Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/5/1987 - Minutes PC :,.-. C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California January 5, 1987 Monday - 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Greek at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Stan Soo-Hoo, Administrator of Current Planning & Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 1986 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the ?Minutes of December 15, 1986, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart IN RE : NEG] HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1547, VARIANCE 1805 - FAST: Proposed bed and breakfast inn. within the RM~-7 (Residential, Multi-Family - 7,000 square foot minimum lot size) zone. Also requested is a deviation from parking requirements. Located on the northeast corner of Palmyra Avenue and Orange Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1116 has been prepared for this project. ___.,( "° There was no opposition to this conditional use permit so the staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Norm Fast, 205 East Palmyra, applicant of this project, also owns the property at 215 East Palmyra. Feels this proposal will enhance Old Towne's concept of restoring an old residence and then opening it's doors so they may also enjoy it. By passing the conditional use permit, rehabilitation efforts caill be accelerated which will increase the adjacent property values. The structure at 205 East Palmyra is now on the National Register of Historic Places; it was placed there on March, 1986. T,he image of that house was placed on a bronze plaque Planning Commission Minutes ' January 5, 1987 '~ Page 2. at the intersection of Glassell and Almond by former Mayor Beam and Councilman Don Smith and City staff. That dedication was on October 23, 1986. The proposed parking spaces on site are five. The existing on-street parking is seven spaces, and we have valet parking available of six spaces within one block. That totals 18 spaces for those two properties. The Culver House has never had on-site parking because it was built before the town was planned. It was before there were tract maps and before automobiles *aere popular. The property (historically) was the ouerflow annex for the Palmyra Hotel which needed hitching posts, not garages or parking spaces. It is intended to turn two of those guest rooms of the four guest rooms into the bed and breakfast inn, The Culver House is presently on the Old Towne Orange - a walk-thru history tour 425 - and has been a boarding house in the past. They want to promote low density, historic preservation. and encourage tourism and shopping in Old Towne. Requests approval of the variance because the one on-site parking space in question can be made up by either on-street parking in front or at the side of the house, or by valet parking to the six available spaces one block away. Requests approval of the conditional use permit to ensure continued development and rehabilitation of the City's historic structures. Commissioner Hart stated one of the things Mr. Fast was asking for - a variance to allow reduction in the amount of parking -and it was ~,, cited that on-street parking as making up for that deficiency. The Commission does not count street parking as a use to make up for adequate parking. Mr. Fast said he was aware of the Ordinance and what it says. Commissioner Hart said that a use of; an alternate lot some ways away was cited. Mr. Fast said yes; it was located at 262 South Glassell.. Commissioner Hart understands Mr. Fast has ownership in that property and asked him if he would be willing to, by deed restriction, place one of those spaces fnr the use of this property. Mr. Fast said no, not by deed restriction. The ownership of that property involves other entities, other than him personally. Commissioner Hart said the problem with allocating those spaces is that the use that is given to the property on Palmyra goes with the property; not with the individual. If Mr. Fast is no longer a part of the Palmyra property,. the use of that space on Glassell would not be valid. Where is the hardship without the use of these extra spaces? Mr. Fast said the hardship is that in order to do what is wanted to preserve the property and make it into abed and breakfast, there's really no place to put the parking that is required by the. Ordinance on the property to make it a viable bed and breakfast. Keeping the historic flavor of it and all that. •Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 3. `w,r+° Commissioner Hart stated the hardship is a self-imposed hardship. taithout the request for the bed and breakfast, there wouldn't be a hardship. The variance is the difficult part of this application. He likes the idea of the bed and breakfast. Mr. Fast does not know what to do to proceed with this. There are such few rooms that would be available for the bed and breakfast, that it is not going to provide a hardship to the community. Commissioner Hart said hardship is a planning term. It is specifically called out in the code. Mr. Fast said they could. make a parking lot out of the front lawn, legally probably, and it would,.. Just by the physical location of the house, it just doesn°t warrant any other location for a garage.. There's really no place to put a garage on the 205 property. The old garage at 215 East Palmyra was torn down and it will be replaced with a new garage to provide more parking. They are doing everything that they physically can do to provide the parking that is needed. Commissioner Hart said that parking in that area (as poznted out). has been pretty critical. Every application that has been before the Commission in the area, the protest has always been not enough parking. Mr. Fast said they have six children, who each have cars, and they have two automobiles; they make it work around their property. Commissioner Master referred to Mr. Fast's presentation at the December 15 meeting regarding the senior ci:tizen''s development on the southeast corner of Glassell and Palmyra. A good number of those people speaking in opposition were concerned about parking in the area. That point was repeated quite strongly. Mr. Fast does not want to cloud that issue along with this issue They are two different projects.. He is concerned about parking and is concerned about that project in that he strongly feels that the excess parking that is not taken care of by that project will be parking on the street; and they will be parking in front of our property. Has not parked their cars in front of adjacent properties nor have the adjacent property owners parked their cars in front of the house. There is adequate parking today in front of the house. Seven spaces are available. With the approval of the Sunwest project, that will be completely eliminated. If that project goes through, those seven spaces will evaporate. Four people spoke in favor of this project: Oddsverre Johannessen, 271 South Orange, owns property that bounds Mr. Fast's property to the north. His. children have never caused a hardship to the residents when they come home and park their cars. Doesn't think there will be any problems with parking for the bed and breakfast. Has not seen a critical parking problem in the area during the last year and a half. ,Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 4. Laren Gartner, 315 S. Orange Street, lives directly across the street from the proposed project. Began her comments with the express concern for Mr. and Mrs. Fast: They were asked not to directly address the current parking problems in relationship to the senior housing project that is going in possibly across the street. Since the Commission has prompted that question, pointed out that meetings with the people she spoke with, that if Mr. and Mrs. Fast were willing to assure the Commission that only senior citizens were allowed to use the bed and breakfast, there wouldn't be any problem with the parking at all; there wouldn't be a parking problem. It is unfortunate that it is perceived in that nature, but that is certainly the truth. If this were a senior's bed and breakfast, there