parcels 5, 8 or the property to the south . We note this i n 1 i ght of the fact that the Council of June 16, 1981 concluded that insurance for the entire property, showing entire easement must be obtained, or the action will become null and void. In light of the aforementioned and in view of the other noted ob- jections, coupled with the present negative recommendation from the Council's Planning Department, OCMA finds no value or reason for ~,, further consideration of this matter. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-One Commissioner Master commented that he would hope that this is not the only property for which they would make a comment regarding environmental impact. In response to a question from Commissioner Coontz, Mr. Gilway ex- plained that the proponent of this project has been describing the burdening of the easement by numerical traffic going back and forth on the easement. In reality, that easement does not service the other parcels that would make up the project. He then pointed this out on the map. Mr. Gilway pointed out that the condition from the Council is that they were abl e to provide ti tl e insurance showing easement to the entire property. They have-not been able to do this. Commissioner Hart felt it was unclear about the limited access of this easement. However, OCMA is saying that only one parcel of four can use the easement. ~ Chairman Mickelson asked that, assuming that a determination were made by the City that some land use could be put on this entire parcel , without the benefit of the easement across OCMA's property, would OCMA still object to the use? Mr. Gilway replied that two accesses were required for this particular use. They probably would be opposed to devel opment i n that area. Chairman Mickelson stated that he was asking this question because he would like to know what use OCMA sees for this piece of property. Several uses have come before this Commission and have been opposed by the people in the area. There doesn't seem to be any use which is acceptable. Joe Troya, 2402 W. Mills, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposi- tion to this application, stating that he felt that the residents in this area are caught in the middle between OCMA and the developers of the project. It is almost impossible to make a turn from ~1ills Drive to Almond right now. H e saw more problems in this area when this project is developed. He wanted to know whether this is a cul-de-sac if it is linked to Mills Drive. Chairman Mickelson explained that the report states that it acts like a cul-de-sac even though it is linked to Mills Drive. Mr. Troya wanted to know what the minimum width is fora two-way street. Mr. Johnson explained that the minimum alley, if you consider this an alley is 20 feet. If it is to be considered a two-way travel way it must be 24 feet. He pointed out that this street was 30 feet wide where it connects between Mills and Almond. Mr. Troya wanted to know if this could be closed off. Mr. Johnson explained that the State's approach to that was that instead of putting a large cul-de-sac on both ends of those streets, they would connect them the way they were connected. Mr. Troya pointed out that he has 1 ived i n that area for 12 years and at one time there was a longer street, which he remembers. It was just closed off and at this time there is a parking problem. He felt that the City should go out and look at this. Lillian Breckenfeld, 2344 Mills Drive, Orange, addressed the Com- mission in opposition to this application, stating that the houses i n that area were bui 1 t in 1953. She has 1 ived there since 1954 . She pointed out that the street connecting Almond is not 30 feet wide. The realtor was allowed to claim hardship to build three-bedroom houses. When people park tfi.nee cars in that area there is no room for even two cars to pass in that alleyway. She stated that she is not opposed to a mobile home park for seniors, but she is opposing the impact on their residential streets. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Two Benjamin L. Harper, past president of Orange County Medical Association, addressed the Commission, stating that there is a council which decides issues for the OCMA and there have been only a half dozen projects brought to them for this piece of property. He wondered if it is feasible to come in for a second recommendation after there is already a recommendation on the property. Chairman Mickelson explained that this is proper procedure. Mr. Greek again addressed the Commission, explaining that OCMA does not oppose this plan. They are opposed to access to Flower. This plan asks for access to Almond. Mr. Johnson asked about whether the remarks made by the OCMA representative refer to Plot #5. Mr. Minshew replied that if you are going to use thi s for any purpose, there would be the same re- quirement as for the other application that they have access to the easement. You would have to prove that you have the use for all of the property, because the City has no more power than anybody else has when it comes to going across people's land. The way he under- stands it, the problem for the primary access, you will have for the emergency access on the same basis. Duncan Clark, resident of Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he had supported this mobile home park when it came up in May. He is not i nterested i n thi s other than developing homes for peopl e in the City of Orange who need this. He personally feels that the citizens of Orange need a mobile home park of this type. It seems a shame that we cannot get some satisfaction out of this by making both routes available. He suggested that the Commission pass this on both streets and let the court make the final decision and settle the issue. Commissioner Master explained that the conditions of easement are clouded, which the City has nothing to do with. The Commission is also looking at the matter of public safety. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that a petition has been filed in support of an own-your-own mobi 1 e home park, and also one i n opposition to the project has been filed. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to a revision for this Tentative Tract application. It was concluded that options are to re-state previous approval or accept the modifications presented tonight. