Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 17, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Greek STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; PRESENT: Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and Gary Johnson, City Engineer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded, by Commissioner Master, that Commissioner Hart remain as Chairman of the Planning Commission until the expiration of his term in January, 1984; and further, that Commissioner Master remain as Vice Chairman under the same time table. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 AND OCTOBER 10, 1983 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to adopt the minutes of September 19, 1983 and October 10, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1313 - OAK RIDGE PRIVATE SCHOOL: A request to expand the capacity of an existing school from 75 to 100 students and to move-on a modular unit for classroom space on property located on the south side of Walnut Avenue at the terminus of Maplewood Street (1134 East Walnut Avenue). (Continued from the canceled October 3, 1983 hearing.) (NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 3.64 acres of land on the south side of Walnut Avenue at the terminus of Maplewood Street (1134 E. Walnut Avenue.) It has approximately 335 feet of frontage on Walnue Avenue, is zoned R-1-6 and occupied by a church and private school. Mr. Lanz explained that the applicant proposes to expand the capacity of the existing school from 75 to 100 students, and to move-on a modular structure for use as class room to house a maximum of 22 first grade students. Planning Commission Minutes Page Two October 17, 1983 ~ He pointed out that the proposed class room is 24 feet by 35 feet (840 square feet) in size and to be located adjacent to other buildings currently being used for class rooms by the applicant. To the east of the proposed unit are residences and a hedge of 8 to 10 feet in height separates the two uses. The play yard area and parking facilities appear to be in excess for the proposed use. P4r. Lanz pointed out that Conditional Use Permit 722 was approved on June 16, 1975, permitting a private school with a maximum capacity of 75 emotionally disturbed students for this property. Public comment during that hearing focused on the play yard activities and block wall at the south edge of the project site. It was also pointed out that the hours of operation will be 6:15 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which includes three hours of day care for enrolled students before and after educational classes. Mr. Lanz said that it is staff's opinion that the proposal is compatible with land use and zoning in the area and is in conformance with the intent of the General Plan. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1313, subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Master asked if there had been any comments from surrounding residents regarding the school activities since CUP 722 was approved back in 1975. Per. Lanz responded that at one time there was an expression of concern with regard to students who attended another school cutting through the subject school property, actually going over the back wall. The school personnel was made aware of this problem and the area is being policed. To his knowledge, there is no current concern in that area, Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Fred Berry, representing the Oakridge Private School, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that if they opened two schools, they would be filled, as there is such a need in the community for this type of school to accommodate working parents, where both husband and wife are away from the home all day. He explained that this school was secure, well landscaped and safe for the children, keeping them off the street in a protected environment. He explained that since 1975 there has been a CUP in effect for 75 children and, there being such a demand in the community for this type of situation, they decided to enlarge to a degree of 25 more children. He pointed out that the children are not all out on the playground at the same time. There is also a computer-lab on the premises and they provide individual piano lessons, oil painting classes, among other activities, so ~'" that the children are actively involved. John Pop, 1133 E. Sycamore, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, explaining that his property is located directly behind the school playground. He said that the noise at the school bothers him since he works swing shift hours and sleeps during the day. He also had a problem with the children attempting to jump the fence into his yard to retrieve balls, etc. He pointed out that, with the playground being directly behind his home, more children will just mean more noise, which he found hard to Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Three ~, tolerate. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Pop what time the noise starts and was told that it begins around 6:30 a.m. He also explained that he has notified the church about what he considered the excessive noise and children in his yard and the church expressed their sympathy with his problem. Commissioner Master asked what was done, if anything, and Per. Pop responded that nothing was done other than expressing their concern over his problem. Beverly Dyer, 1123 E. Sycamore, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that her problems were basically the same as Mr. Pop's, since she worked swing shift also. She said that the school has a tether ball set which squeaks loudly and is very annoying when someone is trying to sleep. She said she had spoken to people patrolling the school- ground and had taken rocks and pinecones to them which have been thrown into her yard. The situation has improved but it still occurs. She stated that the Sunday School is just as bad as on weekdays and on a recent Sunday a rock came over the fence, almost striking her daughter. Commissioner Master asked if Mrs. Dyer lived in her home before or after the school was built and she replied that they