Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/4/1984 - Minutes PC1 ,. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1984 The regular meet_~ng of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Master S'~AFF PRESENT: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, AsSCCiate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant .City Attorney; and Maryann Brown, Recording Secretary. PL~,DGE OF ALLEGIANCE i IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1983 i Mowed by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to approve the minutes of December 19, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ') ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN r, None IN RE: REORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION: Chairman Hart stated it was customary at the first meeting of the year that a reorganization of the Commission take place; that is, electing a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This being the time, Chairman Hart opened the proceedings. Commissioner Vasquez requested a brief study session be held at the end of the regular meeting, and prior. to commencing the scheduled study session on the Loma Avenue extension, before proceeding with Commission reorganization. Chairman Hart scheduled the study session for the close of-the regular hearing. Planning Commission January 4, 1984 Page Two IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: VARIANCE 1737, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-770 - CALEB SWANSON: Request to create two lots with less than the required lot frontage on the east side of Kennymead Street, south of Santiago Canyon Road. NOTE: Negative Declaration 881 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Murphy gave the staff presentation, explaining to the Commission that the Orange Park Acres plan, when adopted in the mid-70's, also specified a net one acre minimum ..lot size for lots within the low density, minimum one-acre designation on the Orange Park Acres plan. This area is a part of that one-acre, law density area. The one- acre has been maintained fairly well thoughout the development of Orange Park Acres; there is very little land left in the area to be subdivided. Mr. Murphy stated the Commissioners should act on both applications in a similar manner, either to approve or to deny. In order to legally subdivide the property, the variance is required for the lot frontage; the variance has no meaning without the lot split being acted upon: Staff recommends acceptance of the Environmental Review Board's finding to file Negative Declaration 881 and staff also recommends approval of the lot width based on the unusual shape of the property and approval of the tentative parcel map with the standard conditions as listed in the staff report. Staff also suggests that the Planning Commission direct the staff to initiate a code amendment to change the R-1-40 zone to reflect a one-acre size if the Commission feels it appropriate. This area is the only part of the-city that has an R-1-40 designation at the present time because of that policy adoption with the 0-range Park Acres plan. It might be appropriate, therefore, to change that minimum lot size to the net one-acre size, 43,560 square feet. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present at the hearing. Anita Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres. Mrs. Bennyhoff referred tothe line notations on the .. exhibit map and questioned whether the road area square footage was included as part of the lot footage. City Engineer Gary Johnson indicated .that the property presently exists excluding the street; that the street has been dedicated, but that an additional five feet of Planning Commission January 4, 1984 ~ Page Three frontage would have to be obtained to maintain .the City's 60 foot width. Mr. Johnson stated he believed the limits of the exhibit map indicated the present limits of the parcel in question which would exclude the needed five feet. Mrs. Bennyhoff further questioned a red-line jog on the exhibit, stating that in 1921 when the property in Orange Park Acres was subdivided, the parcel lots had numbers, and the streets were subdivided into separate lots and were given letter names. The streets were dedicated to the water company which later dedicated them to the County for use as roadways. The jog, she stated, as indicated should not be considered part of the square footage. Chairman Hart stated the area under discussion was designated as Lot A and commented that possibly it had not been dedicated. Mrs. Bennyhoff stated that all the letter lots were dedicated to the County as streets, originally owned by the water company as part of the first subdivision. ,fir Chairman Hart questioned why the lot was indicated as part of the parcel. Commissioner Greek commented that many lots in Orange Park Acres still exist because he and Chuck Sandburg own Sandburg Lane in fee, but it has an easement over it. He suggested that this might be a similar. situation however, the city is requesting that this portion of the parcel in question. be dedicated for Kennymead Stree*., and the