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the supplementary information to the Environmental Impact Report as being adequate to the decision of the Commission. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to recommend that the accesses in this project be reversed, making Almond Avenue the primary access and Flower the secondary access, for the reasons that the additional traffic on this street would be insignificant and the Commission would like to see both accesses open and free. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Three Mr. Minshew commented that it should be easier to obtain the emergency access with this modification. He pointed out that neither version will do the development any good until the court makes some kind of decision in the matter. Commissioner Flower is the in futility. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioner ABSENT: Commissioners Vasquez commented that the emergency access off of better of the two. However, this might be an exercise Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez Master none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: REQUEST FROM VILLA FORD TO ADDRESS PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING VARIANCE 1554: Property located on the north side of Heim Avenue, east of Tustin Street. Mr. Murphy explained that at the August 3rd meeting it was moved by Commissioner Plickelson and seconded by Commissioner Hart to rescind the past motion on Villa Ford to direct Staff to set up public hearings to consider revocation of a variance, with the finding that Villa Ford has until October 15, 1981, based on a previous extension of time to respond to the Commission's concerns with regard to the existing sign on the property on East Heim Avenue. Mr. Murphy further explained that the Vil l a Ford peopl e, through an attorney, have fi 1 ed a 1 etter dated September 15, 1981 with the Commission, stati ng their proposal for the future use of that property. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Commission should make a decision as to whether or not the sign should remain and, if so, under what conditions. In the letter from the Villa Ford attorneys, it was explained that the automobile leasing operation will entail the location of the Director of Leasing, 1 easi ng sales personnel and at 1 east one 1 easi ng secretary-office worker at the leasing office. Various records re- lating to the leasing operation will be located on the premises. No automobiles or automobile services will be maintained or performed on the site as those functions will be performed at the Villa Ford mai n faci 1 i ty at 2550 North Tus ti n Avenue. Therefore, there wi 11 be a neat, tidy office operation conducted in the handsome building to be constructed on the site. Villa Ford believes that this would be in the best interests of the City of Orange, Villa Ford, Inc. and Mangano and Sons, Inc. Commissioner Master asked if the report from January 12, 1981 was still valid. Mr. Murphy replied that it was not. The Commission then asked for a short report from Mr. Murphy to bring them up to date on what has transpired in this matter. Mr. Murphy explained that the original conditional use permit was to allow the residence on the Heim property to be converted to a leasing office. The original variance was for a 40 foot high sign rather than the regular authorization of 17 or 18 feet in height. The property is located at 1815 East Heim Avenue, east of Tustin Street. Mr. Murphy explained that the Commission is required to review all freeway oriented signs and that is a freeway oriented sign. Mr. Murphy then pointed out that the conditional use permit woul d have expired on April 15, 1981 . However, the Planning Commission granted an extension of six months, until October 15, 1981, at the request of the applicant. The reasons for this extension were stated by the applicant and summarized by Staff that there "appeared" to be a misunderstanding of what the improvement conditions were and Staff took the position that perhaps that wasn't quite a val i d under- standing of what the problem was. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Four Gary Johnson stated that plans were submitted on August 18, 1981 for street improvement. Prior to that there were several discussions, the first being that they were not sure what the City wanted. Mr, Johnson suggested hiring an engineer to look at the problem and design the street improvement. These have been going through plan check. Mr. Johnson explained that various changes have been made and they should be approved this week, R. J. Noble Co. has been calling, stating that they have a contract to do the work and they wished to combine that project with one next door and are anxious to proceed. The City staff has been checking, making changes and taking action, Plans should be OK'd this week. If the bond is approved, Mr. Johns on assumed that they will probably begin next week . It was explained that the item before the Commission is the approval of the sign, Is it to remain and, if so, under what conditions? Chairman Mickelson asked if the conditional use permit and variance were tied to one another. Mr. Murphy replied in the negative. The issue is the fact that they have erected a sign without setting up the leasing use for the building. There was discussion among the Commissioners as to what the jus tifi- cation was for the erection of the sign. Chairman Mickelson asked for further clarification of what the determination is before the Commission. h1r. Murphy explained that the applicant i s stating that he wi 11 be 1 easi ng a suite on the property with another party owning the building. A decision must be made as to whether this is sufficient use for having the freeway sign, It was decided that the area of the sign is within the code. The variance is only for the height of the sign. Commissioner Coontz brought out the fact that we now have a different set of ground rules. Now what we are saying is that we have no stipulation as to-how much of an office building that you own, rent, lease, or whatever, in order to have a sign. Commissioner Master felt that it is certainly implied in the code, even though it might not be written, that the use of a building be in conjunction with a sign. Chairman Mickelson felt that the proper way is to ask the City Council to tell Villa Ford to take down their illegal sign. There was further discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the signage on a piece of property and to whom it should belong. Bruce Rauch, attorney for Villa Ford, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission, pointing out that there were two applications: 1. To use a residence for a leasing office. 