Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/7/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California February 7, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Grange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez 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; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 17, 1983 tvloved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve the minutes of January 17, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 990, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1255, REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 9608 - RICHARD KENNETH BROOKS, JR.: A request to rezone property from A-1 to R-0, R-1-40, R-1-10, R-1-7 and RD-7 to allow development of 381 units as a Planned Unit Development, permitting zero lot lines on property at the northerly terminus of Crawford Canyon Road, north of Chapman Avenue. (Continued from the January 17, 1983 hearing.) (NOTE: A supplement to EIR 496 has been prepared on this project.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains approximately 292 acres and is located north of Chapman Avenue, north of the northerly terminus of Crawford Canyon Road. He explained that this matter has been before the Planning Commission and City Council several times, the latest decision being made at the City Council meeting on September 28, 1982, at which time the City Council denied Zone Change 966, Conditional Use Permit 1212, Variance 1693, Revised Tentative Tract 9608 and Addendum to EIR 496. That proposa] was for 322 units. The applicant now proposes development of 381 units on the site. These units would consist of 43 detached single-family residences, 38 attached (zero lot line) single-family residences and 300 con- dominium units. The 43 units would be large estate lots along the southeast portion of the property and the north general half of the property, with a second group of 38 attached single-family homes in the southeast portion of the project and the balance of the units (300 condominiums) in the lower portions of the central valley be- tween the two major ridges of the Jones Ranch general area. Mr. Murphy stated that approval of a Tentative Tract is requested to create the lots; a Zone Change requested to appropriately zone various lots for the lot sizes and densities proposed; and Conditional Use Permit requested to allow the zero lot line development (under the planned unit development standards). Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Two He pointed out that the applicant generally is proposing to increase density by increasing the amount of units in the south central, or valley portion, of the site. This necessitates the filling of the valley. The proposal also calls for the extension of Crawford Canyon Road from Chapman Avenue to Cannon Street, and five local private streets, providing access to three types of residential development products (1) estate detached single-family units; (2) attached zerio lot line single-family units; and (3) multi- family condominiums. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Commission has received four com- munications from interested parties relating to the project area: 1. A letter from the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee raising concerns regarding the increase in density, future lot s~ilit~, and landscaping architectural design considerations. 2. A response from the East Orange Implementation Committee, recognizing that the development along the ridgelines, in their opinion, is more in keeping with the East Orange Plan, but again raising questions about density and establishing grading, landscaping and architectural standards. 3. Communication from Shirley Grindle, on behalf of the East Orange Open Space Management Corporation, suggesting modifications in the conditions to the Tentative Tract Map, dealing with the maintenance of manmade slopes on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road. She also made a second suggestion to replace the wording with regard to the description of the Open Space Corpora- tion maintenance documents, which would be reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Also requested was additional verb age regarding the proposed tank sites on the south end of the property adjacent to Crawford Canyon Road; plus a suggested new condition that no further subdivisions on Lot B be allowed, Lot B being the large lot on the west side of the extension of Crawford Canyon Road. It was also suggested that the notes on the Tract Map idenfity the horse trail, talk about its maintenance relating to the Association and the Open Space Corporation; and also identifying Lot B as a natural open space area in the proposal. 4. Communication from the Public Works Director, basically in agreement with the proposed verbage from Ms, Grindle regarding the proposed water tank at the south end of the property. Staff feels that the discussion included in the addendum to EIR 496 adequately conforms to the requirements of the State EIR guidelines. It should be pointed out that the applicant, as well as the firm which prepared the EIR, were informed that the environmental concerns of those who may oppose the project should be solicited and discussed in the EIR. It was indicated to Staff that this was done. Mr. Murphy explained that the land coverage, density and grading of two ridgelines and visual problems associated with the last revision proposed prior to this revision have been significantly resolved, In general, it is found that: 1. The plan is in accordance with the intent of the East Orange Plan. 2. The plan is sensitive to the retention of the view for the citizens of Orange and beyond the City boundaries. 