Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/21/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California January 21, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Mickelson, Master ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: IN RE: ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN FOR 1980: Commissioner Ault nominated Commissioner Master for 1980 Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson. Commissioner Hart nominated Chairman Coontz for a second term, seconded by Commissioner Master. Commissioner Master nominated Commissioner Hart. Commissioner Hart declined. Nominations were closed. A secret ballot was taken, after which Mr. Murphy announced that Chairman Coontz was re-elected for another year. IN RE: ELECTION OF NEW VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 1980: Commissioner Mickelson nominated Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault. Commissioner Master nominated Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart. Nominations were closed and a secret ballot was taken. Commissioner Mickelson was announced as Vice-Chairman for 1980. IN RE: EXPIRATION DATE FOR TERM OF OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioner Mickelson expressed a concern that there should be an expiration date on how many terms of office a Chairman may fill consecutively. It was agreed among the members that there should be an expiration date. There- fore, Commissioner Mickelson moved to have a maximum term for the Chairman of the Planning Commission of two full consecutive years. Seconded by Chairman Coontz. AYES: Commissioners, Ault, Coontz, Hart, Mickelson, Master NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: None IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: AMENDMENT 13-79 - CITY OF ORANGE: An amendment to Article IX of the Orange Municipal Code to adopt modifications incorporating own-your-own lots, encourage conversions by adopting subdivision conversion regulations, rezone existing parks to interim preservation zoning until permanent designation is made, and adopt policies to promote mobile home subdivisions. Mr. Murphy stated that the staff recommended continuance of public hearing on this amendment until February 20 so that staff can provide further input into the relocation regulations. Commissioner Hart moved to continue this item to February 20. Seconded by Commissioner Mickelson. --. -• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1980 Page Two Ati~.j: Commissioners Ault, Coontz, Hart, Mickelson, Master NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 914 - H & H INVESTMENT: Request to change zoning from C-1 to RD-6 for property situated at the southeast corner of Glassell Street and Rose Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 432 has been previously accepted and no further Environmental Review is necessary). Mr. Soo-Hoo presented the request to change zoning from C-1 to RD-6 for this property, stating that since the request is in compliance with a condition of a previously approved conditional use permit and since the details of that proposal have not changed, the staff is recommending that Zone Change 914 be approved in that the proposal is consistent with and compatible with surrounding residential uses; and the proposal is con- sistent with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Brett Hyter, representing H & H Investment Co., 630 South City Drive, Orange, spoke in favor of the zone change. Leslie B. Nesbitt, M.D., 576 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission. He stated that his medical offices are located directly across the street from the proposed zone change. He moved his offices to that portion of Orange because it was zoned C-1 and would not like to see a zone change in that area because he hopes that C-1 zoning will remain so that other professional people could move there. He said that he had not had a chance since he received the notice of the proposed zone change to contact other neighbors who might want to speak to this matter also. Dr. Nesbitt has been at this location for over 4 years. Flo Kinder, 1342 E. Hickory Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission. She stated that she and her husband own duplexes at Rose and Glassell and, as a citizen of Orange, does not like to see the constant zone changes and grovrth patterns changed. She feels that the pattern of growth would be best if we continue to have professional offices and such, rather than tear down old homes and put up additional buildings, crowding in more people. Since most of Glassell north to Collins is professional, she would like an explanation as to why two and a half blocks are being isolated as residential. Chairman Coontz explained that Glassell has a variety of different uses all along the street. There was discussion as to which way the entire street will eventually go - residential or commercial. The conditional use permit went into effect on July 2, 1979 and at that time this area was re-zoned. Jere Murphy explained that south of Rose is commercial for several blocks, with multiple zoning north of Rose at the present time. Mrs. Kinder was concerned as to whether or not there is still a General Plan in the City of Orange. Chairman Coontz explained that it is just that - a general plan. Dick Kinder, 1342 E. Hickory Lane, Orange - addressed the Commission. He explained that he owns a duplex with his wife on Rose opposite the property being re-zoned. He questioned whether the zoning is being changed on Rose or only on Glassell. With the present zoning of C-1, it would appear that there is a chance that Glassell will go professional or commercial. At this point, he does not intend to ask for a zoning change for his property. ~~ ,--f Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1980 F a Three Beverly Wills, 622 N. Orange, Orange, addressed the Commission, expressing her concern as to whether the duplexes to be built in the area being dis- cussed will be for adults or if children will be allowed. She stated that at this time there is no place for children to go. The nearest elementary school is Cambridge and they will have to walk a long way, without crossing guards. Mrs. Clarence Brown, 127 E. Rose, Orange, addressed the Commission, agreeing with Ms. Wills. She stated that she has called the Orange police regarding the children several times. Chairman Coontz wondered if this wasn't a problem for the Orange Unified School District rather than the police. It was also mentioned that the children go to the Killefer Park playground to play. There are no crossing guards. The general feeling was that this area is definitely not a place for children. Chairman Coontz suggested to Mr. Murphy that the problem of the children crossing Glassell be brought to the attention of Parks & Recreation personnel. Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mickelson felt that the decision has already been made by the city to develop the property as proposed. He asked if this has come through the Commission or the City Council. Jere Murphy responded that the eventual zone change is the result of the original approval of the Council. He pointed out that the Commission has a choice. It does not have to approve the zone change. They can deny it and it will remain commercial. The real issue is the long term zoning of the area in general, not just this specific project. Commissioner Mickelson felt that there is a definite pattern of residential north of Rose and commercial south of Rose. Commissioner Hart wondered why Rose is particularly significant. Chairman Coontz explained that this wasn't necessarily planned. Much of this could have occurred before the city had a General Plan. Mr. Murphy pointed out that in order to help the Commission make a decision, the staff might look at these streets and come back with a report to the Commission on how much should be commercial and what could be changed. The Commission could deny the zone change without prejudice. Commissioner Hart stated that whatever the Commission does now will not change what is going to happen. This is a technical action to confirm a previously issued permit. Commissioner Hart made a motion to deny without prejudice. Seconded by Commissioner Master. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Ault MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: None Commissioner Mickelson made a motion to have the staff make a study of the situation in order to give the Commission some direction in this matter. Seconded by Master. Commissioner Mickelson explained that the applicant should know that this will not delay his duplex project. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Ault ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED •' Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1980 P% ~ Four IN RE: REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL ON DOG KENNEL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Mr. Murphy explained that the Planning Commission had reviewed the development standards in approving a kennel on Batavia between Cully and Fletcher. Commission again questioned whether existing standards, as well as new standards that were being proposed, should be adopted as ordinance requirements on application of any dog kennel in the City of Orange. The City Council asked Planning Commission for further clarification in pointing out which guidelines should be used in granting dog kennel applications. The city presently has three kennels, all of which have grown from smaller operations. The staff has also outlined four reasons for adopting guidelines which could be used in place of mandatory development standards: 1. There are no kennels in the city that would meet all standards as proposed. Yet they all operate adequately. 2. Most of the future kennels that will be subject to review under the city's ordinance will be inherited from the County and con- sequently will not be in conformance with the development standards proposed. 3. Dog kennels are individually unique and usually involve the modification of an existing residential use to a combination residence and kennel. 4. Approval of kennels (i.e. Arf Bark) oftentimes involves a compromise situation that does not fit with the specific development standards of the ordinance. Commissioner Mickelson questioned page 1, No. 1 dealing with proximity. He felt that statement should be added saying that evidence must be presented in the use permit that the sound decibel level will be whatever is listed in the sound ordinance. Commissioner Coontz felt that the introduction to No. 1 on page 1 is con- fusing as to cooling and soundproofing requirements. Perhaps there is another way to write this far further clarity. Commissioner Mickelson felt that it should meet a certain standard for soundproofing for the city. Commissioner Coontz questioned page 2, No. 2 - Coverage. Commissioner Ault questioned the 30% figure for kennel facilities and it was explained that residential unit, as well as parking area take up the other 70~. Chairman Coontz felt that the paragraph on Proximity was not acceptable as is. Mr. Murphy explained that the No. 4 - Sound Attenuation could be rewritten, as could Section 1, and suggested that this matter be continued to February 4. Chairman Coontz felt that under No. 4 the reference to Arf Bark should be deleted. Motionfor staffsto redrafttSect~onsnl~and 4h1SSecondedtbyFCommissionernAult. order AYES: Commissioners Ault, Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson N^~~: None MOTION CARRIED .ANT: None ~ • Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1980 Page Five IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Coontz adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 4, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. io io ~~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTIP~lG ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange, that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange held on January 21, 1980, said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on January ?_2, 1980 at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of January 21, 1980 was held. i EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1980. The regular meetincl of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, ~1aster, Mickelson ABSENT: None P1oved by Chairman Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault that this meeting adjourn at 8:30 p.m. on Monday, January 21, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, February 4, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, January 21, 1980. Dated this 22nd day of February, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. e e M rohy, Ci Planner & Secretary to the Planning ommissi n of the City o Orange. a