owner in question may have to dedicate that portion of the parcel to the city for roadway widening. Chairman Hart stated the problem would be immaterial, because the necessary footage would have to be dedicated to the city. Mrs. Bennyhoff stated she wanted to enter an objection to approval of the Variance 1737 because of the prior ® .Orange Park Acres plan which had been agreed to in the interests of keeping the area rural. She stated this parcel is an integral part of the area previously designated one-acre, and although the parcels are of relatively good size, a precedent would be set by allowing this variance and lot split to occur... Commissioner Mason asked what the amount of property remaining in the Orange Park Acres area could possibly pose this type of problem. Planning Commission January 4, 1984 r Page Four ~r""~ , Mrs. Bennyhoff commented that there could be a problem in the sense of the "domino effect". She stated that many property owners have more than one acre parcels and once the density requirements are lowered to one-half acre, the situation could become entirely different. Chairman Hart asked City Engineer Johnson if he had been involved in the discussions regarding the policy of the Orange Park Acres plan. He further commented that the lot in question was under the 43,560 foot designation and was no longer the issue. However, he believed the issue is whether the 43,560 or 40,000 square feet is the minimum lot size. Mr. Johnson stated he was involved in some of the discussions and his understanding was. that the City did. not have a one-acre zoning; the closest designation the City used was that of 40,000 square feet. He believed that the spirit of the plan at the time of discussion was that one acre was the lowest designation allowable in that particular Orange Park area, but the city did not have a corresponding zone. He further commented ~, that this could be one of the first situations in which a property owner requested a lesser than one-acre concept. Most of the properties developed in that area have conformed to the net one-acre designation. Mr. Murphy stated that one-acre minimum was established by policy as a part of the Orange Park Acres plan and developments in Orange Park Acres have, for the most part, adhered to that plan. It was to be a net one-acre, .exclusive of common driveways; the Handy Creek floodplain area, and areas of that type. To staff's knowledge, there are very few parcels in Orange Park Acres similar to the size of the one proposed at this hearing, that is, l.$ to 2 acres. Most of the remaining parcels have been developed to a one acre or slightly above size, but not close to two acres. Some parcels still exist that are three or four acres in size, but other than a possible future golf. course, development in Orange Park Acres is somewhat complete. Commissioner Greek commented that on closer scrutiny of the map exhibit, it appeared under Item 4D that a large portion of the parcel would be required for road easement purposes, and. questioned whether this area had 'been excluded from the net acreage. Mr. Johnson commented that it had been certified as such according to the application filed. Planning Commission ,; January 4, 1984 Page Five Chairman Hart closed the public hearing. It was~.moved by .Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to deny Variance 1737 and Tentative Parcel Map 83-770, without prejudice, should the applicant prove the necessary area exists to satisfy City requirements. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 881. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master ~~ MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy stated this action would be the final decision of the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council. The Commission took a five-minute recess. Commission returned from recess at 8:00 p.m., at which time the question of Commission reorganization was discussed. It was,_moved by Commissioner Mason to continue with David Hart as Commission Chairman, Hearing no further nominations, the nominations were .declared closed by Chairman Hart. The Planning Commission declared an unanimous ballot for Chairman Hart. Commissioner Greek nominated Gaddie Vasquez for Vice-Chairman. Chairman-Hart nominated Commissioner Master as Vice- ---~ Chairman . The Commission voted using a secret ballot. Planning Commission January 4, 1984 P.a~e Six .- . Mr. Murphy tallied the votes and declared a tie vote in the election of Vice-Chairman. Chairman Hart suggested the election of Vice-Chairman be deferred until the January 16, 1984 meeting. Commissioner Vasquez requested his name be withdrawn from the nominations. The Commission cast a unanimous ballot for Carmine Master as Vice-Chairman. IN RE : ADJOURP~MENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. to be reconvened at a regular meeting on Monday, January 16, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. The Planning Commission then attended a study session on Construction Project SP 2481, Draft Environmental Impact Report #831: Construction of the Loma Street/ Imperial Highway connection, City of Orange. a 0