3. The plan takes into account the interrelationship of the Orange Park Acres Plan and the East Orange Plan. 4. The plan includes a positive and realistic plan for the maintenance of open space in the area. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Three It is recommended that Zone Change 990 be approved using the Resolution of Intent procedure; it is recommended that Revised Tentative Tract 9608 be approved, subject to the 42 conditions listed in the Staff Report; it is recommended that Conditional Use Permit 1255 be approved, subject to the 15 standard and 12 special conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Coontz referred to the February 4th Planning Staff memo, asking if the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee was the same as the Orange Park Acres Development Committee and was told that they are one and the same. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if the Staff had reviewed the three late communications which P1r, Murphy had referred to, particularly the modifications to conditions listed in Shirley Grindle's letter. hlr. Murphy responded that the Staff had reviewed this and had no problem with any of the suggested conditions mentioned in Ms. Grindle's memo. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. i Richard Brooks, 17500 Red Hill, Irvine, the applicant, handed a written summary to the Commissioners from which he would speak. He explained that this was a quick summary of the meeting held with the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee, the East Orange Implementation Committee and the Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association. He then explained in detail what was outlined in the summary: the several committees with which he had met, all being in agreement with what was now being proposed; the map being denied, grading being the major issue; the fact that he had worked with several City Councilmen & the Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association to see if they could not come to some kind of conclusion with respect to designing this piece of property; the fact that they did develop a revised plan and basically that plan is the one being presented tonight. He explained that they have left intact the peaks on the east side of the property which is adjacent to Orange Park Acres. He pointed out exactly where the estate lots, the single-family residences anal the townhouses will be arranged on the property, pointing out some exhibits which he had brought for the Commission to look at to explain the intensity and quality of the project. Mr. Brooks said that he is pleased with the present project and felt that there is a lot of creativity in it. He felt that the Staff Report has covered the changes and there are 69 conditions covering the entire project. They have actually reduced the 381 units to 379. He then explained that this is the third time that they are coming before the Commission and pointed out that they are not that far off in terms of density from the first proposal they had brought before the Commission. He explained that he had a letter to George Rach explaining how they will place their custom homes on the estate lots. He then showed the sketches he had brought of the custom buildings which are proposed, explaining in detail as he showed them to the Commissioners. He pointed out that only about eight units will be visible from Orange Park Acres. The concept is to grade the garages into the hill and build massively to look like they are part of the hill and part of the project as a whole. Regarding the CC&R's, he explained that they will describe what their own preferred height and setback limitations are on all of the parcels, put that into a summary and reduce all of the graphic work and put it together into a document, establishing a criteria for the Design Review Board. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Four r~~ LJ Commissioner Coontz asked if Mr. Brooks was in agreement with the conditions proposed by Shirley Grindle and he replied in the affirmative. Shirley Grindle, 19051 Glen Aryan, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that the Staff has been very cooperative and the items addressed in her memo were worked out to everyone's agreement and agreement with Mr. Brooks. She did bring up one more condition, however, Condition #31 in the previous Staff Report addressed the type of landscaping and the reason for it to be on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road, said condition reading: That the west side of Crawford Canyon Road within the property line of Lot 3 shall be landscaped with low maintenance native trees and shrubs requiring minimal watering once establsihed; said landscaping to be spaced to deter vehicular access to Lot 3 and to obscure the cut slopes on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road." This was agreed upon by Mr. Brooks and she asked that this be included in the conditions. Ted Botens, 10802 Meads, Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out that he is on the board of the Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association and their president, Richard Seibert, has been talking with Mr. Brooks. It was-felt that they have reached some agreement on some problems in the plan. 1. Restrictions on how the hillside lots are to be developed. Key issue is how to make them enforceable. They would like to make sure that this issue is resolved before the plan is approved. 