Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1986 - Minutes PCt^ _~. City of Orange Orange, California October 20 , 1986 Monday - 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mason at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, ~~aster, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; Jack McGee, Associate planner and Acting Commission Secretary; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 1986 Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Minutes of October 6, 1986, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES : None ' '~[OTION .CARRIED IN RE: ITEP4S TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1545, REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-29? - DE CLARK: Staff xeceived a letter from the applicant requesting this application be continued two weeks.. ?loved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept applicant's request and continue this item to the meeting of November 3, 1986. --- AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1056 - JA_NIES C. LTCATA; Proposed zone change from C-1 to R:1-7 (Multiple Family Residential) for a 4,900 square foot lot located on the southeast corner of Cleveland Street and Palm Avenue. This item was continued from the September 15, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOTE: Negative Declaration 1089 has been prepared for this project. '• Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1986 Page 2. ,' A staff report was not presented and Chairman Mason declared the public hearing to be opened. James Licata, 630 W. Palm, applicant of the project, stated he resides and has a family business in Old Towne; therefore, his concerns are to enhance and maintain the Old Towne atmosphere. Tn 1981 Mayor Beam presented a proclamation to him on his small office building because he kept the theme of 01d Towne. They ask for approval of this project and feel they have conformed to the rules and regulations of the City. Those speaking in opposition: M.J. Martini, 638 E. Walnut, use to live at 603 E. Palm, across the street from the proposed project. Concerned with the lot size (70x70). The plot plan does not meet the code. At one time the "little store" and house were one property -- not two lots. Commissioner Hart asked staff to clarify the non-conforming lot size requirements, Mr. McGee stated the reduced lot area (4,500 sq, ft.) can legally exist within the C~1 zone as no minimum parcel size is required in that zone. Development standards of lot coverage and set back requirements would have to be met if the project were approved. Commissioner Hart informed the public there are many legal non-conforming lots in Orange; especially in Ol.d Towne.. The properties may be off size, but they are legal lots. Mr. Martini asked if other requisitions of the RM-7 still apply like the 45% maximum lot coverage? Mr. McGee stated that was correct; the coverage on this development is about 32%. Harold Glass, 2620 E. Hoover, owns a rental, at 233 N. Cleveland. It is a cottage type house on a R~2 lot. He opposes building a duplex on this lot; thinks it`s unfair and will set a precedent for others to build similar projects in the nice .little neighborho©d. '""~"" Kim Healy, 264 N. Cleveland, submitted a petition with 47 names of residents in the neighborhood opposing this development for the .following reasons: (1) There is no valid reason RM-7 couldn't be zoned R-2; (2) Setting a precedent for others and itwill change the flavor of Old Towne; (3) It`s a business venture at the. residents' expense; (4) Two units are proposed for this lot and it is half the size of other lots on Cleveland; and (5) Concern about the heavy traffic flow; already im- pacted the area. Tt was suggested to leave the C-1 zoning or change the zoning to R-1. Kay Martini, 638 E. Walnut, pointed out when she lived at 603 E. Palm in 1954 the number of cars that parked at the little store. She is surprised ~. Planning Commission Minutes ,~ October 20, 1986 Page 3. ['' the market is two-story; it does not show up on the site plan. Six people live above the store now with children who play out near the busy street. This new duplex will probably be rented to families with children. Where will they play? Dale Rahn, 350 N. Harwood, is concerned with the inadequate parking on the proposed lot. There is a serious parking problem because of the fraternity house where seven vehicles park. The people living above the store have four vehicles and park across the street. Palm is a very busy street with commuter traffic. With the additional proposed building there will be much more congestion. Mr. Glass wanted to know where the driveways were and how many cars were allowed. Mr. McGee said there will be four parking spaces for the site, two of which will be enclosed. There is an existing 18 foot wide driveway on Cleveland Street for access. Shirley Ferguson,. 