would be no parking problem. Feels this project will be a good neighbor policy to offer this charming old piece of Orange's form of glory as a bed and breakfast.. Visitors will have the experience of spending the night in one of the rooms that was used just for that purpose many years ago when Orange was a stopping off place between North and South Orange County. Old Towne may become a little more well known by the graciousness of its inhabitants; a little more understood by strangers who would leave the Fast's home a little richer by their visit there. The Fast's are not asking approval to add on or to change the character of this old home; they are asking to share it with others. Lisa Blanc, 368 S. Orange Street, feels the idea of a bed and breakfast i.nn is a delightful idea for an old historic home and also feels it is a delightful and refreshing addition to 01d Towne. This bed and breakfast inn is in keeping with the 01d Towne atmosphere. Feels this type of project should be encouraged by the City to compliment the downtown area. Personally would welcome this addition into her neighborhood with open arms. Stated she was. one of the first people who brought up the parking is-sue with regard to the senior`s project. However, in light of where their home is situated on the corner and the fact that further down on Orange and further down on Palmyra, there are apartment complexes, but because of where they are situated on the corner, there are no .apartment complexes directly across the street on either side. Therefore, they don't have. an already present problem with parking on that corner. With regard to parking, if you look at the volume of traffic as far as parked cars that would be generated from the possibility of two or three rooms being offered for rent and the fact that how many times they would all be rented at once, in comparison with the volume of 74 units; it's such a difference that it is hard to correlate a parking situation with a 74 unit senior citizens complex and a historic home that has the potential of offering three bedrooms for rent. The benefit that would be derived from using this historic home in this way - to the neighborhood and to Orange - outweighs the one parking spot that can be accommodated either on-street, or as they have offered to valet park on Glassell. Johnny Johannessen, 271 South Orange, lives in one of the back units on the northbound side of the Fast property. Pointed out how the Fast's have been good neighbors. The house has been immaculate, no problems or hardship of noise during rehabilitation. Feels they would be diligent in keeping their promises. •Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 5. Those opposed to this application: Tim Smith, 2314 West Almond, feels Commissioner Hart's concern about parking is valid. If anybody is allowed to get a conditional use permit, saying they have on-street parking when there is an Ordinance against on-street parking (but .it's not enforced), there is trouble. If on-street parking is allowed in Old Towne,. it takes away from the attractiveness of the area. There should be a restriction on that property: Tf Mr. Fast loses that property and that space, that should be in the conditional use permit that he has to use that property for that space - and not on-street parking. The applicant had no further comments. The public hearing was closed. 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 1116. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott said the thing that bothered him about the variance was the hardship needs to be displayed to meet the code. In addition to the required parking -- four of the spaces is suppose to be in the garage and there are only going to be two spaces in the garage -- the fifth space that is designated is on the north side of the property,. which is not there at this time. Commissioner Hart already stated his concern about the lack of a perceived hardship, but has also listened to the neighbors who are going to be the ones most affected by the lack of parking. Likes the idea of .the bed and breakfast; thinks it ,would be a good use. .Because of the fact there has been almost no opposition, and because the neighbors are joining in and speaking in favor of this, thinks he could probably support the project. He must point out to the neighbors that spoke in favor of it, that the Fasts may not always own that property. The next owner may not be as accommodating. The. use goes along with the property;. not the Fasts. He would not look favorably on someone coming back in two or three years and complaining because the street was loaded up with cars from someone else that had taken it over. Another thing the neighbors must be aware of: Once this use is permitted by a variance, everybody in the block has the same rights. They can come in and ask and get because of a previous approved application. That's the possibility the residents.. are faced with. As a Commission, if that right were granted to one, it would have to be granted to all. Commissioner Master can support the use. Thinks it's an excellent idea. Would like to see more of that use in Old Towne. It brings to the City some mark on the map, displaying the character, value and worth of the Old Towne area. Perhaps the plan should be altered so the parking requirements are not as great. The variance is the problem. Planning Commission Minutes -_~ ~ January 5, 1987 Page 6. Commissioner Hart suggested after this hearing, they study the issue of parking on bed and breakfasts as a separate issue. Chairman Greek mentioned one thing that should have been considered in the application -- the actual construction that is going on now may be in violation because of an existing property line. Somewhere along here the two properties should be joined into one lot if you are going to create a driveway that goes over the second lot. If the house is sold, you won't be able to get into the garage that is being built right now. Commissioner Hart stated it should be a parcel .map that combines the two parcels. You have an interlocking parking agreement between the two parcels. It would be violated if one of the parcels were sold off. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1547 and Variance 1805 (.they have to be tied together) subject. to the conditions shown on the staff report and subject to the filing of a parcel map consoli- dating the two lots. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Scott NOES: Commissioners Greek, Master MOTION FAILS Mr. Johnson stated that can be done by a lot line adjustment assuming that both properties have the same vesting. This .hasn't been discussed yet. Commissioner Hart said the parking is spread out over the two lots .for this facility so they would have to be tied together. Chairman Greek said his reason for denial is the use seems agreeable, but cannot see a hardship on this property. Mr. Soo-Hoo announced that this matter is subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days from tonight. