Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/3/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California January 3, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: ANNUAL REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION Nominations for Chairman were opened and Commissioner Hart was nominated by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner f~lickelson to close the nominations. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart was declared the new Chairman of the Planning Commission by unanimous vote. Nominations for Vice-Chairman were opened and Commissioner Master was nominated by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Hart. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Hart to close the nominations. AYES: Commissioenrs Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master was declared the new Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission by unanimous vote. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez that the new Chairman and Vice-Chairman assume their seats at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Vasquez stated his appreciation to Chairman Mickelson for the excellent job which he had done as Chairman of the Planning Commission over the past two years, which statement of appreciation was concurred by the other members of the Commission. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 20, 1982: Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve the minutes of December 20, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED c , v Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Two ~ IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: ZONE 984, VARIANCE 1709 - CENTURY AMERICAN CORPORATION: A request to change from the OP (Office-Professional) District to the C-P (Commercial-Professional) District and permission to provide less than the required setback in the C-P District on the southern portion of a parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Wanda Street (continued from December 6, 1982). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 798 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application, stating that the property in question is a rectangular shaped parcel containing approximately 2 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Wanda Road and Katella Avenue. The property is vacant and is zoned 0-P (Office- Professional) using the Resolution of Intent to Rezone procedure. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant requests a zone change from 0-P (Office-Professional) to C-P (Commercial Professional) in order to establish a commercial bank in a section of a previously approved office building. The proposed zone change encompasses approximately 7,364 square feet of land on the south end of the property and 3,500 square feet of the approved office building (the section that abuts Katella Avenue). The applicant also requests a variance in order to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot setback along Katella Avenue, as required for the C-P zone (sec. 17.40.060). The Staff has reviewed the proposal and has several concerns: a. The split zoning of one parcel of land is contrary to the City policy. b. The proposed zone change to C-P would be difficult to administer and would permit retail sales an d other uses (beyond the proposed bank use) to occur within the center. This expansion of permitted uses would be difficult to regulate. c. The possible retail uses that are permitted in the C-P zone have a potential to increase the traffic circulation in the immediate area of the project. Staff has concerns that this increase in traffic would adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff feels that the proposed zone change is inappropriate for the property in question. The proposed reclassification of the south end of the property would introduce commercial uses into a residential neighborhood. (A bank is considered a commercial use in the City of Orange Zoning Code and is not permitted in the 0-P zone.) This zone change would have a potential to adversely affect the amount of traffic in the area. Additionally, a more intensive commercial use could locate in C-P classified section of the property should the bank leave. Staff feels that the original proposal, that of retaining the entire project as Office-Professional, is in much better harmony with the residential character of the neighborhood. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of Zone Change 978. Mr. Murphy explained that the proposed variance merely serves to allow the project to be built using 0-P (Office Professional) development standards rather than-the Commercial Professional setback requirements. This C-P zoning classification requires a 10-foot side setback off of all arterial streets. The proposed building encroaches in this setback area 5 feet. It does not alter the original building as preliminarily approved by the City Counci 1 on PJovember 9 , 1982. Staff recommends that should the Commission approve Zone Change 984, Variance 1709 should also be approved. If, however, Zone Change 984 is denied by the Commission, Variance 1709 is no longer needed as the setbacks for the proposed building are in conformance with the 0-P zone. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Three Should the Planning Commission approve Zone Change 984 and Variance 1709, Staff recommends that the Resolution of Intent to Rezone procedure be employed and that two items be accomplished prior to reading the ordinance: 1. That the deed for the property be restricted to permit only a bank or office professional use in that section of the property that is zoned Commercial-Professional. 