280 N. Cleveland, asked why the applicant chooses to build a duplex instead of a single family residence. She is part of a five- car family living next door to the fraternity. No one can find a parking place. Ms. Healy concerned that the plans are not the original ones; the public does not even know what the building looks like. Commissioner Greek stated the Commission was considering the zone change; not the plans. The plans will be reviewed by the. Design Review Board before the b-u..].ding is constructed. The zone change is a down zone from G 1, Since there is RM-7 zoning immediately to the west and RD-6 to the south and C--1 zoning to the north, what would this be re-zoned as to be compatible with those uses? Commissioner Scott asked for the height limitation to be clarified. Mr. McGee said the maximum height allowed by the RM-7 zoning or the RD-6 zoning is 30 feet or two-story maximum. Chairman Mason asked if ~t was the same requirement for R-l, R-2 or R-3 zones? Mr. McGee said that was correct. Raymond Thibault, 603 E. Palm, questioned the lot line changes, Mr. McGee said a revised site plan has been submitted. Changes to the plan included moving the existing easterly property line to resolve the building encroachment issue and redesign of the proposed duplex building footpath to accommodate the revised parcel line and required setbacks, Emily Sterling, 273 N. Cleveland, said there was a discrepancy in the lot area from 4,900 square feet to 4,595 square feet.. Which figure is he planning to use? ' Planing Commission Minutes October 20, 1986 Page 4. '~ Mr. McGee clarified the lot area number. The lot as it exists presently is .70x70 square, or 4,900. square feet. It was learned at the last meeting when this item was continued, the existing lot line lies underneath the existing market and will require that the lot line be moved. The parcel size once that lot line is removed is approximately 4,595 square feet. Vincent Licata, 162 N. Glassell, owner of Licata Nutrition Center and applicant for this development, said nothing will change on the lot. The existing driveway will remain on Cleveland with no access off of Palm. The proper use of this lot would be a small, economical duplex. It is a business venture. Tf you buy a home, it is a business venture; it is the American way. We have conformed to the rules and regulations, and. have proved ourselves in the past.. We are not building a mansion, but a small duplex -- something that will blend into the neighborhood. Commissioner. Master asked'Mr. Licata why he chose RM-7 zoning instead of RD-6 zoning. Mr. Licata said that staff explained to him the RD-6 zone would need five parking spaces, Mrs McGee clarified the two basic defferences in terms of development standards: the number of covered parking spaces under the RM-7 are two garages required in addition to the two open parking spaces. Tf it were a RA-6 zoning the same number of total stalls would be required, but three would be required to have garages. .The lot coverage in RM-7 is a 45% maximum whereas in the RD-6 zone there is no lot coverage factor required. Commissioner Hart questioned the 3,000 square feet per unit per development standard. Mr. McGee said permitted uses are duplexes or two-family dwellings within the zone. So a duplex would be allowed on a lot irregardless of size. The 3,000 square foot requirement would come into play if the lot were larger than 6,000 feet. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Scott asked since it is zoned C-l, what would be permitted in there right now? Mr. McGee stated permitted uses within a C-1 zone would be a small office or retail type devel©pment. Commissioner Scott asked with the size of the lot, what would go in there? Mr. McGee said it would be something quite small like a dental office or real estate office. Commissioner Scott said then there can be a professional office there by someone taking out a building permit, which would not come before the public at a hearing. Mr. McGee said that. was correct. ~, Planning Commission Minutes . October 20, 1986 Page 5. Chairman Mason asked what kind of parking would be required? Mr. McGee said parking for those types of developments would be either four or five parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Commissioner Scott asked if it were a one or two-story building. that would be allowed? Mr. McGee said a two-story would be allowed up to 30 feet. Chairman Mason asked if this were zoned R-l, all of the same would apply and what about off-street parking requirements? Mr. McGee stated that parking requirements for a R-1 zone is two enclosed parking spaces, all with the other set back requirements, Tt would be very similar; height would still be two-story or 30 feet. Chairman Mason said that by going to the RM-7, we actually get more off-street parking than is required in the R-l. Mr. McGee said that per unit you get the same; two for a single-family and four off-street parking spaces for commercial. Commissioner Greek asked what are the limits of the C-1 zoning as it exists? How many lots are owned by the Zicatas? Mr. McGee is only aware of this lot and the adjacent market that are owned by the property owner. The C-1 zoning in this area includes the market and two parcels directly across Palm to the north.. Chairman Mason asked Mr. McGee if there is anything that says the store and this lot would have to stay together, Mr. McGee stated they are legally separate lots. There is really nothing to tie the two together.. Commissioner Greek said by allowing a lot line adjustment they are further decreasing the size of this lot, He is in favor of this type of development; it is a good use, but he prefers to see the store included. Tf we left the lot line alone and the RM zoning was compatible to the RM zoning across the street, it would make more sense. Mr, McGee said they w-ill be requesting the owners of the property to make that correction to the iot line regardless of whatever