2. To erect a sign higher than what is normally allowed. He pointed out that the variance was granted, without conditions, and the conditional use permit was granted, with numerous conditions, amongst which were the conditions that certain off-site improvements be completed. Those off-site improvements are in the process of being finalized now. He explained that the bond will be filed to- morrow or the next day, as they are very anxious to do that work. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Five Mr. Rauch then explained that the problem that occurred was that in the planning stage Villa Ford planned to use the residence for a leasing operation. Since that time there has been a tremendous drop in the automobile industry and, therefore, they had to look at several other options. It was decided to take down the residence and have a building erected with Villa Ford leasing a suite from another owner. Mr. Rauch felt that it was clear that a tenant of real property can utilize a sign to identify their business. He pointed out that the problem that Villa Ford faces is that if they transfer the property in question to Mr. Mangano, they will no longer be the owner. During construction the sign will still be there and the question might come up that the owner of the sign does not do business at that location. If they were to have this problem, they might be forced to go back to Plan I and convert the old house to a leasing office. Therefore, they are coming to the Commission to request that the Commission resolve that, if Villa Ford transfers the property to Mr. h1angano and he constructs improvements, as proposed, if no action will be taken by the City during the construction period, they will go into escrow and thereupon go into construction and Villa Ford will lease a suite and actively conduct a leasing operation in that area. Commissioner Coontz stated that the Commission is being asked to approve an illegal sign. Mr. Rauch didn't agree that this sign is illegal and they would resist any attempt to take the sign down. They merely want the Commission to tell them that they will not initiate any action to revoke the sign on the grounds that Villa Ford does not own the property and is not doing business during the con- struction period. Mr. Rauch explained that Villa Ford would not oppose a condition stating that if they vacate the premises that the sign would come down. Commissioner Coontz explained that the Commission does not wish to have the sign used- by anyone other than the original owner. Commissioner Master stated that he understands that there can be a sign for someone not owning the bui 1 di ng, but i t i s a different story with a freeway oriented sign. The whole tone changes at this point and, therefore, the owner of the sign needs to be the owner to some extent of the property below i t. ~, Commissioner Hart pointed out the phrase used, "good faith",and the fact that this has not been shown by Villa Ford in the past. Mr. Rauch pointed out that if they did not intend to act in good faith they would not be going forward with street improvements, even though they are not going to use the conditional use permit. They would not be opposed to a condition whereby the City checks on the ongoing constructi on of the bui 1 di ng and that a review come before the Com- mission in this regard. Commissioner Coontz was bothered by the fact that the sign was wanted and the house was just a vehicle. This is another reason why she sees bad faith in this situation. Mr. Rauch replied to this comment. Commissioner Coontz explained that perhaps one of the reasons why they were lenient with Villa Ford was because of the money which Villa Ford brings -into the City. However, there is more than the money which they bring into the City which should be considered. Villa Ford owes something to the City also, ,~'' Mr. Rauch explained that the City of Orange stands to gai n from the site improvements. If P1r. Mangano builds the building which is proposed, the City wi 11 be rid of a derelict house and have a beauti - ful building which will have a broader tax base and bring business Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Six people into the community. The sign will be in conformity with an existing use within the building and every thing will be, at that point in time, in accordance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Orange. The City will benefit and Villa Ford will benefit. They are asking the assurance of the Planning Commission that if they transfer title to Mr. Mangano that the Ci ty wi 11 not take any action against Villa Ford on the grounds that they do not own or do business on the property. Commissioner Master stated that he was concerned about two things: 1, The property will not stand idle. 2. Is the Commission about to seta precedent? He explained that the freeway signage is a sensitivity factor. Commissioner Coontz stated that the Commission does not have the right to promise Villa Ford that they will not move against them. Mr. Rauch replied that they are not asking the Planning Commission to make the decision as to whether the lease of several hundred feet as a tenant is enough to have the sign. All they are asking is that during the period of time of construction that the technical ground that they have ceased to be the owner be the ground to be forced to take the sign down. They are not asking for any determination along this line. Mr. Minshew stated that he had talked with Mr. Rauch recently. He explained that in his office they do the kind of thing that is being requested here and it is not that big of an issue. He could see no problem in dealing with this by the Commission. He did not see a legal problem for the City in this regard. This is one way to clear this whole situation up. When construction is over this can be conditioned so that the sign never belongs to anyone but Villa Ford. Chairman Mickelson thought that a simpler action would be to grant an extension of time on the review for Villa Ford. Commissioner Coontz felt that i n the i nterim there should be a study of this application to decide what will be done at the end of the extension. She suggested a synopsis of the minutes to go along with the variance extension to the City Council . It was further explained that the Commission has the power to grant an extension without review by the Council. There was feeling among the Commissioners that this is a broader issue and the City Council should be requested to review their decision. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, that the Planning Commission is taking action to extend the use of the Villa Ford sign for eight (8) months, at which time the use of the sign wi 11 be reviewed for its compliance with the original i ntent of the conditional use permit and variance which were to permit Villa Ford signage on the freeway in conjunction with their leasing operation, as approved in Conditional Use Permit 987. Commissioner Coontz felt that they must let the Council know where they are in this situation and that probably a summary of the minutes should be attached to the recommendation to the Council. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart NOES: Commissioners Mickelson, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION FAILED io ~ f Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Seven Commissioner Vasquez explained his abstention vote, stating that since this subject goes back quite a bit before he took his seat on the Commission, he did not feel qualified to vote on it. Ch airman Mickelson explained his negative vote, saying that he was not opposed to granting Villa Ford an extension, but he did not think this is the time or place to create legislation by dreaming up inter- pretations of the sign code and applying those to conditions of extension. He was very uncomfortable with that process and did not think this is the right way to govern and legislate. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to what was stated in the conditional use permit and in the variance. Chairman Mickelson was not comfortable with any action which gives permission to Villa Ford which they do not need permission to do. Mr. Minshew suggested that the matter be continued for six to eight months and further action could b e taken any time during that period. Chairman Mickelson thought that if the Commission is genuinely con- cerned about the problems here then they should sit down and study the sign ordinance and suggest changes if they feel some should be made . AYES: NOES ABSENT: ABSTAIN: IN RE: Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Rauch, since Villa Ford has had the sign up for about 12 years and they have not occupied the property, why they are concerned at this point in time. Mr. Rauch replied that right now they have title to the property and there is a connection between ownership of the property and ownership of the sign. They want to cooperate with the City-and do not want to struggle with them. They only want to get past the construction period and occupy their part of the building. Then they will deal with the right to have the sign i n that place. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson,. to continue this item of discussion for an eight-month period, at which time Commission will review the Villa Ford sign as to its conformance. Commissioners Mickelson, Commissioners none Commissioners none Commissioner Vasquez Coontz, Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz suggested a review of the sign ordinance. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Coontz brought up an article in the Orange County section of the Times, with regard to developing public land and preserves, pointing out that the article didn't tell much, only speaking about .the first point. She explained that she had talked to Mayor Beam today and he thought that there were some other legal considerations, but he didn't know to what extent this could apply to the Irvine Ranch. He suggested that a report be forthcoming, possibly for the joint meeting. Chairman Mickelson asked Staff to get the County's report and get a progress report before the joint session. Commissioner Vasquez stated that he thought this item comes up either tomorrow or Wednesday. 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Eight Commissioner Master brought up the subject of a regional airport which would be bigger than Orange County, explaining in some detail what is being proposed. He stated a concern about Irvine land in the Orange area which is being looked at. Commissioner Coontz brought up the upcoming joint session with the City Council. As a Commission, she thought they should get a memo out and come to some conclusion about the kinds of things they wish to discuss . IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m, to be reconvened at a study session on Monday, October 12, 1981 at 5:15 p.m, and thence be re- convened to a regular Commission meeting on Monday, October 19, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. P i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on October 5, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on October 6, 1981 , 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 5, 1981 was held. ^~ EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOB ER 5, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was cal 1 ed to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez that this meeting adjourn at 1:15 a.m, on Tuesday, October 6, 1981, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, October 19, 1981 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 certify that the foregoing i s a true, fu 11 and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, October 5, 1981. Dated this 6th day of October, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. JQre P,. Murphy, City N~~nner ~ S cretary to the Planning Commissi n o~ the City of Orange. ~' C