2. That the signage for the C-P section of the property be restricted to that which is permitted by code in the Office-Professional Zone. Commissioner Master, pointing out that it would appear that the primary ingress-ingress to the center would be the one facing Katella, and wondered if it should not be restricted to a right-turn only in and out. Mr. Murphy responded that Katella Avenue would be restricted to right turns only in and out of the center. Chairman ~1ickelson opened the public hearing. Barry Cottle, representing Century American Corporation, 1428 E. Chapman, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He gave a printed handout to the Commissioners, in order that they could follow his presentation more easily. He explained that one of the pictures in the handout has a rendering of what is proposed on the property. He pointed out where the bank is proposed to be placed within the center and explained that the bank would only cover 7% of the entire building. He said that they had looked at the possibility of an amendment to the 0-P code in order to allow a bank there. However, the City of Orange does not allow this kind of an amendment at this time. He pointed out that, in talking with several surrounding cities, that quite a few of them do allow a bank in an 0-P zone. The reason they are asking for a C-P zone is that it is more restrictive than a C-1 zone. Regarding the several concerns expressed with regard to split zoning by Staff, he explained that they are not changing the building at all. They are merely asking for 7% of the entire building to place a bank there. They would be in agreement with the Staff's recommendation for a deed restriction on the property, allowing only a bank or office use in that .area . With regard to the concerns expressed about increased traffic, Mr. Cottle pointed out that they had prepared an EIR originally when they requested their zone change. They have now done an update on it and the study indicates that the traffic count now and including the numbers for the new development are "within the design capacities of the affected roadways." The studies have not found any adverse impact resulting from the project generated traffic. Mr. Cottle then referred to another page of his handout, stating that this bank will be a limited use bank. He pointed out that they have had several requests from real estate office, attorney firms and developers to locate in this corner office space, all of which uses are allowed in the 0-P zone and all of which would generate more traffic than the bank. Chairman Mickelson asked how many additional daily trips would be generated by the bank over general office use per their recent traffic study. Mr. Cottle replied that the traffic study indicates that 12.3 trips would be made per 1,000 sq. ft, of office use, against 169 trips for a normal full service bank and this will not be a full service bank. f Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Four Commissioner Master pointed out that the previous EIR did not account for the fact that Katella will probably become the primary East/West corridor in~.the city He wondered if they had accounted for the future development in the eastern part of the city and what will happen to that intersection in the future. Mr. Cottle explained that for ~an updated report they had talked to Bernie Dennis in the Traffic Department and they do take all of this into account. He pointed out that when they originally did the report in 1980 the bridge on Villa Park Road was out and they did projections of traffic as it is antici- pated in the future. Commissioner Master questioned the report's validity and expressed concern about the figures stated in it. Mr. Cottle then talked about the concerns expressed with regard to the children going to and from school, pointing out the fact that the bank would not be open when the children go to school in the morning and the times when they return from school are spread out. They do not all leave school at one time. Bill Frantz, Chairman of the Board of Orange National Bank, addressed the Commission, explaining that they are interested in having a facility in this particular area, based on the original promise that they put ~ a full service bank,;catering to the people residing in the Orange Unified School District. They are talking about a 3500 sq. ft. area with a staff of 5-7 people. There will be no drive-up facilities at all. The people will have to park and go in to do business or use the automated teller. Their hours will be 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except on Fridays until 6:00 p.m. The school children will not be affected by their traffic, in his opinion. Commissioner Coontz asked why this particular site was chosen with the close proximity of the main branch of the bank. Mr. Frantz explained that the reason for choosing this site is that there is very little to choose from in Villa Park and they wish to serve that area. This site is approximately lz miles from their main branch. Their target market area is to the east of the Newport Freeway, south to Collins and north through the Villa Park area. Commissioner Vasquez asked about the automated teller machine, wondering about the times when it would be patronized and what kind of volume we are talking about. Mr. Frantz replied that an automatic teller is open 24 hours a day. Most of the business is early in the morning and on weekends. He did not know how many transactions would be made and asked '~. the president of the bank to answer this question. The president of the bank explained that the Katella office gets about 150 transactions per day, based on a customer count of 6,000. They are anticipating about 1500 customers in tYiis branck with about 50 trans- actions per day. The majority of the transactions are around 7 to 8 a.m. 4~ith very few evening transactions. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that they are figuring on about one-third of the use of the main branch. Richard Gerke, 2924 Trenton, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He explained that 19 years ago the developer of the homes where he lives presented a plan to the Orange Planning Commission having a street which would enter onto Katella to service the tract and he was denied this plan because of the traffic problems which would be caused. He pointed out that at that time there was very little traffic on Wanda Road, which is not true at this point in time. Ele also pointed out that two access driveways have been granted to Century American onto Katella and he questioned whether it is in order to propose a variance at this time when there is already a ~ variance in effect. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Five Mr. Gerke went on to say that when Century American originally pro- posed this office center one of the important conditions was that the buildings would be only one story in height and residential in appearance, in order to fit into the already mainly residential area surrounding it. They now propose to build a building 34 feet in height when the original complaints and opposition to the proposal was the height. He felt that they are already in violation of the original proposal. It is in direct conflict to what was agreed to at the May meeting. He stated that he opposes this zone change because any retail use could come in to that area if this zone change is approved. Mike Callahan, 1444 N. Kathleen Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this proposal, stating that his home is at the rear of the proposed building. All of the neighboring residences have a minimum rear yard of 20 feet from the subject property. He did not want the bank and automated teller next to his bedroom window. He pointed out that the parcel is on Villa Park Road and Wanda Road, not Katella and Wanda. At that particular point, it ceases to be a major arterial highway. He also pointed out that this land is owned by ~ the Southern Pacific Land Company, not Century American Corporation. H e then explained that Wanda Road is 80 feet wide for only about 1,000 feet. The only part of the road which has been developed is right in front of the subject property, The rest of the road is narrow, with a high rate of traffic. Mr. Callahan then pointed out that in the EIR dated September 1980 they were contemplating a bank building at that time. He read from a letter signed by Barry Cottle, dated December 1, 1982, which states that the City of Orange has approved development of this particular parcel of land for two-story office buildings, which will provide for executive offices and medical space. There was no mention of a bank. He then mentioned that there is a concrete block wall which clearly sits on the properties of his neighbors and himself. He wanted to know what the plans are for that wall. It is a non-permit wall and does not meet any codes. He pointed out the applicant's statements pertaining to the zone change on page 3 of the Staff Report, where the question is asked if it is of public necessity that we have a bank branch here and the answer is yes. There are two banks and two savings and loans just a stone's- throw away. He felt that the applicant's statement was ludicrous. His main concern is the traffic because his son will be walking across these driveways to and from school. He felt that the bank use will increase the traffic dramatically. He did not see how anyone can legally enforce the deed restriction. Helen Niger, a former resident of Kathleen, backing onto the subject property, addressed the Commission in opposition of this application. She explained that her mother and aunts now live in the house on Kathleen and she lived there 14 years before her mother and aunts moved in. Before they moved, they had an exterminator come out and it was discovered that they had 1800 feet of water under their property. They were unable to determine what this was and where it came from. She .pointed out that on page 18 of the EIR it states that, according to the residents living adjacent to the site, water seepage problems have existed for the past three or four years. The extent of the ground water seepage involves the first five properties on Kathleen Lane. It was concluded that the seepage water was from a natural source and not a potable supply, Inspections were made of the property on July 11, 1979 and they were unable to determine the origin. Based on the visit ~• of the people conducting the study, it was concluded that a sub-surface study, including soil borings would have a very low probability of finding the source. Mrs. Niger explained that conclusions from this study were that one of the viable factors was that the property was higher than the properties on Kathleen Lane. She pointed out that now the developers have built a 62 ft, base which makes the land higher than it was before. She felt Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Six that this needs some investigation. Mr. Cottle again addressed the Commission in rebuttal of the statements made in opposition to the application, speaking first to Mr. Gerke's comment on enforcement of commercial uses, He explained that Century American often purchases property which has some type of use restriction and they are bound by these restrictions and abide by them. He felt that they are definitely enforced. If they have a deed restriction and Resolution of Intent on this property, it will definitely be protected. They feel that the benk will generate much less traffic than a real estate office, attorney's office, etc. With regard to Mrs. Niger's comments, they are very aware of the seepage problem. They have done borings and drillings and have found no trace of water. Since they have been involved in the property in the last three years, they have seen no sign of water. Regarding the block wall which was mentioned, they would have to look at the plans in order to speak to this concern. Chairman Mickelson asked what the grading plan is and f~1r. Cottle replied that the grading is far from finished. There is dirt piled up in the middle of the property. However, it will not be 6 ft, higher, as was mentioned. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz asked P1r. Johnson to speak to the questions regarding street designation and the concrete block wall. She also wanted the water problem addressed, plus the enforceability of the deed restriction. Commissioner Master also felt that the height question should be addressed by Staff. Mr. Johnson addressed the question of Villa Park Road east of Wanda, stating that presently there is a dramatic difference east and west of Wanda. 17,000 cars a day pass west of Wanda and 6700 east of Wanda. These figures, however, are from before the bridge on Villa Park Road was fixed and the figures may have evened out since then. He pointed out that Villa Park Road, through the area east of Wanda is considered a primary arterial. Wanda Road is considered secondary, carrying 10-15,000 cars per day. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the developers are required to have a 6 ft. masonry or block wall measured from the highest grade level. Whether they would be able to use the existing wall or have to build a new wall would depend on cooperation with the residential property owners to the east, as well as the structural stability and the ability to raise the existing wall or whether they are going to have to raise the wall after grading the property. Many questions must be answered there in order to make the decision regarding the wa]1. Mr. Johnson then pointed out that any change in grading over 1 foot requires a retaining wall and since he did not have the grading plan before him he could not. give a solid reply. However, he estimated that there would be less than a foot difference when the developers were through grading. He did not anticipate a problem and was sure that the engineer for Century American did not intend to build a retaining wall. Mr. Johnson then spoke to the water seepage, explaining that this has been a problem on the home sites themselves. Soil evaluation of this site showed no free water on the site. As far as they can tell, the development of this site will not make the problems to the east any more acute. When the free water was found in that area, they had some city crews dig behind the properties and they could not find any free water on the Century American property. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Seven Regarding the question of enforcement in a C-P zone, Mr. Minshew addressed this question by saying that there was nothing that would prevent other uses from coming into a C-P zone without recording something specific. He did not see any problem with enforcing a deed restriction and felt that a probable way is to record a Resolution of Intent that the property is to be used for a particular purpose and the City Council may revert back to 0-P zoning. With regard to the Mr. Murphy stated basically the same sometime ago. The is a little higher on the residential comments on the height of the proposed building, that the plans approved by the City Council are elevations which the Commission saw on the plans height of the buildings at the peak of 28 feet than a normal residence. The approval was based style of the proposed buildings. Chairman Mickelson asked if people in the area were notified when the building plans were approved and Mr. Murphy replied that he thought the people might have been notified. Mr. Gerke stated that he had re- ceived no notice and other people had not received one either. ~ Commissioner Master explained that the roof area is intended for truss space and storage space and is not intended to be used as a second story. He found it impossible to vote on the EIR since new information had just come out this evening regarding traffic. There was discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 798. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Zone Change 984 for the reasons that the con- cerns expressed by Staff in terms of the possible change of use and potential impact should the bank vacate the premises are addressed in special conditions, coupled with a Resolution of Intent to Rezone. That the deed for the property be restricted to permit only a bank ~ or office professional use in that section of the property that is zoned Commercial-Professional and that the signage for the C-P section of the property be restricted to that which is permitted by code in the Office-Professional zone. Commissioner Master stated that when this property was first brought before the Commission there was some comment about a bank. There was much concern at the Commission and Council levels because of other uses which might come in because of the zoning needed for bank use. He felt that by looking ahead about five years this use is an inappropriate use for that corner. Several situations are being created by this use that he felt would not be good for the area. Therefore, he did not support the motion. Mr. Minshew explained in further detail how a deed restriction could be recorded. The president of Orange National Bank was asked to give a detailed explanation of a full service and a limited service bank, which he did. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to amend Commissioner Vasquez' motion to include a recommendation to the Council that the Resolution of Intent include a definition of a ~ limited services bank with depository services only and no drive-up services, Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Eight Question was asked from the audience whether this would be included in the deed of restriction and Mr. Minshew suggested that the definition be included in the Resolution of Intent, with a state- ment that the City Council may rezone the property back to 0-P, rather than clouding the title with a deed of restriction. He felt that this is a reasonably good way to go. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Master, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Mrs. Niger asked where the walk-up window would be and was told that the automated teller machine will be to the right of the main entrance of the building, off of the parking lot, on the northeast corner of the building. She asked how far th~e~building was from the property line and was told that it was approximately 55 feet from the existing block wall to the wall of the building. However, the entrance to the bank and the automated teller machine will be on the residential side of th ebuilding. Commissioners then voted on the original motion, including the amend- ment. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Variance 1709 for the reason that it is a technical requirement of the Commercial-Professional Zone which would allow the project to be built using 0-P development standards rather than the C-P setback requirements. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:. ZONE CHANGE 989 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed zone change from R-M-7 (Residential Multiple Family) District to MH (Mobile Home) District on land located on the north side of Collins Avenue approximately 200 feet west of the centerline of Glassell Street (201 West Collins Avenue - Carriage Mobile Estates). Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that the property contains 16.42 acres of land and is located on the north side of Collins Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of the centerline of Glassell Street (201 West Collins Avenue, Carriage Mobile Estates). It consists of two parcels of land and is developed with 145-unit mobile home park on property zoned R-M-7. Mr. Lanz explained that this is the seventh mobile home park to come before the Planning Commission for this change of zoning and he gave a brief explanation of the background which led to this change of zoning. He then explained that on September 30, 1982, members of the City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session and dis- cussed policy concepts to be used as a basis for policy actions related to mobile home parks in the City. On October 12, 1982, the City Council referred the report of the September 30, 1982 meeting to the Housing Advisory Committee to begin the process of formulating policies for Council adoption. Policies and actions considered are as follows: Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Nine a. Continue the requirement that future mobile home park developments be zoned M-H. b. Continue to hold public hearings to rezone existing parks to MH District and if: 1) approved either: a) Adopt an ordinance or policy that this is not a permanent action but serves to afford tenants with adequate notice (time) to address relocation re- quirements; ordinances to be circulated to the tenants or b) include language to the affect of the above in Staff reports and resolutions to record the City's intent. 2) If denied, adopt a policy or resolution that any change of use (including revision to vacant land) would require preparation of a Tenant Relocation Impact Report and possibly a Tenant Relocation Plan. c. Tenant Relocation assistance plans are to continue to be established between the property owner, park tenants, and, if necessary, a neutral third party; said plans to be evaluated for adequacy at public hearings. 3. The City will not adopt a universal formula for relocation assistance plans as factors differ in each park. However, the City could adopt a policy that benefits are to be paid equally to all tenants regardless of the date they vacated the park and the City could adopt guidelines to include factors to be evaluated in formulating relocation assistance plans. Staff has reviewed this proposal and has expressed the following concerns: a. That it appears the intent of the City Council to stabilize existing mobile home park housing in the City by rezoning them to the Mobile Home Park district may not be accomplished by this procedure. It is presumed the park owner would simultaneously request a new zone and initiate the public hearing process. How- ever, if a rezone request is not processed simultaneously with the decision to merely go out of the mobile home park business, no public review would be required while tenants were required to relocate. City Staff differs in their opinion as to whether the going out of business constitutes a change of use. b. Rezoning to mobile home district may be giving tenants of a park a false sense of security. c. Procedural options, such as an ordinance or an overlay zone requiring an impact report upon any use change in a park, could be equally or more effeftive and less costly to process. Staff recognizes the predominately residential character of land use surrounding Carriage Mobile Estates. The use of the site for a mobile home park is consistent with the medium residential designation shown on the general plan. The mobile home use seems to be the most ap- propriate use for this property for forseeable future. r~ L The probability of the use of the site for residential uses and the prospect that the City Council will be adopting policies in the future that affect mobile home parks suggests the following action options: Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Ten 1. Deny Zone Change 989 without prejudice and recommend that a policy resolution be adopted that states any change of use (including reversion to vacant land) will require preparation of a Tenant Relocation Plan for City service. 2. Approve Zone Change 989 for the following reason and policies: a. Reasons: 1) The proposed zone is compatible with the surrounding uses and zones. 2) The proposed zone is consistent with the fore- seeable and present use of the property. 3) The proposed zone is compatible with the City's General Plan. b. Policies: 1) Adopt a policy resolution that states that the City recognizes this zone change is not necessarily a permanent action, but serves to afford the tenants with adequate notice to address relocation requirements upon a park owner's request to change the use; policy statement to be circulated to the tenants, and 2) Adopt a policy resolution that states that any change in use (including reversion to vacant land) will require the preparation of a Tenant Relocation Impact Report and possibly a Tenant Relocation Plan for City review; policy statement to be circulated to the tenants, or 3) Postpone action until the City Council adopts a set of policies or guidelines for the development, retention or redevelopment of mobile home parks in the City. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that a number of mobile home parks have been rezoned but they have never made a resolution on mobile home park policy before. She thought it would be inappropriate at this time to change their method of dealing with this mobile home park since consideration of mobile home park policies does not come before the Commission until the end of the agenda this evening. She thought it should be made very clear that no resolution has been made on the mobile home park policy at this particular time. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Adolph Bausch, owner of the land which is leased to the owner of the mobile home park in question, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He said that his main concern is regarding the description since he also owns land to the north of the park and he would not want that land to be rezoned along with the mobile home park. He stated that this had been cleared up to his satisfaction by the Staff. He said that he would not like to see a lot of restrictions for the future which would devalue the property. He explained that the Doughers have a long lease with him and he does not anticipate this being anything else other than a mobile home park. Chairman Mickelson expalined what the mobile home zoning would mean for him. Commissioner Coontz also pointed out that at the end of the agenda the Commissioners will be discussing mobile home park policies. Dorothy Do ugher, owner of the Carriage Mobile Estates, 201 West Collins Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that she was sure that the land could be put to a more lucrative use than a mobile home park, However, she is grateful that it is being considered for a change of zone to Mobile Home district. She said that any cooperation which she could give on the mobile home park planning she would be very happy to do so. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Eleven C~ Ramona Harris, 12062 Edinger, Sp. 25, addressed the Commission, stating that she felt that the park recommendation is a good one, but she didn't think that the owner of the park should be attached to the moving problems of mobile home tenants. She felt that the Commission and Council could get together and zone condominium property as mobile home property to be owned by mobile home owners. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 989 for the reasons that the proposed zone is compatible with the surrounding uses and zones; the proposed zone is consistent with the foreseeable and present use of the property; and the proposed zone is compatible with the city's General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1249 - HARRY S. RINKER: A request to convert an existing industrial complex to an integrated industrial, commercial office use on property located on the south side of Katella Avenue approximately 796 feet east of the centerline of Batavia Street. (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Chairman Mickelson stated that due to the fact that Mr. Rinker was a client of his, he had a conflict of interest and excused himself from this portion of the meeting. Commissioner Hart took charge of the meeting . By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was given. Vice-Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. John Killion, employed by Architects Orange, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that they have reviewed the Staff Report and agree with their comments and conditions. He brought to the attention of the Commission that in one of the buildings there is a restaurant use which was approved in a prior CUP, which they would like to stand. Also, Staff is asking for CC&Rs and the applicant would prefer not to have CC&Rs attached to this application, but try to handle the situation by resolution. Commissioner Vasquez explained Condition #4b in the Staff Report to Mr. Killion in more detail and he then agreed that there would be agreement to the statement. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff has no problem with a resolution rather than CC&Rs. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master asked Staff a question with regard to hours of use connected with a prior use and what is requested at this time. Mr. Murphy explained that this project would spread the hours.of use over the entire day instead of peak hours. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Twelve Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve Conditional Use Permit 1249 for the reasons as outlined in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report, with the exception of 4d, whereby it would be sub- stituted by a legal document satisfactory to the City Attorney's office. AYES: Commissioner Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mic kelson MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1251 - FAITH FELLOWSHIP: A request to operate a church with associated classrooms in an existing industrial building on land lcoated on the south side of Struck Avenue approximately 662 feet east of the centerline of Batavia Street. (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) L~ Jere Nlurphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property is a rectangular shaped parcel containing approximately 2.5 acres located on the south side of Struck Avenue approximately 662 feet west of the centerline of Batavia Street. The property is zoned M-2 (Industrial) and is part of an existing industrial center. This property is completely surrounded by industrial uses in the M-2 zone. Mr. Murphy explained that the total building square footage is 11,792, with the proposed sanctuary being 2,.700 square feet (270 seats). The applicant proposes to operate a church with classrooms and banquet facility in an existing industrial building located at the northwest corner of the existing industrial center for a period of 4-6 years. Staff has reviewed the proposal and is concerned with the suitability of the proposed use for the existing zoning; the capability of the proposed use with the existing surrounding uses; the necessity to restore the structure for industrial use; and the tenants of surrounding uses present or future who should be made aware that their adjacent parking spaces may be committed to church use on .Sundays and Wednesdays. c It is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 809 be accepted. Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit 1251 for three reasons: 1. The existing facility was designed and approved for industrial use only - not as an assembly area for a relatively large amount of people. This necessitates a great deal of interior modifica- tions making it difficult to reconvert the structure back to an industrial use when the church finds a more suitable permanent location. 2. The users of the proposed church could be subjected to high levels of noise and other potentially obnoxious impacts because of the surrounding industrial uses. 3. Although there is sufficient parking for the church on Sundays and weeknights at this point in time, this situation could deteriorate if the industrial users expanded their operations to include weeknights and Sundays or the church expanded its use to weekdays. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Thirteen Should the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1251, the 9 special conditions and 5 standard conditions listed in the Staff Report are recommended, with the figure of 150 feet stated in Condition #9 being changed to 30U feet. Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification of special Condition #l, stating that the proposed meetings on Saturdays be eliminated. He wondered what meetings are being proposed. Mr. Murphy explained that there is a Saturday morning breakfast meeting which would include about 60 people. Commissioner Hart asked what the parking requirements are for the industrial use herein and Mr. P1urphy responded that it would be 24 spaces. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Scott Camp, a resident of Orange Park Acres and pastor of the Faith Fellowship church, addressed the Commission in favor of this applica- tion, explaining that he had submitted a letter to the Commission, addressing the specific points mentioned in the Staff Report. He referred to page 4 of the Staff Report, the second recommendation re- garding high levels of noise and other potentially obnoxious impacts, and explained that they are presently operating at Villa Park High School, where they are getting very obnoxious noises from their parking lot when they are meeting. He pointed out that they are a very tolerant congegration and are accustomed to unusual noises in the surrounding area. They can live with the noise from the surrounding industrial area. Mr. Camp again referred to page 4, Special Condition #1, proposing that their Saturday morning meetings be eliminated, explaining that this is a men's breakfast. They have been having these meetings for the past four months and top number of those attending has been 36, with an average of 22. He said that he has received a letter from the landlord that he would give the congregation 40 spaces for their Saturday morning meetings and they can live with this restriction. Referring to page 5, Condition #4, "That the church use be approved for a maximum of two years. Any proposed extension of this time would - be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission.", Mr. Camp ex- ~. plained that they have several concerns about this. It is difficult to say now that they can automatically expect future approval. However, they feel that there are sufficient measures that the Commission can use to bring them into compliance or revoke their permit. They have a significant investment which they will be making in this building and they would have a difficult time amortizing this cost in a two-year period of time. He explained that they are seeking a four-year permit. Mr. Camp then told the Commission that other points in the Staff Report have been covered in his letter. Their goal is not to just get into a building, but to extend their ministry in the area. Commissioner Hart asked where the 40 spaces would be that the landlord is giving for Saturday mornings and I~1r. Camp explained that they will be using Building 7. At the north side of that building and the east side combined there are 24 spaces. There are 9 spaces at Building 4, which is directly east of them. He assumed that these nine spaces and the others they need will be directly north of Building 4 right on Struck. Commissioner Hart had a problem with this since these spaces are assigned to those buildings. Mr. Camp said that they re- ceived a standard lease and there are no particular parking spaces ~' designated in the lease. The landlord has given the other tenants a plot plan of the parking spaces to be used and asked for their comments regarding the situation. He also pointed out that except for Saturday mornings they are not requesting any additional spaces. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Fourteen Commissioner Vasquez echoed the same concerns as Commissioner Hart, particularly in view of the fact that his experience told him that in the past the police department would have to respond to calls on Sunday when parking spaces had been usurped. He would hate to see the church members get into a confrontation in this kind of a siutation. Mr. Camp explained that the landlord has assured them of the cooperation of both himself and the other tenants. They have solicited these kinds of objections from the tenants and have received no objections of any kind. Steven Wong, 2763 Pine Creek Circle, Fullerton, one of the owners of the Batavia Glen Industrial Park, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that under the lease with their other tenants, parking is in common with all tenants in the park. He read from his general lease the part which explained this situation. In the spaces which they have allocated for Sunday, they find that there always seems to be adequate space. They do not find a problem in this matter. He pointed out that as landlords they do not wish to antagonize or infringe on the rights of their other tenants. They agree with Condition 5 on page 5 of the Staff Report reading: "That the interior modifications be approved by the Fire and Building ~~ Departments prior to occupancy. They would like to see this done since their other buildings are sprinklered and this would provide them with better protection. Mr. Wong felt that Condition 8 on page 5 of the Staff Report, reading: "That the church provide personnel on the parking lot during its use to direct parishioners to designated parking and preclude the use of adjacent parking lots or other industrial lots in the area." should also be retained since they feel that the tenant should police their own people rather than they, as landlords, doing this. They are in favor of the CUP. Chairman Mickelson asked if they have completed their lease agreement with the church and Mr. Wong stated that they have done this, subject to approval of the CUP. Chairman Mickelson said that Conditions 5 and 8 could be added to the lease agreement. Mr. Camp spoke to these two conditions, stating that they are in agreement with both of them, but would like advice from the Commission as to how to proceed