action is taken. We will have to make sure that lot line is removed from underneath an existing building. Commissioner Greek zs not in favor of that lot line adjustment. If staff is making that decision, he would like to make it a point that staff not 'go out and reduce sizes of already non-conforming small lots to reduce them further. Mr. McGee said they did have the opportunity of having it here with the zone change hearing. It is a commercial zone presently and there is no minimum lot size within that zone. ~, Planning Commission Minutes . October 20, 1986 Page 6. ~" Chairman Mason asked Commissioner Greek if he would prefer to leave it as C-1. Commissioner Greek stated no, he would prefer to see the property developed but he would like that additional parcel to be included. Chairman Mason said those two parcels then would always be tied together -- it would be one parcel. Commissioner Greek said to make one parcel and then have the zoning t3M-7, which would match the people across the street. Chairman Mason said the store would be non-conforming and it wouldn't be in the right zone; it would be commercial. Commissioner Hart said he has a different attitude about taking a non- conforming lot and making it more non-conforming, and that will show up in his vote. Mr. Gary Johnson said by maybe jogging the property line rather than making the street adjustment, you could still maintain the 4,900 square feet. If you jog the property line to the east once it cleared the building and then approximated the old property line along the center of the driveway, you could still possibly maintain the 4,900 square feet that was shown on the plan. Commissioner Greek suggested eliminating the property line. It is not single ownership and the property line could tie eliminated, It would be in better shape and the lot-would be closer to the conforming lot size. It would satisfy the RM-7 requirements of 8,000. Chairman Mason. stated the property has to remain all C-1, Can a duplex or residence be built on C-1? Mr, McGee said it has been the policy of this City to not allow residential uses in commercial zones.. Chairman Mason asked Mr, McGee. if someone would be allowed to tear down their residence within a commercial zone? Mr. McGee said yes. Chairman Mason said those two residences there on the corner across the street could be torn .down and made into a commercial entity without any public hearing, Mr. McGee stated that was correct. Chairman Mason said if we deny this, it will remain C-1 and that can also be made into a commercial entity.. Mr. McGee stated that was also correct. ~, Plan~ling Commission Minutes . October 20, 1986 Page 7. r°"`~ Commissioner Greek said he is in favor of the development of the property and he is not that opposed to the idea of a duplex .type structure, but he has real problems .with reducing the lot size. He realizes the neighbors want the store, which is a tough thing to have in the middle of this development. Is there any kind of solution that could allow the operation of the store if this were part of the same lot? Could we have a split zoning on one lot? Mr. McGee said it would not be a preferable direction to go. If the store were re-zoned to multiple family or some other residential zone, it could operate as a legal non-conforming use also. Commissioner Scott questioned the lot size. The coverage on the lot has to conform to the RM-7, is that correct? Does the market utilize its full lot size? Mr. McGee said that was correct. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the. City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1089. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the: Planning Commission deny Zone C1~ange 1056. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott said the reason why he voted no was because he believes they were voting as far as the usage of the Janet, He does not feel C-1 was the proper zoning. He felt RM-7 would be more adequate. Mr. McGee said that unless this item is appealed, this is the final action. There is a 15 day appeal period from tonight on this action. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TRENTON AVENUE STREET ABANDONMENT, AND ZQNE CI3ANGE 1060, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1544, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86--374 - TOYOTA OF ORANGE. AND CITY OF ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT: Commissioners Greek and Hart excused themselves from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Proposal to abandon a portion of Trenton Avenue west of Tustin Street in conjunction with the expansion of the Toyota of Orange auto dealership; and a change of zone from R-1-7 to C-TR (Commercial-Tustin Redevelopment) for a .58 acrea area; a conditional use permit to expand the existing auto sales dealership within a 1.73 acrea area; and a tentative parcel map to Planning Commission Minutes . October 20, 1986 Page 8. consolidate several existing parcels into one parcel of 1.24 acres. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1093 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Ron Thompson, Assistant Executive Director of the Orange Redevelopment Agency presented the following staff report: Toyota of Orange has been in the process of expanding Cheir facilities for several years. They have acquired properties abutting both the south and north sides of Trenton and, at the present time, the Redevelopment Agency is finalizing negotiations with the owner of the Sandpiper Swim School for acquisition of that property. Also, we are working with Toyota for the purpose of acquiring or obtaining the right to use portions of the Orange County Flood Control District and the Santa Fe Railroad properties. Upon the completion of these negotiations, it is anticipated that Toyota will be able to expand their existing automobile agency into a contemporary full service auto dealership that will be compatible with the existing single family neighborhood on Trenton Street and the mobile home park adjacent to Toyota on the west. The most appropriate way for Toyota to expand would be the proliosed "" abandonment. of Trenton Street. Tfie cul--de-sacing and abandonment of ~.w+' Trenton will reduce the amount of traffic that presently utilizes Trenton as a shortcut to avoid traffic .congestion on Tustin; and will result in a much. quieter, better residential neighborhood. In looking at the alternatives in how we will accomplish this so that there would be adequate circulation and access for fire, paramedic and emergency services, two alternatives have been listed. After several informal meetings between staff and the residents, it is the unanimous decision of everybody present that Exhibit A would reflect the desires of the residents on Trenton and in the mobile home park. Exhibit A would retain the present southerly access from Trenton as the primary access to the mobile home mark. But it would create a secondary or emergency access by capping the flood control channel between the existing mobile home park and the single family residential subdivision to allow emergency ingress and egress. This would allow the Fire Department to respond from the Collins/Gdanda station. The first fire engine to respond would be from the Shaffer Street station and running times would be the same as they currently exist. Exhibit A would reflect the best possible solution providing circulation "` access for this area.. Commissioner Master asked if the abandonment of Trenton Street would affect Sandpiper Swim School? Mr. Thompson said it would not occur until the swim school. is relocated. We wanted to hold the hearings concurrently because we think it's an intragal part of Toyota's expansion plans. Chairman Mason asked if that was listed in all of the conditions? Mr. Thompson said yes, the list of conditions would be applied to the Trenton Street abandonment, which would lie the regular cul-de-sac in terms Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1986. Page 9. of radius. We would also be recommending the addition of two fire hydrants. One in close proximity to the new cul-de-sac and one either on the park or immediately adjacent to the park. Commissioner Scott said as far as the vacation of the street is concerned, after the public hearings, and if it was approved, it would be subject to the relocation of the swim school, then it would be recorded as a vacation. Mr. Thompson said yes. Mr. Minshew stated the Councils public hearing on the abandonment or vacation is November 18, 1986.. Discussion. ensued among the Commission members and City Attorney regarding the abandonment, circulation concept and the fact that. not all owners were notified of a public hearing for the parcel map. Mr. Thompson commented that Mrs. O'Donald's attorney has authorized to proceed with the zoning. Street abandonment would be subject to Sandpiper Swim School relocating at the conclusion of those negotiations. We could make that a condition 4~7 under the proposed Trenton Street abandonment. Mr. Johnson said we don't require the property owner to file the tentative map. He will, however, have to authorize the filing of the final map. He thinks the conditions on the parcel map relate to that no final approval of the parcel map will occur until the abandonment of Trenton occurs. Proof of ownership will be needed before the final map is recorded. Chairman Mason asked if item 9~3 under the tentative parcel map is sufficient? Mr. Johnson believes it is. This parcel map would be null and void unless the abandonment occurs, Chairman Mason declared the public hearing to be open. Carl Peace., 1414 Trenton Avenue, elected as the representative for the residents on Trenton and the mobile home park. They feel Alternative A is in the best interests of the residents. Some of the residents are wanting to create a pedestrian access southerly from Trenton along the westerly side of the flood control channel to Katella Avenue. However, it was felt by Police and Fire this would be a liability because of the fences bordering the flood control channel. Also, a criminal element is a factor to consider. He would like to propose that they leave this alternative open because the residents are a little perturbed that they might not get this accessway. Another problem the residents are concerned about a walkway at the cul-de- sac. They feel it would not take care of the parking problem at Toyota. People would park on Trenton and walk thru to Toyota, taking up the parking spaces of the residents. Is there any way possible, with all parties in agreement, that the City can go ahead and start the construction necessary to cul-de-sac the street before the swim school is relocated.