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1558 - MIA VILLA, INC..: Proposed senior citizens congregate care facility within the C-1 (Limited Business) zone. Also requested are an increase in building height and an increase in the percentage of compact car parking spaces. This project is located on the west side of Flower Street, south of Almond Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1110 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Soo~Hoo presented the staff report. The proposal is for a 125-unit senior citizens congregate care facility. It will be three stories in height. Both the use, as well as the height, require conditional use permit approvals. Tn addition, the applicant is proposing 53% of ,Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 7. his required parking to be in the form of compact spaces. The project is to be located on approximately 1.8 acres of land, located on the west side of Flower Street, south of Almond Avenue. The C-1 zoning that exists on the property is somewhat unusual in this case in that it is basically an island of commercial zoning surrounded by residentially zoned property. Although the property to the west is zoned for a.znotixle home park, iC is presently occupied by a commercial storage facility. The applicant is proposing 125 units. This will be a congregate care facility with units ranging in size from 300 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. This will be a natural care facility vs. the more traditional apartment type unit. There will be no individual kitchens, but rather. there will be a communal dining area. There would also be other various group type services and activities offered. The staff sees the general concept of seniors-oriented housing to be very favorable. Staff recognizes the need for this type of facility and there is absolutely no dispute over the actual need. The problem staff has with this proposal is the intensity of development. The proposal is for three stories. This is particularly sensitive in light of the context of the location of the site. To the north, as well as to the east of the property there are presently single family homes (single story). To the south and west, there is two story development, but there is no three story development in the immediate vicinity at this time. Because of this intensity, the staff recommendation is for denial. On Condition ~~16 there is an error. It should read ~Bi~lding-Deparam~nt .rather" than Building addition. The public hearing was opened. John Maple, architect and planner for the project, represents Mia-Villa, Inc., 10671 Roselle, San Diego. The history of this project is quite lengthy and they have spent quite a bit of time working with staff and different departments of the City to arrive at this solution. They were disappointed to find staff's recommendation was a little bit severe. The project is acceptable and compatible with the General Plan. It is an unusual situation in that it is a little island of sea up against the freeway. The use is very ideal .for the site; it`s not a high intensity use. They are not talking about masses of cars. The age of these people is such that they really don't drive. A shuttle bus service is provided. At shift change, there will be 24 employees. The viability of the project financially means they need to have "x" number of units or spaces which we can provide services.. They tried in planning to get the project footprint- into a paint which respected the neighbors to :fihe nbrth.~Neighbors ~were':asked to come and review the project a couple of weeks ago at the Rodeway Inn. A number of people did come and look at the project. They understood the height of the project and understood what was being proposed. Fifty percent of the people were interested in how soon they could take a reservation to move in. Wanted to address the immediate context of the area: the area does have a mixture of uses. Brought an aid to show and explain to the Commissioners. The site is really up against the end of the freeway. Mr. Maple proceeded to show the different uses surrounding this project. He put together a graphic. Along the residential side, in section to scale 24 to 28 feet, a person on the third floor, 64+ feet to the property line, plus the landscaping of the neighbors immediately to the north, plus the nearest distance to the back of the first house, there Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 8. is quite a distance. Regarding the height issue, there are three-story, high density apartment projects at the end of Flower Street. The height is in excess of 35 feet.. There is some height precedent within 100 meters of this project. Immediately to the north in the C-2 zone, along Chapman, there are some office-professional and offices that is butted up right against property lines. It is understood the community has gone through some transition and there are. in-fill projects like this that have extenuating circumstances. They are trying to provide residential flavor and bring a sense of scale to the project. Directly across the street is a very nice two-story victorian wood sided residence, which also has a certain amount of flavor. To follow up on the density, in the design they ended up with. 34% of the project is in footprint of the building; 33% of it is handscape; and 32% of it is landscaping. They have tried to keep the footprint of the site to a minimum. They are in agreement with staff and will be happy to change the parking configuration to the proper percentages and the standard size require- ments. They would. be willing to delete the balconies on the northly side of the project. Balconies are not an issue, but light, air and ventilation are needed on that side. Visual ability to the neighbors will still be present. This firm is doing approximately 15 of these projects throughout Southern California. They will not contribute to the parking problems; thinks its a natural for the neighborhood. Chairman Greek asked what the distance is on the north property line as he felt there was a plot plan discrepancy. Mr. Maple took the worst case -- the distance is approximately 55 feet .from the building to the property line. Chairman Greek said the plot plan indicates 50 feet.. Mr. Maple said there was a condition where it is 50 feet.. Commissioner Scott thought to get the 64 feet was from the landscape shown.. Commissioner Master asked to hear from Mr. Herrell who is responsible for the care situation. Victor Herrell, 619 Knight Way, La Canada, stated the owner has been in the board and care facility for over 12 years. Currently she owns a facility in Laguna and also in San Diego. Both of these facilities conform to the State of California Code Title 22. Commissioner Scott asked if there is a state requirement on the number of employees per patient: It was stated there would be 25 employees on a shift. [Jill there be a total of 25 employees or 75 employees? What would be the distribution of employees that would handle these patients? Mr. Herrell responded there would be a maximum of 24 employees at shift change. During the morning hours, there will be the most employees. Commissioner Scott asked if there is a state law on how many employees you must have per people you care for? ..Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 9. Mr. Herrell said with a board and care facility, there is none. Commissioner Scott asked to what degree would they allow a person to stay in this facility? Mr. Herrell said a lot of people are ambulatory. They will be able to come in and sign out for a period of time. During the late afternoon and evening hours, the facility needs to know where the residents are going; it will be monitored. Commissioner Scott asked what level of incapacity would be permitted? When are they forced to be moved out? Mr. Herrell stated by law people on the 2nd and 3rd floors must be ambulatory. On the first floor they can have the use of walkers and wheelchairs. Commissioner Hart added they do not provide medical care at this level; they are not allowed to. Commissioner Master stated the ratio of patients per employee varies from seven to 25; that is seven patients per employee -- 17 on the first shift, 11 on the second shift. Commissioner Hart stated not necessarily. .There could be more than one tenant per unit. Those speaking in favor of the application: Paul Shaner, 215 S. Flower, lives directly east of the proposed project. Welcomes the development and feels it will be an improvement over what is there now. There are high-rises immediately to the west that gives the people there to look in his back yard than the proposed construction. Thinks this will be quieter than what is there now in as much as the service road will be to the south. Has occasion to hear the sanitation trucks come in every other day at the present site and it`s not a problem. He won`t have very far to walk when he's ready for the place! Those speaking in opposition of the application: Tim Smith, 2314 West Almond, located the second house from the corner on Almond. The project is directly behind his house. His mother attended the neighborhood meeting and was the one who brought up somebody looking in the back yard if this structure went up. Ivy was put up so people wouldn't be looking in their back yard. This project will generate more traffic. Flower has a traffic problem today; more vehicles traveling on Flower would even make it worse. This three-story project in a single story residence area, surrounded by single residences in every single direction except for across the street and there are some apartments to the south that are two stories. It is going to set a precedent for the area. On a shift change, 24 vehicles going in and out of the site, through those driveways, will cause even more of a sound problem. The sound problem needs to be considered. .•Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 10. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Maple would like to remain available should the Commission feel deletions or changes need to be made. tidould encourage approval as presented; would like to leave the meeting with either a continuance with a re-design for the removal of the balconies, which constitutes an approval for the project, or an approval as presented. Commissioner Hart said in regard to that statement about design: It is not the function of the Planning Commission to pass on design. That function belongs to the Design Review Board. Planning Commission's function is for the proper use of the property for the project. Mr. Maple understands that, but the staff, in their wisdom, brought up the issue of design, Commissioner Hart said it was indicated that the parking ratio could be adjusted to fit the code. There is a 40% maximum on compact. Mr. Maple responded there would be no problem. Commissioner Hart said the economic viability of the project is not Commission's concern either. If you paid too much for the project, that's your tough luck. The Commission will not bail you out. That's the disclaimer. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1110. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1558 subject to the conditions with an added condition that the parking be brought up to City standards of 40% compact. Also included in this motion would be the revision of Condition ~~16. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart .feels this project will partially solve a major problem in the future of adequate housing for the senior citizens. The Orange 2000 Committee discussed the housing issue and they pointed out if we don't gain in population, we will have a need for 20,000 units in the City of Orange for senior citizens. T~e're a long ways from that. Commissioner Scott commented on Condition ~~4; he's glad to see the tenants had to be 62 or over instead of 55, which he doesn't consider to be a senior citizen. • Planning Commission Minutes ,, January 5, 1987 Page 11. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1562 - BOECKER: Proposed two-story second living unit within the RD-6 (RCD) zone located on the north side of Van Bibber Avenue east of Shaffer Street (539 E. Van Bibber Avenue). NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. Mr. Soo-Hoo presented the staff report. The proposal is for approximately 1,300 square foot two-bedroom unit. There is an error in the staff report. It cites the square footage of the unit as 9$0 square feet. That 980 refers to the living area on the first floor; on the second floor there is an additional approximately 400 square feet. On the ground floor there would be a three-car garage. That, as well as an open space on the driveway which would front to Van Bibber, would provide the parking to meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As the Planning Commission may recall, in June, 1986, a two-story second unit was also considered by the City for property that is two doors to the east of this site. In that case., there was a proposal for an 1,100 square foot, two-bedroom unit.. The Planning Commission approved the application, but on appeal to the City Council, the Council ultimately reversed that approval, which resulted in denial of the conditional use permit and the ultimate withdrawal of the project from development. The concern that was cited at the City Council Meeting, which were cited in the conditions of disapproval, basically revolved around the existing single stories, single-family character of Van Bibber, and the concern that a two-story development would not be in character with this area. Because of the concern that was indicated by the City in that case, staff feels unable to recommend approval of this application. Staff would like to bring out that basically staff's review of the site plan shows that all development standards of the R-2 zone would be complied with on this proposal. Overall, the staff's reaction is that the design was a very good one.. The concern staff has is basically to be consistent with the City's previous action on the conditional use permit. Staff feels it is important to consistently treat the property owners in this area and feels the only recommendation capable of forwarding to the Commission is one of denial. Commissioner Scott stated on Page 3 it said staff would study the need for the one story limitation in the subject area. How fax has that study progressed? Mr. Soo-Hoo responded there is an understanding by staff that there is a desire to investigate the entire Old Towne area. That study would be joined with the study presently in place for the 01d Towne Guidelines. The work program has been developed. The actual study itself has not been done. The public hearing was opened.. . Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 ' Page 12. John Killen, architect, 144 N. Orange, represents the Boeckers on this project. They submitted a letter in response to staff`s comments. In that response, the five main items were addressed: (1) Staff shared the concerns with Council that the project may result in the deterioration and loss. of value o£ the area due to an incompatability with the 01d Towne district; (2) that the proposal does not allow a transition from "01d Towne" development to a newer,. more• efficient use; (_3) that the project may encourage an intrusion of privacy of adjacent residents; (4) that the project may establish a precedent and encourage similar two-story residential buildings not in keeping with .the Old Towne theme; and (5) that the project would increase dwelling density and traffic circulation in the area. In rebuttal, the response to the issue of deterioration/loss of value was that a project built with sensitivity and concern for the Old Towne district probably would increase the value of the properties in the area. Items 2 and 3 are covered by one response, which is the issue o.f transition of Old Towne development to a newer, more efficient project. One of the. few things that people who own .property in the Old Towne-can do, in lieu of moving out of the area and turning their properties over as rentals or re-selling them, is to up the density within the limits of the code and provide additional dwelling area for senior family members or possible future rental property. Feels the project complies with the Planning requirements for parking, complied with the zoning allowances for two-story dwelling units, and architecturally tried to respond to the existing California bunualow influence in that neighborhood, both in terms of massing, materials and detailing. This project did go to E.R.B. twice; the first time, the recommendation from staff was that it was a good project; that they should proceed with it. The second response when it was submitted for Planning Commission review, was the staff report which was reviewed. The vote for denial is obviously prompted by Council's concern for the previous project, The projects do differ. The previously denied project. was a full second floor addition over a garage, with an exterior stair designed specifically for rental use.