were there before the school. She also explained that there have been fires in open pits on the church property and, with pine trees planted almost on the property line between them, she had great concern for fire danger to her home. Patricia Berry, 2810 E. Camphor, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in rebuttal, responding to Mr. Pop's remarks by stating that after Mr. Pop told her he did not appreciate the children climbing his fence to retrieve balls, she has not, to her knowledge, had one child go over the fence. She explained that a senior Chapman College student watches the children in the mornings and does not allow the children out into the playground until 8:00 a.m. Responding to the statement with regard to fires on the premises, she explained that these are church activities which take place on Saturdays and Sundays and have nothing to do with the school. The school has never had a fire in the open pit. Mrs. Berry pointed out that the original Conditional Use Permit was for the Michael Kent School for handicapped and special children. The children who attend Oak Ridge Private School are normal and accelerated children. Commissioner Vasquez asked what the hours of operation for the school are and was told that they are from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The children are kept inside of the school build ing watching cartoons until- 8:00 a.m. At that time they are allowed to go out to the playground. Classes start at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Vasquez asked if Oakridge Private School leases the property from the church and was told that it does. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that by expanding the size of their school, this will increase the noise. Mrs. Berry explained that the purpose of a private school is to remain small with small classes and if they stay on this site they will remain small, as it is desirable as far as the parents are concerned. Their ratio is 18-1 in the classroom. They expect this to be the ultimate expansion of their school at this site. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Four ~ Commissioner Vasquez pointed out on the map that there is obviously space for the playground to be moved to another area. He felt that adding 25 more children to the existing playground made it a rather crowded situation. Commissioner Master pointed out that when the original CUP was approved for the Kent School, those children were out of doors very little during each day. However, since there has been a change in the type of student attending the Oak Ridge Private School, the type of activities has changed to some extent. The change in the type of students attending this school creates more of a noise nuisance for the neighbors. He too wished to explore the possibility of moving the playground to another area away from the neighboring residences. He asked questions with regard to how the parking situation would be affected if this were done. Commissioner Vasquez also asked if this playground were shared with the church groups who use the facility, since if this were so, any modification of the playground would have to be accepted by the church who owns the property. Chairman Hart suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to continue this matter in order that the applicants try to establish rapport with the neighbors and also look into the possibility of moving the playground area. Patricia Berry explained that the only other area which could be used in this capacity is entirely cemented. Therefore, the possibility of changing that area to a playground does not seem too feasible. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue this matter to November 7, 1983, in order to discuss and try to resolve the problems with the neighbors and/or come to some kind of compromise agreement with the church. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Mr. Berry again addressed the Commission and pointed out that there is a vast difference between the types of children who attended the Michael Kent School and those now attending the Oak Ridge Private School. He felt that, if anything, the activity has lessened, since the children previously at- tending the school were of a disturbed variety, and were found on the roof and in the trees, there were incidents involving knives, etc. That is not so with the type of children now attending the school. ~ AMENDMENT 5-83 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to amend City Code Section 17.10.040 to permit second living units in single family neighborhoods by Conditional Use Permit under certain conditions to meet State Government Code Section 65852.2 SB 1534. (Continued from the canceled October 3, 1983 hearing.) NOTE: Negative Declaration 872 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. Jere Murphy presented Amendment 5-83 to the Commission, stating that there were two Senate bills approved in the calendar years 1981-82 by the State legislature, Senate Bill 1534, which requires cities to enact ordinances Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Five ~ by July 1, 1983, establishing local regulations for second units, or categorically rejecting them because of adverse impact. If no local ordinance is adopted by July 1st, the city must accept state regulations, which include conditional use permit use for approving these units. Mr. Murphy pointed out that there is an additional portion of that legisla- tion that allowed fora 120 day moratorium after the initial application for such a second unit, at which tim e a city can further study the matter before having to take any action. He explained that the city has not received any applications since July 1st of this year when this legislation went into effect. On August 23, 1983, the City Council, after having received copies of the Staff's report on a proposed Second Unit Ordinance, directed the staff and Planning Commission to set public hearings to consider whether the City of Orange should adopt a second unit ordinance and, if so, what criteria should be utilized in reviewing such proposals. Also, on August 23, 1983 the Council directed Staff to insert a reference to the Old Towne guidelines into the ordinance proposal and to prepare a survey updating activities of other cities regarding Second Unit Ordinances. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Planning Commission has three possible alternatives with regard to this proposal: (1) to recommend denial of the amendment with the findings as required by state law that even though the provision might provide additional housing for special groups within the community, that there are still adverse circumstances and impacts to the existing residential areas; (2) take no action or recommend no action on to the City Council, thereby triggering the use of the state legislation to review any applications that might be made to the city; (3) to recommend approval of the staff proposal with appropriate comments and modifications. Mr. Murphy then reviewed the criteria which would be used for reviewing the application. He explained that there are 9 basic areas: (1) that the occupants be either senior citizens, 60 years or older, or related to the occupants of the primary unit by blood, marriage, and limited to three persons maximum, if they are related and not 60 years of age and older; (2) That the primary unit on the property is owned occupied; (3) general guidelines that the second unit be approximately 640 to 850 sq. ft. in size (this is a general guideline and not an absolute regulation and, for special reasons, could be either smaller or larger. It is felt that a unit should be 500-600 sq. ft. in order to have enough living room for an individual occupant, but the tendency is not to encourage larger units be- cause of the impact on surrounding residences.); (4) all development standards for primary structures should be adhered to, including building setbacks, height of buildings, open space requirements, etc.; (5) that one additional parking space be required unless the second unit is restricted by deed to non-drivers; (6) that the separate unit be a rental unit only; that there be no separate ownership from the primary unit; (7) that a second unit can be attached to, detached from, or within the primary structure as long as all zoning, development standards, and uniform building code requirements are met. P~obile homes or modular units could be utilized for the meeting Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Six ~ of the requirements for that second unit; (8) that all second unit structural additions, modifications or move-ons be subject to all building division requirements, as well as Design Review Board review. Projects within the Old Towne area must conform to the specific guidelines of Old Towne as they relate to residential structures; (9) that all conditions attached to second unit approvals by conditional use permit be recorded on the title to the subject property, as notice to any future buyers of the property that the second unit is permitted only under certain specific conditions. Commissioner Master referred to the second bill which Mr. Murphy had mentioned, stating that this had been brought up at the League of Cities recent meeting, which bill had some nuances in it which led him to ask whether the proposed ordinance addresses itself to both bills. Mr. Murphy responded that staff had attempted to address both bills at the same time, using as a basic guideline the document prepared by the Office of Planning & Research which refers to both bills, talking about not only what they think the intent was of both pieces of legislation, but also what other cities are doing throughout the State of California in regard to both bills in terms of local ordinance implementation. He then explained in more detail what was contained in the second bill, explaining that there are some dif- ferences between the two bills. However, he did not think they conflict with each other. They approach the subject from a little different angle. Chairman Hart said that it was his understanding, through a conversation with Mr. Minshew earlier, that it is not mandatory for the city to grant, but they must show some good reason why they don't do this. Mr. Minshew clarified this by reading a segment of the bill pertaining to the subject under discussion. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. John Aust, 1429 E. Lomita, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking questions with regard to the 4th criteria mentioned by Mr. Murphy. He wondered how the setbacks would be determined - would they be from the existing setback rules or would they be retroactive to the old ones, that is, if the current building is not built to the present setback standards, would he build an addition under the old conditions or the present ones. Furthermore, if there is an existing structure on the lot and it is being converted into a dwelling or separate unit, because it is becoming a second unit and is no long what it was intended to be, i.e. a garage, what would the setback standards be. He explained that he would hate to see a garage which was placed on the property line converted into a second dwelling unit without first being moved 10 feet from the property line or whatever the standard might be. Mr. Murphy explained that the intent in the ordinance is not to legalize what may have been done in the past with regard to either illegal structures or nonconforming structures. In those cases, where someone wished to convert an existing building which is not used as a living unit, there may have to be variances applied for if that structure does not fit in with the primary dwelling unit development standards, which are those standards used for the primary residences at the present time. The location of an existing building Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Seven may be such that it might not be appropriate to use for a second unit under this proposed ordinance. Mr. Aust also expressed a concern with regard to blood relatives, wondering if, for instance, he were to build a separate unit for his mother to live in and she died, would he have a unit that he could do nothing with. He also wondered how such a thing could be enforced. In