- By doing that, Toyota of Orange could start their expansion and the street would be closed. We would no longer have a Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1986 Page 10. raceway and excess traffic. At the meeting the other night a proposal was given to Mr. Dennis and Mr. Thompson that the present exit from the mobile home park (southeast corner) has a walkway through there allowing the people from the park to walk out into the alleyway in back of Love's, making it easier for them to shop. It was put there by the owner of the park. Many people are concerned about the traffic. A walkway would not be feasible if Tustin is widened to six lanes of traffic. If this is accepted before all the changes are made, then along with the walkway and the railing and the one-way entrance into the alley way, there was also proposed .two speed bumps to cut down speeding cars. People are very concerned about this proposal. We would like to have this option remain open, along with the walkway down at the end of the park. Mr. Thompson understands what the requests are: .pedestrian accessway on the north side of the alley to Tustin Avenue, four feet wide with a railing; the other would be a pedestrian accessway within the flood control channel right-of-way, along the west side of it from Trenton southerly, out through the secondary emergency access.. Those could be responded to and a report by the Traffic Engineer to the City Council, as well as the speed bumps in the alley. At the time we finalize the agreements with Toyota and Sandpiper Swim School, but prior to the completion of the move-in replacement site, I believe Mr. Peace was desirous of more or less building the block wall and blocking traffic. Is there any way that could be accomplished? Mr. Minshew asked if they intend to block the traffic on Trenton? Mr. Thompson said yes. Mr. Minshew stated the formal part of that is the vacation of giving up a public right-of-way. Until you actually do that, I don't think you can do that. However, there is a provision in the municipal code to block a street temporarily. This would require a hearing. Mr. Johnson said this is what we're going to be hearing this coming Tuesday on the Ko11 property..-- to shut the road off in advance of abandoning it. In this case the major issue is how to provide adequate access for the swim school if everyone is in agreement. The road is going to be closed and if the swim school can maintain adequate access, then the road could be closed in advance of the swim school being sold. Mr. Minshew asked if this would be a permanent structure that would be put. across there? Mr. Thompson responded that he didn't know if it would have to be permanent initially, but the development plans would indicate a wall along the westerly property line around the new radius of the cul-de-sac, then northerly along the single family homes, north of Trenton up through the flood control and railroad properties. Maybe some way of blocking the traffic in the interim -- I don't know how Koll is proposing it -- would that be chain link fence? Planning Commission Minutes . October 20, 1986 Page 11. Mr. Johnson said Koll is proposing chain link fences and signing. Mr. Thompson would be in agreement to meet with Toyota and Mrs. O'Donald and her attorney to work out the details involved. Mr. Minshew reiterated that on November 18 the City Council has the power to say the street is abandoned as of that date. They also have the power to make it as of another date, based on conditions. Mr. Thompson said the concern of the residents is during the period after we finalize all of the agreements while the replacement swim school is being constructed, they would like to close it as soon as possible, but still allow adequate access for Sandpiper. On a temporary basis, with all parties in agreement, I think it can be accomplished. Mr. Johnson thinks it can be closed on the basis of a long-term closure in advance. The road may be abandoned as soon as the proper abandonment facilities were in .place (-i.e., proper signing and walls). Mr. Minshew thought there was a condition that said it wouldn't be effective until the school had been moved out of there? Mr. Thompson said yes. They would not abandon it so that the school would not have access on a public street. That f-final abandonment is keyed in also to the final parcel map. Mr. Johnson said the parcel map could occur at any time. The reason for the parcel map is to combine all the miscellaneous parcels into one parcel so the building permits could be issued without crossing old lot lines. The parcel map could proceed after the abandonment. It's not a critical issue unless there are buildings that will be built crossing any of the property lines. Mr. Thompson said it could be accomplished with a little more work. This would need to be discussed with all parties involved. Carol O'Donald, 787 N. Adele, owner of the Sandpiper Swim School needs some clarity, They have no signed contract as of this date. If this falls through and the swim school is not purchased by the City, this would all be for nothing. Because then the street would not be closed. If we come up with a final agreement, she's not opposed to blocking Trenton. This would be a better plan for the residents. She has a couple of concerns for the swim school for the summer because they may still be there this summer. Problems with parking; Toyota takes up all the parking on the street. Adequate parking is not possible. Traffic congestion on Tustin causes traffic on Trenton. She's not opposed to the temporary cul-de-sac, but feels it's kind