- This project differs in that it is intended as a residence for a single retired family member and use by the family that currently lives in the existing residence. The second floor bedroom is oriented mainly to the existing residence. It`s not the full footprint of the ground floor space; its a partial area. Access to it is through the unit itself. It is not by an exterior stair. The westerly facing elevation is designed in such a way that it is considerate of the single. story addition that was built on the west side of the neighbor's property.. The building is two story only on the southwest corner. It would scale down and that two story is under one single roof. It would scale down to a single story element along the alley, to the north. part of the property and along the easterly elevation, and along more than half of the southerly elevation. It does differ in a lot of ways if we are responding to the issue of. consistency. Commissioner Hart stated that it was indicated the addition is for the benefit of an existing family member. How can that be ensured? Mr. Killen said there was not a way to ensure that. The intent of this current development is the housing of his clients' mother.. Design and requirements of the zoning code have been taken into consideration. 'Planning Commission Minutes ,. January 5, 1987 Page 13. Commissioner Hart stated in looking at the plans it is two bedrooms/ two baths. Mr. Killen said that was correct. In the future it could be•a rental unit, but that is not the intent right now. Those speaking in favor of the application: Kenneth Long, 18822 Fowler Avenue, Santa Ana, owns property at 551 E. Van Bibber, two doors east of the Boecker property. Talked with the Boeckers about their plans and intentions; feels .their plans are very well done and in keeping with Old Towne. He is the one that presented the previous application which was denied by City Council. Feels this plan is superior to the one he presented;. it's much more compatible to the neighborhood and it would be an asset. As far as property values are concerned, that would in no way be detrimental to the property values along that street. There is a two-story house already on that street and two-story developments surround the area. Louise Boecker, 539 E. Van Bibber, would like to answer the question about the elderly member of the family -- it is her mother. The reason for the second floor bedroom is for her to come and live with them if she can have a home of her own and a bedroom of her own. The only way they can put a home on their property with two bedrooms is to have one bedroom. upstairs. As far as traffic and density, she's one person. There is no guarantee she will live forever, but she will probably outlive some of the neighbors who are objecting to this. She has a car and does drive; .she's very active. The house they are building is very similar to the existing house. Loves Orange and has lived here for 18 years; does not want to move. Those speaking in opposition to the proposal: Marsha Bolanos, 567 Van Bibber, 15 year resident in the neighborhood. Spoke on behalf of her neighbors and voiced opposition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The reasons cited for opposition referred hack to City Council's denial of a prior proposal. The approval of this project would escalate into more buildings and would change the uniqueness of the neighborhood and eventually Old Towne. Zoning needs to be studied along with the other study being conducted in Old Towne. Suggested maybe even downzoning many of the Old Towne areas, including their neighborhood. Dale Rahn, 350 N. Harwood, President of Old Towne Preservation Association. Has been before Planning Commission and City Council numerous times with similar requests for property owners within Old Towne asking for increase of density for their properties and setting precedences as far as height limitations within their area. This continues to be a major concern to the Association and the residents of Old Towne. Considering the intensity of the issue of increased density within the Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 14. Old Towne area, not necessarily East Van Bibber, but all of Old Towne, and considering that there are a number of issues before the Planning Staff concerning guidelines and property uses within the Old Towne area, he urges denial of this project. Feels this will continue to be a problem that needs to be addressed. Proposes a Master Plan be developed for the Old Towne area, other than the General Plan, to evaluate and plot out the goals and long-term objectives of the Old Towne neighborhood. The area is in a transition now.. Believes guidelines are needed to direct applicants in developing their properties. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Rahn a couple of questions regarding his comments on a study of the Old Towne area, as it affects this property. The previous speaker offered a solution of downzoning, which would mean that essentially all properties would be zoned R-l, which would stop the duplex -- two units to a lot. It would not affect, however, the building of a new two-story home. There are many two-story homes that are Victorian and he finds no objection to the two-story homes. That could be accommodated by downzoning to limit the building to one unit ,per lot. Is that something you visualize? Mr. Rahn was not prepared to say that now. Thinks the issue is the preservation of the neighborhoods, but is not sure how that would be accomplished. As more and more units are built onto the back '""" of the existing old homes, the tendency is that the second owner becomes an absentee landlord. The front house is rented and the rear house is rented. As that takes place, a transition takes place in the neighborhood. No longer are residents there for a long period of time; no longer is the community developed. It becomes a transient neighborhood. Not sure if downzoning has to be done. In limiting height, in essence that is a process that protects existing property. Commissioner Hart stated the Commission is not responsible for the applications that come before them. They act as the hearing body for all applications. Sees downzoning as a solution if .the property owners want that. The property is zoned for duplex. To avoid all these public hearings for duplexes is to zone the property R-1. Then see what that does to your property values. Chairman Greek said if this property were zoned R-1, and this addition were added to the existing house, it would satisfy as a single family residence even though two families were living there. The problem encountered by the Commission is to satisfy the requirements of the City Council, but still listen to the needs of the community. It's a tough problem; there is no simple solution. Commissioner Hart said it would eliminate the legal structures. It would encourage the operation of illegal structures. Another thing that has not been addressed is the Granny Flat Law, which the state of California has put upon us. If they do re-zone and keep denying the proposals, that's going to come down on them. There is no control over that. i '' •' Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 15. Chairman Greek said there are no restrictions on a single family house addition. There is an existing zoning and it's an interpretation of that zoning. A solution from the residents in the neighborhood would be welcomed by the Commission. If you are sincere about down- zoning to R-1 for the entire area, that would be a way to control it. Not the height, but you could also control that to re-zone it to single family, single-story residences -- if that is what you really want. Mr. Rahn has sent a number of proposals on impacts to the area, as well as development standards to the staff, Planning Commission and City Council. Staff is looking .into those. Have also submitted through the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee a number of proposals for Old Towne. Those are our ideas collectively. Commissioner Hart does not relish the idea of forcing upon the residents who thought they were buying an R-2 lot, the concept of a R-1. He would rather Old Towne Preservation take that heat. Mr. Rahn personally lives on a R-2 and has chosen not to develop it for that very reason. Goldie Hicks, 576 Van Bibber, has lived there for 41 years. It's a R-2 lot, but you have to have garages. Parking can be a problem. The homes are single story except one at 590 Van Bibber. Would like to see it kept the way it