Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 25, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Sttorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 4, 1982 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the minutes of October 4, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-82, TENTATIVE TRACT 11838, VARIANCE 1698 - THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY: A request to change the City of Orange General Plan Land Use designation from Public Institution to Low Density Residential (2-6 units per acre). The request is to create 42 single-family lots and develop some interior lots with less than the required front yard setback and some lots with 1 ess depth or width than required by the City Code on property located on the southeast side of Villa Real Drive at the northeast intersection of Meadow Grove Road and Feather Hill Drive. (Continued from September 9, 1982 and September 20, 1982 hearings.) (NOTE: Negative Declaration 775 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) y Jere Murphy pointed out a letter which had been sent to the Planning Commission by an attorney at law, Mr. Donald L. Daniels, explaining that he would be representing the Nohl Ranch Homeowners Association. However, he was unable to attend tonight's meeting and requested a continuance. Jack Gorman, 2432 Melmac Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission, giving a brief recap of what has occurred up to this time. He explained that in late August of ]982 the neighbors of the school site on the corner of Feather Hill and Meadow Grove Avenues were notified of a public hearing to be held before the Planning Commission on September 9th, requesting a General Plan Amendment and several zoning variances. At this hearing several questions were raised regarding traffic,density, compatibility with current housing, etc. The Commission postponed action until September 20th. Prior to this .meeting, The Fieldstone Company requested a continuance over the objections of the residents in the area. Continuance was granted. Since that time the residents have organized, revived the Nohl Ranch Homeowners Association and now speak with one voice. They have had several executive board meetings and two general membership meetings. At one of the board meetings, Mr. Langlois, of the Fieldstone Corporation, presented their revised plan and answered questions from the residents. They have now hired Mr. Don Daniels as their attorney to represent them and they are now requesting a continuance to November 15th. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Page Two Dave Langlois, representing the. Fieldstone Corporation, addressed the Commission, apologizing for the mix up at the last meeting and his request fora continuance after not being able to comply with what the Commission had requested. He also apologized to the homeowners who had attended that meeting. He explained that he had one problem with a continuance - they are i n escrow to purchase this property from the school district and escrow was due to close on November 5th. He requested an extension of the escrow to December 8th, which has been granted. It is his under- standing that they would be pushing hard to get all of the paper work in order to close on December 8th, even if it is approved tonight. He believes that the issue that the homeowners have is that they have a strong desire to see that land retained as a park and he felt that if that kind of action is going to be taken by the City, it is more of a City Council matter, and he though t perhaps the Commission might feel comfortable in going ahead on the planning with the map which has been presented and deferring the decision about a park to the City Council. Chairman Mickelson asked how many in the audience were basically in agreement with Mr. Daniels' request for a continuance and many hands were raised. Commissioner Hart felt that it would be difficult for the Commission to deny this request for extension, particularly because of Mr. Langlois' request for continuance. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to grant a continuance to November 15th. Chairman Mickelson asked Staff if action is taken on November 15th what is the earliest date when it will be heard by the City Council. Mr. Murphy replied that it would be the second Tuesday in December, which would be December 14th. Chairman Mickelson then asked if it were continued to November 1st when it would be heard and he was told that it would be November 23rd. Chairman Mickelson then asked Mr. Gorman if this matter if this matter were to be continued to November 1st how it would affect the residents. Mr. Gorman replied that an extension of another 30 days would not be unreasonable from the point of view of the school board, as he had spoken to them about this. Mr. Langlois did not know if the school board would grant this extension and they have a quarter of a million dollars involved in this escrow. It would be a hardship on them to jeopardize this. He would prefer an extension to November 1st rather than November 15th. Chairman Mickelson said that he would favor going to the narrowest ~ time schedule. The Commission then voted on the motion on the floor. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, .Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson stated that his no vote was not against the continuance, he merely wished a shorter continuance. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 974 AND VARIANCE 1704 - DARRELL W. GREENWALD AND CHARLOTTE GREENWALD: A request to rezone from the 0-P (Office-Professional) District to the C-1 (Local Commercial) District and to provide less parking than required by City Code on land located at the southeast corner of Collins Avenue an d Lincoln Street (1502-1518 East Collins Avenue). (Continued from the September 20, 1982 hearings.) (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmenta] Review.) Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Page Three By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was given. Chairman Nickelson opened the public hearing. Charlotte Greenwald, 12672 S. Greenwald Lane, Santa Ana, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. reviewing a letter which she had sent last month. She stated that they had requested the Staff fora change from 0-P to C-1, since they had made a recent purchase of this building on Collins from the Baptist church and both the church and. they thought this was a commercial building at that time, since the surrounding area is Commercial and the building itself is occupied by commercial businesses. They are here to request a variance for 11 parking spaces. Their request originally was for 10 parking spaces but they found out last Friday that it is necessary to provide a handicapped parking space with a ramp, which makes it necessary to request 11 spaces. She then read the letter which she had sent to the city in this regard. She stated that Mr. Minshew had assured her this morning that this change would not affect the variance request. She also pointed out that the church has given them permission to use their parking lot for overflow. She pointed out that the Planning Staff has stated that no planting areas are necessary. However, their architect has found possibly a place for two islands for planting. Mrs. Greenwald explained that Staff has recommended denial of Zone Change 974 and Variance 1704, but they are urgently requesting that this zone change and variance be approved because the surrounding area is already C-1 and the Orange City Master Plan shows this building to be utilizing commercial uses; the commercial uses in the center already exist and are compatible with the uses i n the surrounding area. Mr. Mi nshew clarified his statement that he had found nothi ng i n the variance that would cause him to urge the Commission to act it. Lonnie Hall, 1341 E. Jacaranda, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that his property backs up to Lincoln and is 1 2 blocks from the center in question. He has walked to Alpha Beta often and this shopping center on numerous occasions. He has been a resident for eight years in this area and at no time ~" has he ever seen the parking lot across the street from this center more than 2/3 full and usually only 4 full. During the time that he has lived on Jacaranda he has seen graffitti on the fences along the alley behind this building and the frames around the building have rusted, leaving rust marks running down the stucco. The whole building has been looking rather dilapidated. Since the Greenwalds have purchased this property, they have upgraded the entire property and improved the whole area substantially. He did not see a real problem in parking in that area. James Rynor, 7442 E. Collins, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he is located right opposite the property in question. He has lived there six years and has never seen a parking problem there. The new owners have greatly improved the property. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart obsPwed~ that the Greenwalds have improved the property as stated by the last two people who spoke. He does have a problem with the parking, however. He felt that the Commission would be setting a precedent. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Page Four Commissioner Coontz said she would like answers to questions regarding the church's permission for the Greenwalds to use their parking lot. Mr. Lanz explained that there is a letter on file with the ci ty from the church, stati ng that the center has permission to use their parking for overflow. However, they will not re~ord this in writing legally, because it would cloud their title. Moved by Commissioner Master to deny Zone Change 974 and Variance 1704, for reasons as stated by Staff. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Coontz had questions in her mind about the original application for building this building. She felt that there is a hardship which was created when the building was originally built. She wondered if this was built originally with a variance. Mr. Lanz replied that they could find nothing in th e files on this. Commissioner Master asked if the parking space was deficient for 0/P and Mr. Lanz replied in the affirmative, by three spaces. Commissioner Mickelson concurred with Commissioner Master that he had a problem with granting 27-30% increase in parking. He asked Staff if they restriped the parking whether they must have land- scaping. Mr. Lanz stated that landscaping really doesn't have any bearing on the matter. He explained that no matter how they re- designed the parking, they could get no more than 26 spaces. Chairman Mickelson handed Staff a plan which he had drawn up, stating that he could get 33 spaces in this area without any landscaping, with expensive changes, however, to the front of the property. There was further discussion in this regard between Chairman Mickelson and Staff. Commissioner Hart pointed out that this property has retail use even though it is zoned 0/P. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to deny Zone Change 974 and Variance 1704, without prejudice, for reasons as stated by Staff. Mrs. Greenwald again addressed the Commission, stating that they are not really i nvestors . They put al l of thei r money, mortgaging their home, and all of their children's money together to purchase this property in good faith. By not getting this zone change and variance, they will completely lose their investment. Commissioner Master asked if there was any way that the City could assist the Greenwalds with the church to get permanent use of their parking lot. .Commissioner Coontz fe]t there were grounds for granting this variance. She was not comfortable with the fact that there are no records of the original owner and builder. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION ..CARRIED Commissioner Hart again commented that he wished there was some way i n which the City cowl d work with the church to work thi s thing out. Mrs. Greenwald stated that this was an illegal commercial building and they were trying to make an illegal building a legal one. She felt that this woul d be turned down by the Council because they trust the judgement of the Commission. Chairman Mickelson explained that this was not necessarily so. That the Council has more latitude ~' than the Commission in a matter such as this. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Page Five IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 977 - THE IRVINE COMPANY/CITY OF ORANGE: A request to prezone from the A-1 (General Agriculture) District Regulations of Orange County to the City of Orange PC (Planned Community) District to facilitate specific plan preparation and annexation of land bounded on the west by Newport Avenue, on the north by re-aligned Chapman Avenue, on-the east by the proposed Weir Canyon Road corridor and on the south by the proposed corridor for the easterly extension of Canyon View Avenue. (NOTE: Negative Declaration 788 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. ) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains approximately 240± acres of land and is located on the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The property is now vacant and is zoned County of Orange A-1 (General Agriculture) District. He explained that this property is under an Agricultural Preserve Agreement between the property owner and the County of Orange; the northernmost part is scheduled for non-renewal in 1986 and the remainder for non-renewal i n 1988. Mr. Murphy said that it is requested to prezone the property to City of Orange PC (Planned Community) District to facilitate annexa- tion and the preparation of Specific Plans for the property under provisions of Section 65450 et. seg. of the California. Government Code. He explained that the PC District is designed to be applied to large acreages. Its standards require a public hearing be held and approval obtained of one or more development plans, specific plans, conditional use permits or other application request prior to issuance of building permits for project construction. The PC zoning may be applied to land prior to or concurrently with the filing of other specific plan requirements of the zone. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the PC District requires the specific plan to identify the sites for recreational, qusi public and public facilities, utilities and services, as well as discuss the methods of financing the infrastructure. Staff has reviewed the project and has no specific concerns. It is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 788 be accepted. It is also recommended that Pre-Zone Change 977 be recommended to the City Council for approval for the reason that the PC zoning allows for a mixture of use as proposed in the Genera] Plan and also allows for the processing of annexations of the property. Chairman Nickelson opened the public-hearing. Dave Tomahowski, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that after re- viewing the facts and the Staff Report, The Irvine Company agreed with the Staff's comments . Commissioner Hart asked for a brief explanation of getting this out of the agricultural preserve. Mr. Tomahowski explained that they are operating under the provisions of Assembly Bill 2074, which was passed in 1981. That created a one year window, which started last May, within which they could petition both the County and the City of Orange to cancel the agricultural preserve contract on that particular property. Therefore, concurrently with that request to the City of Orange to initiate annexation, they also filed a petition with the County to cancel the contract. Commissioner Hart asked if there was a penalty taxwise in doing this and Mr. Tomahowski replied tf~at there are fees or penalties involved. However, he was not in a position to say what they would be. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Page Six There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson explained that this zoning does not give the applicant the right to develop the property. This would require another hearing before the annexation. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 788. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 977, for the reason, as outlined by Staff, that the PC Zoning allows for a mixture of use as proposed in the General Plan and also allows for the processing of annexations of the property. 1 AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1231 - CHARLES KIRKPATRICK: A request to convert a single family residential unit to office use in the C-1 zone on land located on the west side of Glassell Street approximately 235± feet south of the centerline of Walnut Avenue (462 South Glassell Street). (NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review.) Commissioner Hart asked to be excused from participating in this hearing, as he felt he had conflict of interest. Norvin Lanz presented this application before the Commission, stating that the property contains .15 acre of land, located on the west side of Glassell Street 235± feet south of the centerline of Walnut Avenue (462 N. Glassell Street). The property is zoned C-1 (Local Business) and contains one single-family residence. Mr. Lanz explained that part of the existing driveway is located on a 6-foot access easement on the property north of the project. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of asingle-family residence to office use. He specifically proposes a building to include 1,200 sq. ft. of office space with off-street parking to include 5 spaces (two compact and three standard). This would meet the City Code. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and has expressed several concerns: 1. That the applicant should obtain a letter from the neighboring property owner to the west, confirming his knowledge of possible increased drainage across his lot as a result of the new parking lot. 2. That street improvements will need to be made. 3. That the building should be inspected for electrical and structural (i.e, floor land support) per building codes. 4. That the frontage of the 6 foot easement to the north of the property be improved to City standards. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Page Seven 5. The applicant's plan does not make any provision for a trash receptacle. The Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1231 for the reasons that: (a) the applicant's proposal is consistent with both zoning and general plan designation; and (b) utilization of the property for office use is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and is in conformance with the Old Towne concept. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1231, subject to the 17 conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Charles Kirkpatrick, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that he had nothing to add to the Staff Report, except that they are already starting to take care of the conditions listed in the Staff Report. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master questioned the Staff with regard to the possible drainage problems for the neighboring resident. Mr. Murphy explained that the concern is that there may be a concentration of water which is presently flowing across the adjacent property, which upon flowing across hard surface parking-areas could present a problem to the adjacent property. Mr. Johnson further explained that the problem is that the property cannot be regraded for drainage flow. There are no alternative ways of draining the water flow and the City wants the neighbors to know that as long as there can be flow in the same direction it will work out. They do not want any surprises in this area as far as drainage is concerned. There will be runoff as a result of the new parking lot, where there was none before. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve Conditional Use Permit 1231, for the reasons given by Staff, and subject to the 17 conditions listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson,.Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1233 - JOSE ANTIONIO PEREZ AND VIRGINIA L. MC MAHON: A request to co ns truct a two-s tory addition to a s i ngl e family dwel l i ng i n the R-D-6 (Residential Duplex) District overl ai d with the RCD (Residential Combining District) on property located on the west side of Center Street approximately 174 feet south of the centerline of Palmyra Avenue (328 South Center Street). (NOTE: This. project is exempt from environmental review.) It was. the consensus of the Commission to forego a presentation. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Jose Perez, the applicant, stated that he is satisfied with the conditions stated in the Staff Report and had nothing to add to the Staff Report. Karen Markham, a neighbor of the subject residence, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that she agrees with this plan and the application should be approved. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Page Eight Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve Conditional Use Permit 1233, for reasons as stated by Staff and subject to the 2 conditions set forth in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1078 - GERALD WILLMON: A public hearing set to consider revocation of Conditional Use Permit 1078 for failure to comply with the conditions of approval to convert a residence to office use on property located on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Lester Street (1111 West Chapman Avenue). It was the consensus of the Commission to forego a presentation. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. r„ Gerald Willmon, 8553 Iris Crest Way, Elk Grove, California, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that he had never completed the project due to lack of finances. He has since moved north to hopefully remedy the problem. He asked for a continuance of the hearing on consideration of revoking the Conditional Use Permit because he is proposing to sell the property. He has two offers from two individuals who are aware of the plan and approve it. Commissioner Hart asked if he was in escrow at the present time and he replied in the negative. Bob Sharp, Tarbell Realtors, addressed the Commission, stating that he was representing Mr. Willmon in the sale of the property on Chapman Avenue. He said that he had talked to Jere Murphy to find out what the requirements for completion of Conditional Use Permit 1078 are. He explained that there are 4 or 5 people interested in this property and as soon as one of these people negotiates with them they will sit down with the Staff and make arrangements to complete the permit and make any modifications which Staff and the Commission might wish. He showed the Commission a flyer which states that the property is incomplete and the buyer will be responsible for completing the conditions of the permit. Charles Miles, 1330 Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that he owns property across the street from sai d property. They have done such a beautiful job on the outside of the building, he did not know how they could mess up the inside. Commissioner Hart did not have a quarrel with granting an extension. However, he was somewhat nervous that perhaps a buyer will not see the flyer and be aware that the property is not usable under the present situation. He wished there was some way to go on record to state that the fact that it is in the process of being developed means that it has not been completed and must be completed before being in use. Mr. Sharp said that the laws on full disclosure would force him to lose his license if he did not disclose all aspects of the property being sold. It would be impossible for Tarbell to legally sell this property without disclosing the facts. Commissioner Hart gave a hypothetical case wherein the listing runs out and someone else gets the listing and does not disclose. What would happen? Mr. Sharp replied that they would have no ~, control over that. However, the listing runs to February. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to notice to the public that this property cannot be used until the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are complied with. Planning Commission Minutes + October 25, 1982 Page Nine 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 extend the public hearing for revocation of Conditional Use Permit 1078 for six months, on condition that the owner, Gerald Willmon, work with the City Attorney on drafting a notice to be recorded on the property, showing that the property has not been completed according to the conditions set forth for Conditional Use Permit 1078. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p,m, to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, November 1, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 0 EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 25, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, piaster, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjourn at 9:00 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 1982 to reconvene at 7:30 ,p.m. Monday, November 1, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Rvenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, October 25, 1982. ~" Dated this 26th day of October, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. Jere P. Murphy, CityJPlanne and Secretary to the Pla Wing ommission of the City of Orange. ^f 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 25, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on October 26, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.rn., I hosted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of October 25, 1982 was held. ^i