of premature. Would like to see her situation finalized before proceeding with the other. Mr. Thompson said it would be their intent to finalize it with Carol and there shouldn't be temporary blockage before that time. Commissioner Scott asked if a bond were posted to remove the improvements if the deal fell through, would that ease everyone's minds? Planning Commission Minutes Octolier 20, 19$6 Page 12. Mr. Thompson said this would not be necessary because Redevelopment is picking up a substantial portion of the costs. Commissioner Scott asked if there was a guarantee if for some reason the swim school were not relocated and the project not approved, and the vacation became null and void, that the improvements would be removed and the street would go back in? Mr. Thompson said .any temporary measure would have to provide adequate access to the Sandpiper Swim School. Mrs. O'Donald said that she read Toyota's statement that they were not going to add a structure. She was under the impression they were going to build a new building in the middle of the street. Concerned what their plans are after the cul-de-sac is up and while she is still there. Does anybody know what the plans are? Will they just be black topping that lot next to the school? Mr.NhGee said as far as staff knew, it is to be strictly a storage display area without any structures on it. In terms of timing for black topping, maybe Toyota can answer those questions directly. Norris Bishton, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2610, Los Angeles, attorney for Toyota of Orange, assured the public there would be no construction of any kind until the school is vacated. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1093. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRTED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of abandonment of Trenton Street as shown on Alternate B, Exhibit A, subject to the conditions with one added condition 4~7 - subject to the relocation of Sandpiper Swim School prior to recordation. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 1060 subject to staff's recommendations. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1986 Page 13. Moved by Commissioner .Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 86-374 subject to staff's recommendations. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 1544 subject to the conditions as listed by staff. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the appropriate Departments within the City staff investigate the proposed pedestrian access from the south easterly corner of the mobile home park, easterly to Tustin; plus, a recommendation of the Traffic Engineer for the in- stallation of speed bumps and converting this to a one way alley, as he so recommends. AYES : Commissioners Mason, ,'~4a.ster, ,Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED The walkway from Trenton along the channel was not acted upon. That recommendation will be heard at the City Council meeting. Commissioners Greek and Hart returned to the meeting. Recess was called until 10:00 p.m. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 5-86 - HOTELS AND MOTELS - CITY OF ORANGE: Proposed additions to, and deletions from the Zoning Ordinance as it regulates the establishment of hotels and motels within a variety of zoning districts. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1101 has .been prepared for this project. Mr. Yamasaki summarized the staff report. On April 6, 1986 City Council adopted a moratorium regarding the issuance of a building permit for a hotel/motel use at a particular address on East Chapman. That action was taken to allow the Commission and staff adequate time to review the matter and devise some appropriate way to handle this kind of use to ensure public safety, health and welfare. The existing code allows hotel/ motel uses in all of the commercial zones, including the new C-TR as a permitted use and also %n the M-1 and M-2 zones as part of a intergrated commercial or industrial complex. However, that type of development is subject to a conditional use permit. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1986 Page 14. The staff did conduct an extensive telephone survey among Orange County cities for their requirements and it was revealed 14 out of 24 permit hotels or motels only as a conditional use permit. Another factor that staff investigated was the matter of number of kitchens permitted in the units. Current City ordinance allows 10% of the units to have kitchens; however, that number may be increased up to 25% with a conditional use permit. Staff feels two issues need to be looked at closely: (i) Hotels/motels do operate 24 hours a day; there is the potential for extremely long term stays which would then circumvent apartment standards and the possibility of illicit activities, As indicated, other cities do require conditional use permits. (2) On the matter of kitchen units, staff concerned about long-term residency. However, we do understand the new trend is for a "suite concept"-with kitchen units associated with the bedrooms. Staff concerned about the abuses, especially for smaller units -- not so much the larger hotel chains. Consideration has been given to 100% kitchens allowed as long as the project size is 50 units or more. Also, staff is suggesting the present ~~~' maximum of 25% kitchen units be retained for projects containing less than ~''' S0 