is if possible. The applicant appreciates Commissioner Harts discussion and many points that were made are valid. He is also a homeowner in Old Towne and is very much interested in the preservation of the Old Towne character. The Boeckers are not trying to create a neighborhood controversy. A plan was developed quite innocently and came up with a concept which met the needs of the family. Mr. Boecker has been very diligent in taking this plan around and showing it to all the neighbors. Thinks there is a little bit of misrepresentation that 22 of the 24 neighbors on the street is opposed to this. That's not the case. Letters signed by many of the neighbors agreeing to the project were submitted to Planning. C The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott made one statement regarding parking. The staff report indicates there will be a three-car garage and a fourth parking stall will be provided by the driveway, What is existing now is just a one car garage. Three additional spaces will be added instead of one. Parking is not the problem. Commissioner Master said it's a dilemma in that the applicant has come under the existing zoning that the Commission and Council would approve something like this; however, the Council has spoken. That leaves a situation where the intent when the re-zoning took place in the RCD overlay was just that. It would require approval by both the Commission and Council. ,.Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 16. Chairman Greek stated the intent is to preserve the established harmony, character and scale of the existing neighborhood, and permit the more orderly transition of existing older development to a newer, more efficient use while preserving the structures and' landmarks which are historically significant to the area (as read from the staff report). Further down, a conditional use permit is required for both single .family homes aad twa family residential homes. Commissioner Master said the transition right now is restoration rather than the transition to a more efficient use. Moved by Commissioner Master recommending denial. of Conditional Use Permit 1562 for the reasons so stated by staff. There was no second to above motion. MOTION DEAD Commissioner Hart stated that he is hopefully known far consistencv. He did vote ~, for approval of fhe other project on Van Bibber and doesn't believe the conditions have changed. Believes a denial would be a political decision; not a planning decision. The applicant has met all the conditions that are required for the property. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit-1562 subject to the conditions as shown on the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Scott NOES: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Mr. Soo-Hoo announced this decision is subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1557 - ORLIJAN: Proposed establishment of a pawn shop within an integrated commercial/ industrial development within the M-1 (Industrial) zone on the north- west corner of Katella Avenue and Glassell Street. NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. No one opposed this proposal; therefore, a staff report was not presented. Don Orlijan, owner of Don's Jewelry on Katella. Was in business for 15 years in Santa Ana, Because of redevelopment there, he had to move. Thought the City of Orange would not accept his project. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1557 subject to the staff's six conditions. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ,.Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 17. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1559 - REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS: Proposed use of existing church facilities for the temporary housing of homeless persons within the RM-7 zone on the east side of Tustin Street north of La Veta Avenue. NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. Mr. Soo-Hoo presented the staff report. The request is to allow a shelter for the homeless. This would not be individuals, but oriented towards homeless families, It is to be housed in an existing dormitory facility located at the church on the east side of Tustin -- 395 South Tustin. The site contains approximately 3.5 acres of land. The structures on the site are a main church building towards the front of the lot, as well as a building to the rear. This rear building contains administrative offices, as well as a dormitory type facility together in one building. The subject proposal relates exclusively to the rear building, The dormitory wing would include eight family bedrooms. Of these eight bedrooms, they would accommodate a maximum of six persons each. In addition, there are bath, shower, dining and kitchen facilities which exist in the building itself. The dormitory was built by the church for the purpose of accommodating weekend retreats. This facility was approved by Conditional Use Permit 452 by the Planning Commission in 1969. The application now is to take this existing facility to use for housing the homeless families rather than retreats. The program is being offered by the Christian Temporary Housing Facilities organization, which presently operates a similar type facility on North Glassell in Orange. The recommendation of the staff is that the location for this purpose is a good one. Because of the location of the dormitory building to the rear of a large lot, there would be minimum impact to adjacent properties.. Staff`s experience with Christian Temporary Housing has satisfied them they do have the admins- trative ability to control such a program so there is little noticeable effect on adjacent properties. Staff recommends approval with the 17 conditions listed on the staff report. F~ The public hearing was opened. Gloria Rasmussen,1725 N. Williamsburg, Orange, applicant and member of the Orange congregation of the Rearganize~ Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. They are requesting to utilize an already existing facility on the back of the church property as a temporary shelter for homeless families. This is to be called."Project Hope". She is also the President of the Project Advisory Committee for Project Hope, which will act in an advisory capacity to the Christian Temporary Housing Facility Board. This organization will lease the facility from the church and will administer the program on a day-to-day basis, Mike Elias, Director of Christian Temporary Housing, 125 West Rose Avenue. Dealing with the homeless, during the last ten years, has seen a tremendous growth. Wish he could report that the problem is getting better .. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 18. but it is not. Last year there were over 25,000 people who asked for help. Of those 25,000 people, two-thirds of them were children. The stereo type of the homeless is the wino, the person that is out for a free handout, but ,the people seen at CTHF are the workers who are the workers who are without a place to go to at night. The clients are working, children go to school -- that's part of the program. They just don't have a roof to go home to at night. Wishes there could be a solution to the homeless problem. Feels through hard work and people having a place to stay for up to 60 days does give a person an opportunity to get the first and last month's rent, does help them to stabilize and then look for a place to live. That's the program at CTHF. Have been successful in getting 87% of their clients back into the mainstream of the community. One of the problems in dealing with the homeless is that the media has portrayed the homeless - specifically the mentally i11 - CTHF has resisted or are not even equipped to take the mentally i11. Families are the only people taken. Yesterday they found 197 families that were on the streets during the rain storm. He is dedicated to seeing the. homeless come to a solution. Shelters are a necessary commodity. Feels this site is perfect for their program: total privacy, no parking problems. Their dream is to give the families with children shelter to re-establish their lives. Those speaking in favor of this