with regard to the parking condition. There being no one else to speak for or against .this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson asked if the industrial park is leased out except for this building and Mr. Wong responded that Building 8 is entirely occupied except for A. Building 4 is fully occupied. They have cir- culated a letter to all of their tenants regarding the negotiation of this lease and their parking needs. No one in the park has commented on this. Commissioner Vasquez asked if Mr. Wong had described to his tenants what is being proposed and the numbers of parishioners that would attending meetings in the building. Mr. Wong presented a copy of the letter which was sent to all of his tenants, reading portions of the letter to the Commission, wherein it was stated when the meetings would be held and which parking spaces would be needed. This letter was dated December 14th. Commissioner Vasquez then asked Mr. Murphy if the police department has reviewed this project and Mr, Murphy replied in the affirmative, stating that the police department has expressed the most ~,~ concerns about compatibility of this use in the industrial area. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1983 Page Fifteen Mr. Camp again addressed the Commission, stating that Staff had described the concerns of the police department to them and Mr. Camp had gone to Officer Ramm and discussed this situation with him. Officer Ramm had said that he believed they were doing everything they could do to make the situation work, Commissioner Coontz felt that the requirement that there be monitoring was a good idea. She did not think that barricades in themselves are sufficient. She did not see a reason to eliminate the Saturday morning meetings and felt that this was a reasonable application. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 809. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIEU Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve Conditional Use Permit 1251, subject to all of the special conditions listed in the Staff Report, together with the standard conditions listed therein, except to eliminate Condition #l; also that use of the building should be maximum of four years with revocation taking place at that time if conditions are not met, as listed, or a renewal of the lease at that time; and that the figure Stated in Condition #9 be changed from 150 feet to 300 feet from the church use. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson suggested that Mr. Wong notify his tenants of the Saturday morning meetings, as well as the other meetings. Commissioner Vasquez commented that in the county this is becoming a very common occurrence where churches are moving into industrial areas. His concern was that we need to take a look at some of the long term repercussions of expansion in these areas. He felt that Staff could offer an overview in an informal way of how this type of expansion hi h s t can affect the community. Chairman Mickelson concurred wit concern and requested that this be a topic of discussion at the next study session. Commissioner Vasquez said that his major concerns were with lighting and police not being able to discern between legal and illegal persons in the area. Commissioner Hart felt that the self-policing system in the parking lot is a good thing and could keep the problems down. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS: MOBILE HOME PARK POLICIES - CITY OF ORANGE: Consideration of Mobile Home Park policy formulation and recommendations of the Housing Advisory Committee.(Referred to the Housing Advisory Committee and the City Planning Commission at the City Council, October 12, 1982 hearing.) Jere Murphy presented this recommendation to the Commission, stating that on October 12th the City Council acted to refer the report from Mayor Beam (a copy of which had been given to the Commissioners) to both the Housing Advisory Committee and Planning Commission to begin the process of formulating policies for Council adoption. • v Planning Commission h1inutes January 3, 1983 Page Sixteen At their meeting of November 10th, the Housing Advisory Committee reviewed and discussed the report. The Committee agreed with the recommended policies and actions, with the exception of the action pertaining to mobile home relocation parks. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Committee agrees with the policy that the construction of a new relocation park is both infeasible and impractical. However, the Committee felt that the recommended action to establish a park proposed for conversion as a temporary shelter park for a specified length of time is too rigid a requirement. The reasoning is that such a requirement may not even be necessary in all conversion projects or that the extended time periods may vary ac- cording to individual and unique circumstances associated with a particular park. In short, the Committee feels. that the concept should be kept in mind as a negotiating tool when considering future conversions, but that it should be flexible in nature. Additionally, it was felt that the other policy and action recommendations relating to tenant relocation assistance in general are flexible enough to accommodate any time extensions which may be warranted. ~. The Housing Advisory Committee moved to recommend that the City Council adopt all the policy and action recommendations contained in Mayor Beam's report of October 7, vdith the exception of the action recommendation at the bottom of page 4 pertaining to the establishment of a park proposed for conversion as a temporary shelter park for a certain specified length of time. Further, that the Council direct Staff to prepare the necessary resolution for Council adoption. Commissioner Coontz said that she agreed with the Housing Advisory Committee and felt that they had done a good job. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend acceptance of the Housing Advisory Committee's assessment of mobile home park policies and concur in their findings. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, h1ickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, January 17, 1983 at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. d