units. Commissioner-Hart stared the City didn`t have any pTOVis.ibn in the cede for senior housing projects and the way we have been doing it is to use the hotel zoning. With that concept comes the little kitchens for those units occupied by seniors, Why are we doing this? Mr. Yamasaki replied to Commissioner Harts concerns: (1) Separation between senior housing vs. hotel/motel. Hotel/motel is not intended for long-term stays whereas a senior unit is. The senior units do require a conditional use permit now and staff is only suggesting that when the projects get larger than 50 units, then perhaps 100% of the units can have kitchens;-and (2) In the case of the hotel/motel parking requirements it is one space per each unit plus any employees. The normal requests for senior housing is for a variance from the parking standardsR Commissioner Hart said if we do set up standards like this, we should also include a set of standards for the senior projects. He's concerned about the neighbors complaining when a senior project is proposed. Chairman Mason suggested making a separate recommendation regarding senior housing projects and have staff report back to the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Hart asked what the method of enforcement is on a hotel that is turned into an apartment. There are two of them on Tustin. They are advertised as motels, but are always full of families living in them. Mr. Yamasaki said it is very difficult for staff to be out there to check on a regular basis all these types of uses. This is one of many of the uses -- not just the hotel. A legal definition is needed on long-term stays vs. short term stays. Staff attempts to catch it at the plan check stage. It is possible for people to convert; and our concern is the conversion either legally or illegally later on. . Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1486 Page 15. Mr. Minshew said there was a definition because. it is included in the transient-tax -- in our bed tax. You don't pay a bed tax for an apartment; you do pay a 6% tax for the hotels/motels. Mr. Yamasaki responded to Commissioner Hart's previous question with three alternatives to consider.. (1) Is to keep it the way it is. That is to require a conditional use permit and variance. for lot size and parking,. which usually accompanies senior housing projects; (2) Fold this into a one type of occupany so that seniors vs. hotel/motel might be considered the same in terms of development standards; and (3) Ask staff to look at the various alternatives and report back to the Commission before you make a recommendation to City Council. Chairman Mason said in the meantime, any projects that come before the Commission-such as the suites will be heard with a conditional use permit. Mr. Yamasaki stated until the City Council takes an action, the Commission will continue with .the same procedure as before -~ 10% is allowed; 25% with a conditional use permit. Tf you recommend this action and the Council then approves it, it will become a conditional use permit up to 50. Mr. McGee clarified the code sections listed on the staff report, certain ones of them are CUP permitted code sections within those .certain zones. Although it doesn't state a conditional use .permit is required by inserting this into that section, it would in effect do that. Commissioner Hart questioned the rationale for the number of units (50). Mr. Yamasaki said it was a value judgment by the staff. It becomes large enough then for effective management vs. absentee owners. With the larger chains there is some assurance of operating as hotels/motels, even though it does have .kitchen units, You can change the number if you choose. Mr. Minshew obtained. a definition of transient as a person who occupies a premise for less than 30 days.. Unless there is an agreement between the landlord and tenant from the beginning that says it will be for a longer period of time. This is the definition used for tax purposes. Chairman Mason opened the public hearing. Dick Broadway, 131 N. Tustin, Suite 106, Tustin, concerned with the way the proposal is worded, the arbi~r.ary assignment of number of units for the project. The sma.Tler the complex, the more leniency developers would have to have relevant to the kitchen facilities. With a larger project (over 50 units) we would be able to have community dining facilities; it would not be feasible for the smaller projects. In the larger projects there is on site management and control. The City may want to consider a comprehensive senior residential development standard package. Has no problem with the conditional use permit, but the variance request would be of great. concern. Chairman Mason asked Mr. Broadway if he considered his projects under hotels/motels? Mr. Broadway stated yes, their development concept does fall within the realm of hotels/motels tie way the Ordinance is written. . Planning Commission Minutes Octptier 20, 1986 .Page 16. Discussion between the Commission, staff and Mr. Broadway centered around senior housing projects, restrictions imposed, parking, and enforcement/ management concerns. Mr. McGee said the senior question is a separate issue from the hotel/ motel provisions being discussed. We have used that title as a part of the seniors projects that have been approved,. but they .have been considered something separate from a traditional hotel/motel type of use (i.e., kitchens are looked at