application: Dr. Art Oswald, retired, 12061 Marquis Circle, Santa Ana. Has been associated with CTHF-since its inception. They rehabilitated the building on North Glassell to house clients. At that location there is very limited space, small bedrooms and not enough room. They do plan on putting up a fence at the new location so the area will be restricted where the children will be playing. The reputation of CTHF has been exemplary with little problems in dealing with the community. The local residents do not complain about the children now. Perry Pace, 1904 East Palm, and owns Pace's Jewelers at 813 South Tustin. This project begins to address a problem that we will see more of in the City of Orange.. Across the street from his business he watched a woman live in her car during the ~dnth of 'November. Robert Warden, 2993 N. Cottonwood ~~9, is one of the associate pastors of the congregation. They responded to this opportunity that they would be able to reach out to some of the people and might be able to help because the facility would be there. The facility is not being used to it's potential now. Erica Gatz, 232 N. Center, wanted to commend the church for taking the advantage and initiative for housing the homeless. As citizens of Orange, it is our responsibility to contribute in finding housing for the homeless; it is a problem. Carol Keck, 2321 Conifer Lane, Tustin, is a member of the congregation. As of a year and a half ago, she was a transient. If it wasn't for the members of this congregation reaching out for the home~ess...there are many circumstances a person does not plan fqr moving and they ended up with their three children -- no home, not knowing anybody. ,. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 19. Nettie 8oughman,.148.11 Rdgeboro Tustin, is a member of the congre- gation. This project will impact the church congregation the most. After examining the need in the community,. their congregation could be almost 100% in favor of this project. There will be some problems in adjusting to this, but they are anxious to become involved in this project. The problem of homeless people. is too vast not to address it. Dorothy Acton, 444 S. Tustin, lives across the street from the church. Has seen all kinds of transients. Has worked with CTHF. The people they take in are not the winos. There is a misconception going around now. They are families and they are rehabilitated. She welcomes the shelter and thanks the church for .offering .this opportunity. Barbara Arbushar, 18881 :?atricia Drive, Villa Park, is a member of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene, which has. worked with Michael Elias and CTHF. Thinks he has been an inspiration to their church. Her congregation wishes to help the. staff and to work wit'n them. Feels this is a need the City of Orange must look at because yogi can't close your eyes when you have children sae~png in .tfie. ~b~u~s~hes: " 'This place is a beautiful one and will help many people. Those speaking in opposition: Lawrence Kosmin, owns the Tustin Avenue Veterinary Hospital, 434 S. Tustin, directly across the street from the church. Sounds like a very commendable organization; doesn't know if he is opposed to what they are doing. Has heard rumors of the transients in the area, but sees that is not what it is. However, there is another problem -- a commercial problem that has not been addressed. Doesn't know how much parking is going to be involved. This church already leases a certain amount of parking to the Care Unit, which is a big parking problem in the area. Karen Miner, 179 S. Lincoln Street, was under a completely different impression about transients. She is a school teacher and likes the children also. However, she does not feel guaranteed that the organi- zation is going to take in only families. Does not know what her guarantee is as a homeowner. Feels strongly about the City of Orange; moved here because it is an established community. Jim Herrington, 616 Amboy Street, Anaheim,: owns the-four=p.Zex.apartments behind the church. Concerned that there is going to be 40 people in the facility. There is no fence other than a small, three foot fence along the back side of the property. Concerned with the kids playing out there. If the church could build a fence - block wall - as there is on both the north and south side of the facility, then that would satisfy his concern. Other concerns are noise, lighting -- is that mercury vapor lighting? Mr. Soo-Hoo believes there are a number b~ di~_ferent lighting types that could be used. The applicant would need to work with the Police Department. The police are concerned with the level of light; not the type. _ Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 ' Page 20. Mr. Herrington is also concerned with security. Who is going to be there to look after the children, the people? Thinks the detrimental effect would be the turnover as a result of the disruption in their lives. If there is vandalism to the surrounding properties, who is going to be responsible for it? Believes everyone should have a place to sleep. Henry Taecker, 374 S. Tustin, owns E1 Dorado .Shopping Plaza. Represents 32 tenants and occupants of the Plaza. They wanted him to express their opposition to this project. Their reasons include the already existing Care ?~a.nor who rehabilitate people with excessive drug/alcohol problems. Feels the people being housed in this project are still transients who will be loitering at their. shops. Feels this is not a healthy situation. The rear of the shopping center has trash around the dumpsters, broken glass and needles, evidence of pot being smoked. The children will be exposed to a worse environment. Mr. Taecker has been told by his tenants they will leave the premises when their lease expires because of the increasing problems in the Plaza. Public liability insurance on the Plaza tripled last year. Insurance rates will soar even more if accidents keep occurring. Chris Christensen,l63 S. Shattuck Place, concerned about the transient children. Palmyra School will be used by these children. It's almost to capacity now. It's a safety situation: those children will have to cross Tustin -- a traffic nightmare at this point.. This needs to be looked into. Concerned with police/fire. protection. Who is going to pay for these services? Should not put ourselves in a position where vandalism would have .the possibility of increasing. Jeff Nadler, 444 S. Tustin, ~~Al, his home is located down the street from the project. Concerned about the potential and quality of life of the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. Not because of the people who are accepted into the shelter, but because of those who are not. The establishment of the shelter-will become known on the street and will draw transients to the area. Faith Rajack, 444 S. Tustin, in the Orange Gables, is not certain she is 100% opposed to the project, but what is to prevent the expansion of the facility and therefore bring in further amounts of homeless families, increasing the potential for the possible negative impact on the neigh- borhood. Other problems: crowded .conditions, parking, other types of homeless people coming to the neighborhood. Is worried about these things as it relates to the future of her neighborhood. Georganne Keyster, 1204 E. Fairway Drive, has lived there 14 years. Her property backs up to the Garden Grove Freeway. Half of the street is lined with Oleanders and they have had the misfortune of finding someone living in the bushes. There are numerous problems because of parking and traffic on Tustin. It is impossible to use Tustin in the mornings. Sympathizes with the homeless; knows it is a problem. However, feels Tustin Street is not the right place. Traffic is her main objective. Can there be a guarantee the people will stay at the facility 30-60 days. Are they stablized, do they have a place to go, are they .going to come back in another 10 days and are you going to have a waiting line of 300 people to get in? Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 Page 21. ;,' Mr. Elias spoke regarding the citizens' concerns. They are mandated by the state of California to carry a million dollar insurance policy. They have been in business 10 years; it's not something they dreamed up over night. It is a viable, proven program. Encouraged people to come down to their shelter at 704 N. Glassell and they will not see people lined up. CTHF does not do a hand out policy. They. are opposed to that. Tt is their belief people should work. He is opposed to increasing the size of the shelter; will not warehouse people in big buildings. He is a social worker and is for the family. Believes in the family staying together. The shelter calls for 48 people. It has eight bedrooms for eight families; they do not mix families. It is against state law to combine two families to a room. They can guarantee the families because the state of California has given them money to operate the shelter. They must abide by their regulations. In reference to the shopping center concerns, the shopping area close to Glassell Street reports business has increased and vandalism has not increased. These are people like all of us. Does not have control over the schools. That is another issue. [,Thy should the children be denied an education just because they are without shelter? There is a 24--hour staff. Their intake procedure is not conducted on-site. There will be no walk-ins at the site. Screening will take place in Anaheim. They do not take everybody; some people do not fit into this category. The shelter is run by the residents in terms of cleaning up, etc. People look after their own children. Tt is a disservice to put a label on a group of people and expect them not to operate like other people. There will also be a live-in manager at the shelter, Ms. Rasmussen addressed the parking issue. There are 88 parking spaces.. They have filled 78 with a reserve of 10. They are allowing 9 spaces for the clients. That is allowing for the 8 families having a car. There is also a space for the full-time staff member. There is adequate room to park. Commissioner Hart stated Mr. Herrington had a concern about the fence. Ms. Rasmussen said that was one of the first concerns they addressed. Tt will be fenced off to contain the children in the back area where there is a patio. It wonFt be block wall but chain link, high enough so the children will not crawl over. Chairman Greek asked how many spaces they rent to the Care Unit? Ms. Rasmussen is not clear on exactly how many spaces are rented -- 76 spaces, but only during the morning hours. They don't rent those spaces on the weekends. There is parking in the back, in front of the offices too -- about 18 spaces behind the building that cannot be seen from the street. (Those 18 are included in the 88 spaces.) 0 Commissioner Hart thought the problem was the resentment to the Care Manor Facility spilling over onto this project. That is not the issue here. Mr. Soo-Hoo made a point regarding possible expansion. There is a Planning Commission Minutes ` Janaury 5, 1987 Page 22. condition that staff suggested for approval to limit the occupancy to 48. In addition, their understanding from. the Fire Department is that it is virtually the limit to occupancy from their standpoint. They will enforce that. Should there be any physical expansion of this facility, there would need to be a new public hearing for a conditional use permit so everyone would be notified once again. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott stated the location of 704 N. Glassell is not visual when driving by. Has not seen it to be .a problem. Commissioner Hart thought the people who had concerns-about the operation should drive by and view it. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1559 for the reasons listed and subject to the conditions listed. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Soo-Hoo announced the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless it is appealed to the City Council within 15 days. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PER'~IIT 1560, TENTATIVE PAF,CEL PRiAP 86-424 - TdILMA- _ _ _ _ _. _ _ PACIFIC: Proposed industrial subdivision of a 5.5 acre parcel into seven lots, five of which do not have direct frontage on a public street. Located on the east side of Main Street, south of Taft Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1111 has been prepared for this project. There was no opposition; therefore, a staff report was not presented. Carlos Elvin, Irvine Civil Engineering, 3187 Airiaay Ave:; Costa",Mesa, is.nof .the applicant; he has been delayed. Mr. Johnson commented the conditions of this project were set some time. ago and basically they are normal condtions in regard to infrastructure and improvements. One of the things excluded from review was that the drainage from this facility goes out_ to the west along the east side of Main; then goes into the Edison right-of-way via a catch basin. This entry in recent years has been disturbed by activities in and around the Christmas tree farms. Staff feels it should be the-duty of this develop ment to make sure the drainage .being contributed from this project does not create problems in the street where there may be back up of nuisance water. This developer should be responsible for making sure the drainage is taken care of from the point it enters the catch basin until the tithe it gets to the under ground drain.. Does not believe this will require an under ground storm drain, but will require possible. re-grading and maybe a portion of drainage facilities. Unfortunately it is off-site; Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1987 ` Page 23 it is not on the site of the project. Chairman Greek stated that was no problem and asked if Mr. Johnson would like to make a condition. Mr. Johnson could make a general condition... Doesn't know if it would give them much leeway or not. Would prefer that type of thing. This would be a condition on the parcel map. Chairman Greek said the conditional use permit is going to allow development of the property even if the map is never filed. Thinks there will be a problem when the property is developed.. Tf it is a drainage problem, it should be put on both. Commissioner Hart said whatever is enforceable. in Mr. Johnson's estimation. The parcel map would probably not proceed unless there was development of the property; there is no problem unless there is development of the property. It could be included as part of the parcel map condition. Some condition similar to the requirement for adequate off-site drainage improvements to ensure that a maintenance problem within. Main Street is .not required. Once it leaves the tract boundaries, the problem becomes the City's. Chairman Greek stated again. his concern with the property being developed under a conditional use permit and the tentative map is not filed, then the condition would not be included. It's .possible to develop this as a rental. The tentative map would not be of any value .unless the property were developed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accent the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1111. AYES: Commissioners 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 to approve Conditional Use Permit 1560 and Tentative Parcel Map.86-424. Conditional Use Permit to add one more Condition 4~7, which would require adequate o.ff-site drainage to ensure no flooding of t~.ain Street as approved by the City Engineer. The Tentative Parcel Map is to include all twelve conditions outlined in the staff report, AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTTON CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Scott. brought up the issue of the possible study session for parking requirements for bed and breakfast. Commissioner Hart suggested setting the meeting for 2/2/87, and asked staff to provide them with ideas/suggestions. ,~ Planning Commission Minutes y '+ January 5, 1987 Page 24. ~, Mr. Soo-Hoo will note the study sessions on the Agendas for the Commissioners. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m., to reconvene at a regular meeting on January 19, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. /sld C 0 C