his opinion, if an ordinance such as this were passed, he did not believe it was the concern of the City as to who would live there. Mr. Aust explained that he had gotten involved in this matter because of the number of accessory buildings being conv erted into secondary dwelling units and he really did not understand what the difference between the two is. When does the accessory building become a dwelling unit - when a kitchen or bedroom is added - or what? Since he is a broker, he thought the State standards would make the distinction when the kitchen goes in. He pointed out that a structure was built nextdoor to him which included a bedroom, a wet bar, a living area and a shower and the City Attorney seemed to feel that it was still an accessory structure and, therefore, none of these rules would apply. Mr. Minshew felt that with regard to the accessory structure that they have generally followed the rules set down for it, but when it gets down to fine points it is hard to say in which category it belongs. However, under this ordinance, it is intended that the secondary unit is intended to be a full fledged dwelling unit, which would include a full kitchen, bathroom and living quarters. Mr. Aust again addressed the Commission, explaining that he understood what is meant by a full fledged dwelling unit, but he has what is considered an accessory structure next to his property and the building is too close to the property line for a full fledged dwelling unit. He pointed out that when his neighbor applied for a permit for this structure, it was explained to the Building Department that she was planning to live in it, but it would not have a kitchen. Therefore, without a kitchen it may not fall into the category which is being discussed under the proposed ordinance. He wondered if a 10th criteria could be added to cover accessory structures such as he described. He felt that there needs to be a clear definition of what an accessory structure is and what a dwelling unit consists of. Chairman Hart explained that you have the problem of intent and who defines that. Mr. Minshew felt that perhaps it would be good to have a better definition of an accessory structure. Mr. Aust felt that when a person ~ expresses their intent to live in the proposed structure, then it becomes a dwelling unit, whether there is a kitchen or not. Mr. Murphy explained that the staff is attempting to work in a third area, that is not the primary dwelling or secondary dwelling, but that of the separated accessory building that has living space within it. This is not really defined in the code right now. He pciinted out that in addition to this code amendment they are working on a separate area to try and address those accessory buildings that are not secondary units, but also might have living area, but do not have a kitchen. They are hoping to address this Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Eight in another amendment because this is becoming rare of a problem to the city. Mr. Minshew then spoke to the first criteria dealing with the occupants being either senior citizens, 60 years or older, or blood relatives, or relatives by marriage. He brought up a case in Santa Barbara where it was said that blood or marriage were just two criteria for judging a family relationship. There could be other relationships and, in this case, this was professional people who were sharing expenses. Feeling that this was an economic relationship, they felt it should come into this category. The court decided that this was so in that case. He did agree with Mr. Aust that this is a very hard area to control. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Minshew whether the blood relation criteria had been tested in the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court and Mr. Minshew said he did not remember which court had decided on the Santa Barbara case. However, this is basically the law in California, that there are other standards by which to judge relationships. Mr. Minshew further stated that in the Santa Barbara case there were criminal penalties involved. Therefore, the court stated that there are other relationships. which should be considered other than blood and marriage. ~, He pointed out that the ordinance before the Planning Commission is a condition, not involving criminal penalties. Commissioner Mason wondered how this has been handled in the past within the city limits. Mr. Murphy explained that this type of use in the R-1 zone is just not permitted. At the present time, there is not way to allow a secondary dwelling unit on an R-1 lot other than through a zone change. There might possibly have been some variances granted 20 years ago, when variances were more liberally viewed, but in the past 20 years this has not been allowed. Commissioner Mason wondered whether there have been instances where this has been done illegally and, if so, what course of action has the city taken. Mr. Murphy explained that there have not been very many cases of which he is aware and when they were made aware of such a situation, the structure was modified to the requirements of the city. He pointed out that it is very difficult to prove an illegal non-conforming situation, whether it was an action by the city many years ago or whether it an outright bootleg of a second structure. This is a difficult gray area to weed out. Commissioner Master commented that this wil] be a very difficult area to ~ enforce and it becomes a case whether either the city takes the state's standards or adopts one of their own. He thought that the preference should be that the city adopt its own ordinance. There being no one else to speak for or against this amendment, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master moved, seconddd by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 872 and further, to recommend approval of Amendment 5-83, with the comments and conditions as noted. Planning Co October 17, Page Nine AYES: NOES ABSENT: mmission Minutes 1983 Commissioners Hart, Mason, h1aster, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1316 - 4JEST COAST CONSERVATORY OF BALLET: A proposal to operate a ballet school in a 5,600 square foot space within an industrial center on land located on the southwest corner of Collins Avenue and Batavia Street (1014 West Collins Avenue). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 870 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. ) By consensus of the Planning Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Kristin Potts, 14426 Brandywyne, Garden Grove, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She explained that she had been looking for the ideal location for about six months, and after looking at many commercial and industrial locations, they finally found this one, which she felt would work well for her purposes. She read a letter written by her landlord, which was written on her behalf, and explained the type of industrial complex it was and the kinds of tenants which inhabited it. They stated that they endorsed this application wholeheartedly, explaining that there is adequate parking spaces to support the facility. She pointed out that there is a precedent for this school in an industrial area one mile away, where there is a similar school which she knows personally to be very successful. It has been in this area for four years and has had no problems whatsoever. She also pointed out that both the Police Department and Fire Department have cleared this use at the subject location. Ms. Potts then pointed out that a ballet company, Ballet Unlimited, would also be in residence at her school and she felt this would enhance the artistic profile of the City of Orange. She felt that many of the concerns expressed in the Staff Report were in regard to parking and explained that she and her partner had visited this facility at least 10 times at many different hours of the day and the parking lot has never been more than one-third full at any time of the day or evening. They did a photographic study of the parking lot at several different hours of the day in order to prove this statement and she showed the Commission this study. She also pointed out that there are 33 more parking spaces than are required for the building, for a total of 187 parking spaces. Therefore, with the 12 spaces allotted for their use, plus the 33 spaces over code, there are 45 spaces available for their use. She professed a problem with some of the special conditions contained in the Staff Report and asked that if the CUP were approved that three of them be amended. She gave each of the Commissioners a copy of the amendment which she was requesting, then explaining each amendment as follows: Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Ten 1. That no classes be held prior to 3:00 p.m. Ms. Potts said that they would like to have it amended to read - "because of the abundance of parking during the entire day, that classes be allowed to be held there during the hours of 9-11 a.m. and 2-9:30 p.m., to be restricted by the occupancy given to them by the city." She explained the reason why they are asking for morning hours, that they have had requests for a particular kind of class which would meet in the morning. However, this would be a very small class. 2. That no classes be held for students of driving age or older between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. so as to minimize the interface of industrial and student traffic. Because of the abundance of the parking, Ms. Potts did not see a reason for this condition, since it is the nature of the dance business to structure a class according to skill rather than age. 3. That the facility be used for ballet dancing only, to the exclusion of all other types of dancing. Ms. Potts asked that this condition be amended to read "for theatrical dancing only", which would include ballet, tap, jazz, etc. since most professional dancers today wish to become proficient in all of these-types of dancing. She said that they would be glad to exclude aerobic type of dancing, since this is not what they have in mind for their school. She then said that they would be very willing to abide by the other special conditions. Commissioner Vasquez asked where this school is being operated at this time and Ms. Potts explained that she does not have her own school at this time. She teaches for two other schools and would like to consolidate her teaching program, which is why she desires her own school. Commissioner Vasquez wondered if there is a precedence for this type of school and Ms. Potts pointed out that Villa Park Ballet School is the same type of facility and operates about a mile away from where they plan to locate their school. That school trains students who plan to be professional dancers, as would their school. To her knowledge, there have been no problems pith that school. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out in the staff report that staff is concerned about the students who will attend this school after 6:00 p.m., wondering how she intends to regulate this. She explained that the school policy will be that no one will- be allowed to leave the building after class until the parents or a responsible adult come to pick them up. She will expect the students to be escorted personally outside of the building to their rides. Commissioner Vasquez also brought up the concern of the staff with regard to student traffic conflict with industrial traffic in that area, which is quite heavy. Ms. Potts explained that there are four points of access to that area - two on Batavia and two on Collins. There are also traffic lights at Main and at Batavia, which slow the traffic in that area. She felt that there is as much access to this center as there was to any commercial centers which they looked at. She also pointed out that the classes held during this peak time of traffic are going to be their smallest classes of the day, being classes for 4 & 5 year olds and 5 & 6 year olds and limited to 10-12 students in the class. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Eleven Commissioner Vasquez wondered if the landlord has read the report and Ms. Potts responded that he had. She said that the landlord was here this evening. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that one of the special conditions states that the parking area will be fitted with security lighting as approved by the Police Department and wondered if she knew if this would be done. She said she really didn't understand this condition, as to her knowledge, the police have already approved the security in that parking lot before they ever filed. Commissioner Vasquez explained to her why the police department would be asking for security lighting, since they are talking about pedestrian traffic after dark, particularly a juvenile age group. Ms. Potts pointed out the type of lighting which is already on the building, which she was told was what was needed for this particular type of security. She also explained the kind of lighting which is provided in the parking lot and said that it has never been dark there whenever they have been there at night. Commissioner Mason asked if most of the students would entering and leaving by the front entrance facing Collins. Ms, Potts answered in the affirmative, pointing out that this is the reason why an industrial use is much better for them because in commercial use, the back way is usually used and is darker than the front area. She felt that the industrial area is a much safer situation for her type of use. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vasquez said that he had several concerns in this matter, pointing out that the staff has highlighted several of these concerns. One of his concerns was about traffic, feeling that the type of traffic which flows through that area is of major concer, particularly where classes are planned between the hours of 3 - 6 p.m „ P~ondays through Fridays. He was also concerned about safety, with hours of operation between the hours of 7:45 - 9:00. He wondered how much regulation the city would have over that as time goes on. He also felt that an industrial area like this could be very desolate on Saturdays. Commissioner Hart felt that this particular use would not generate any more or less traffic than any other use. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 870. ~,, AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master NOES: Commissioner Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Greek AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1316,. subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and substituting the applicant's amendments to Conditions 1, 2 and 6. Commissioners Hart, Mason Commissioners h1aster, Vasquez Commissioner Greek MOTION FAILED Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Twelve Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1316 to Monday, November 7, 1983. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Mason ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Vasquez commented that obviously this program is a worthy one, but he felt that enough concerns have been outlined that perhaps the applicant and staff could get together and iron out more of these concerns before November 7th. Herbert Frommholz, representing Collins/Batavia Industrial, addressed the Commission, stating that they have checked with the tenants in their building and if they had another tenant occupy this space in the building, who might have 30 people working for them, what would be the difference between that type of situation and this one. He pointed out that the allocation for the use parking is already there and he suggested that this issue be discussed at the continued meeting. Helen Grenito, 2139 Pami Circle, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that her daughter has been a ballet student since she was 3 years old. She took lessons at Villa Park School of Ballet until about a year ago when she went with Ms. Potts. She did not feel that the point brought up about students being in the parking lot after dark does not present a problem, since ballet mothers are very protective. There has never been a problem at the Villa Park School of Ballet, to her knowledge. The children are kept inside of the building until the parent comes in to pick the child up. The children never run around the parking lot. Therefore, she did not feel that this is a valid point. Commissioner Vasquez responded that, keeping in mind the location at Batavia and Collins, and being very familiar with the area, he found this to be a concern. He thought tonight's discussion was very relevant, but hoped that something could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1317 - R.I.C. INSURANCE GENERAL AGENCY, INC. A request to establish an office use in the Industrial zone on property located on the sou thwest corner of Katella Avenue and Parker Street (704 6Jest Katella). NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. By consensus of the Planning Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Bill Barnes, 747 W. Katella Ave., Orange, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that the agency came to the City of Orange in 1977, having 35 employees. They have now grown to over 100 employees and have outgrown their original space. He pointed out that the space across the street at 704 W. Katella is the closest and most available space for their needs. Since they like their location, they do not wish to move far from where they are right now. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1983 Page Thirteen There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1317, for the reasons stated by Staff and subject to the three conditions outlined in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Hart explained that a vacancy has opened up on the Upper Peters Canyon Steering Committee, which had previously been filled by Commissioner Mickelson. He thought it would be appropriate to request that the Mayor and City Council make a new appointment. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner T1aster, that the issue of the appointment of a principal and alternate to-the Upper Peters Canyon Steering Committee be left to the discretion of the Mayor and the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, November 7, 1983 at-7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 0