differently). Staff is responding to the kitchen provisions through the marketing issue of larger chains who want the opportunity to have kitchen facilities within a traditional hotel/motel. This will not affect any future processing of senior projects. Nothing in the ordinance addresses senior housing; these are two separate issues. Commissioner Hart is looking at the zoning. Talking about the uses allowed in commercial zones. Where would you put a seniors project in this area? Mr, McGee said it could be located in the same zone, but listed separately. Presently the ordinance is structured .for a short list of permitted uses. Staff makes assumptions of what types of uses are similar to those that physically are on that list, A pattern has been established by staff to process a senior citizens project. Mr. Broadway appreciates and accepts Mr, ricGee's explanation. Commissioner Greek asked what Section 17.43 is? Mr. McGee stated Section 17.43 is the new C-TR Commercial-Tustin Redevelopment zone. It is not in the current reprint. Copies will be made available upon request. Ed Hutchinson, 6600 E. Hampden Ave., Denver, Colorado, represents the land owners of a parcel located at St. College and Rampart involving a joint venture of a hotel. Concerned with the conditional use permit which allows 25% of kitchens. Hopes the Commission will consider changes to the Ordinance to allow projects of 50 units or larger to have 100% kitchens. Chairman Mason closed the public hearing. .Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1101. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they approve Ordinance Amendment 5-86 as outlined on Page 4 of the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED •- Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1986 - Page 17. Commissioner Master stated he doesn't have any comfort level with the 50 units, but it's a number h_e can't. debate. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they consider. a senior citizens ordinance, and for staff to study development standards for senior citizens. housing. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-86 - C-TR (COMMERCIAL - TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT SIGN STANDARDS - CITY OF ORANGE: Proposed addition to Chapter 17.43 of the Orange Municipal Code establishing regulations for sign placement within the C-TR (.Commercial-Tustin Redevelopment) District. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1099 has been prepared for this project.. Staff report not requested. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend. to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1099., AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they approve Ordinance Amendment 4-86, AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Report and recommendation from the Technical Advisory Committee to approve Austin-Foust Associates/DKS Associates to prepare Circulation Element portion of the East Orange General Plan and Phase I of the City-wide Circulation Element Update and Parking Standards Study. Jere Murphy, Administrator of Advanced Planning, presented the staff report. The Technical Advisory Committee sent out RFP's to five traffic consultants. A single proposal was made by the Austin-Foust and DKS firms. That proposal is a reasonable proposal in terms of its dollar cost, and the two firms have the experience and expertise to adequately do the work. The firm of Austin-Foust is also preparing the traffic study for the Southwest Strategy Plan; therefore, the reason for the recommendation to expand their activities to not only do the East Orange General Plan Traffic Study,. but also to do the modeling work for the ','Planning Commission Minutes . October 20, 1986 'Page 18. entire City at an additional cost of $8,000. The proposal indicates that if the modeling work were performed separately at a later time, the cost would be $20,000 rather than $8,000. Staff asked Austin~Foust to develop a proposal covering the prepartion of a report summarizing the comprehensive modeling program and any potential problem areas in the arterial highway system that. need further investigation. These reports would be the first phase of the Circulation Element up-date and would be an analysis based on existing general plan land. uses plus the results of the Southwest Strategy Study. The next step in the process of updating the City's General Plan would be send out a RFP for the land use consultant work as soon as possible so that the work can be coordinated with the findings of Phase I of the Circulation Element and Phase II, the special traffic studies required by the findings of Phase I and the testing of any land use modifications proposed as the result of the land use consultant studies. Staff and committee recommends the following action: 1. Approval of Austin-Foust/DKS to prepare Circulation portion of the East Orange General Plan, 2. That the City of Orange enter into a separate contract with Austin- Foust Associates to prepare Phase I of the Circulation Element :Update and Parking Standards Study at a cost of $33,300. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Austin- Foust/DKS to prepare Circulation Element Studies as described in the staff memorandum of October 13, 1986. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m., to reconvene at a regular meeting on November 3, 1986, at 7;30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. /sld C