2. Condition #12, providing for certain items to be approved by the Planning Staff addresses the issue wherein Orange Park Homeowners Association would like to be included in decisions. 3. He felt that the landscaping issues are very critical on how this piece of property is developed. They hope that the landscaping can have requirements for specimen size trees in these locations, as suggested by Mayor Beam in his last review of this project. Mr. Brooks stated that he had no problem with the suggested conditions. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Brooks for clarification with regard to the CC&R's and he explained in further detail, referring to the handout he had given to the Commission. He explained that if they sell any parcels and they are developed apart from the rest of the project, they must still go by the restrictions placed on the lots. He pointed out that they would develop CC&R's that would be acceptable to the Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association. Shirley Grindle again addressed the Commission, explaining that she has been working with Richard Seibert to bring this to the approval stage. She has explained to the Orange Park Acres group that CC&R's cannot be enforced by the City Staff. Therefore, building and grading permits should be issued in order to allow the City Staff to enforce the CC&R's. Mr. Brooks agreed to this. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Minshew clarified that the approval of the CC&R's will have an effect on the people who will live there. They must be approved before the approval of the final map and there will be no grading plan before ~, that time. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Five Nlr. Johnson then stated with regard to the CC&R's that there must be criteria established on what the intent will be for building on these lots. If that is not controlled the City will issue a grading plan on what the owner desires. Anita Bennyhoff, 10642 Moraga Drive, Orange Park Acres, addressed the Commission, stating that she felt there is a great deal of worry in Orange Park Acres about the density of this project. She pointed out that Mr. Brooks has been very sensitive to the concerns of the people, but the density is still very large and is still a worry for most of the people in that area. Ted Botens again addressed the Commission, explaining that Mr. Brooks has agreed to lay out the grading plan for each lot. He wondered if this would solve the problem for the City. Commissioner Coontz read from a memo from George Rach., which had enclosed a copy of a letter from Stephen Schwartz, Co-Chairman of the East Orange Implementation Committee as follows: "That, if approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, it is recommended that specific grading standards, landscape criteria and architectural parameters be established as a design vocabulary as a joint effort of the Proponent, the Orange Park Acres Design Committee, Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association, and the East Orange Implementation Committee, and approved by the City. This development standard criteria shall be referenced and placed in the CC&R's prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map." Commissioner Master questioned Mr. Murphy about Condition #37 stating "That specific grading standards and criteria for the estate lots be developed and .approved by the City, Orange Park Acres Homeowners' Association and the East Orange Implementation Committee and referenced in the test and placed in the CC&R's so to notice future and existing property owners prior to recordation of the final map." .. and Mr. Murphy. explained that this condition was placed there to address this particular issue as raised by Mr. Johnson. They hope to develop significant enough criteria that-would allow for the review of plans in a fairly efficient and effective manner and that it would not be- come a cumbersome process to review individual homes on a custom lot. Chairman Hart asked if there is mass grading at the time a project is approved. Mr. Joi~nson explained how this is done,. pointing out that the CC&R's would serve as a warning to the owner that he will have to do something different and special. Commissioner Coontz saw the necessity of going through the Design Review Board on an individual estate lot basis, but she thought that what is being brought up now is that there should be a standard established across the board to begin with for all estate lots. Other- wise all of these separate communities and the Design Review Board and the City Engineer would have to pass on each individual lot, which she felt would be a stupendous and bureaucratic mess. Therefore, she felt that a general standard with each individual lot going through the Design Review Board would be good. Commissioner Mickelson asked the Staff some questions with regard to the grading and zoning. He expressed a concern about the grading of all of the lots in this project. He wondered if there would be a variance on some of the lots which are affected. Mr. Murphy explained that the townhouses would be coming back to the Commission and also some of the estate lots. Commissioner Mickelson thought it might be appropriate to adopt certain deviations for all of the estate lots, to avoid individual variances. He addressed Mr. Brooks with regard to the possible inaccessibility of a few of the lots. Mr. Brooks responded to this with a more detailed explanation of what they intend to do when they start building. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Six Commissioner Mickelson then addressed the lots on the Chapman side, asking about building over bench drains, and Mr. Brooks again ex- plained this in greater detail. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to consider the addendum to EIR 496 as being acceptable; and to recom- mend approval of Zone Change 990, Conditional Use Permit 1255 and Revised Tentative Tract 9608, subject to the 69 conditions listed in the Staff Report, plus Condition #31 set forth in Resolution No. PC-52-82, as suggested by Shirley Grindle, reading: 31. That the west side of Crawford Canyon Road within the property line of Lot 3 shall be landscaped with low maintenance native trees and shrubs requiring minimal watering once established; said landscaping to be spaced to deter vehicular access to Lot 3 and to obscure the cut slopes on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road. together with the changes in the conditions as suggested in Shirley Grindle's memorandum to the Planning Commission of .February 7, 1983, as follows: Condition #12 - Include "man-made slopes on west side of Crawford Canyon Road" as part of the CC&R's. Condition #13 - Revise to read: "Details of Open Space Grant Deed of Lot B to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Map, primarily to ensure that they do not infer a f uture City liability." Condition #33 - Add the following words: Precise location of Lot E shall be confined to the east and south-facing slopes, not affecting the view from the west of the west-facing slope. The existing small tank currently out of service on the west- facing slope of Lot B is to be removed and the scar from this tank site and the access road are to be restored simultaneous with the construction of the new tank on Lot E. The property owned by the City for the existing tank site would be quit- claimed to the owners of Lot B, provided that such quit-claim deed shall not be executed nor delivered by the City to the owners until such time as City has title or legal assurance of title to property required for Lot E. New Condition: No further subdivision of Lot B will be permitted. Note #7 on Tentative Tract Map - revised to read: All equestrian trails shall be maintained by Homeowners Association, including portions crossing public property, excluding portion dedicated to a land. trust. All equestrian trails shall be signed or graded to clearly define location through the tract, excluding those dedicated to a land trust. Those trails dedicated to a land trust, if any, will be the land trust's responsibility. New notation on Tentative Tract Map - rdcommend Lot B be labeled "TO BE RETAINED AS NATURAL OPEN SPACE." And, in addition, the recommendation by Stephen Schwartz that specific grading standards, landscape criteria, and architectural parameters be established as a design vocabulary as a joint effort of the Proponent, the Orange Park Acres Design Committee, Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association, and the East Orange Implementation Committee, and approved by the City. This development standard criteria shall be referenced and placed in the CC&R's prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map. Estate lots should be flagged for special review by the Design Review Board for all of the criteria established. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Seven i Commissioner Mi.ckel~so~-~ ~.ai;d th;ai; be - caul ~d, not., i n food conscience, support this motion. His biggest concern was that the last time this project was before the Commission the plan called for 335 units and the Commission stretched itself to approve this for density. He could not accept the higher density. He felt that the grading is a potential problem and did not think some of the lots are truly acceptable. Chairman Hart agreed with him that the last. plan was a superior one. However, he supported this one because many conditions are being placed upon Mr. Brooks. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Nickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1253 - BATAVIA-KATELLA ASSOCIATES: A request to permit retail sales as an accessory use to exceed 25 percent of total volume in the industrial zone on property located at the northeast corner of Batavia Street and Katella Avenue (805 West Katella Avenue). (Continued from the January 17, 1983 hearing.) (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. ) It was the consensus of the Commission that no presentation be given. Mr. Murphy made an additional comment on this application with regard to the list of permitted uses, as described on the addendum to the Staff Report. He asked that a sentence. be added to the end of that Condition, indicating that similar uses to those listed above may be approved through the normal steps of due process. This is to indicate that those uses might not be all the uses that would be allowed in the building. There may be others that have not been thought of. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Bill Burke, 2111 Business Center Drive, Irvine, the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he agreed with the Staff Report and would abide by the conditions. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Nickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve Conditional Use Permit 1253 for the reasons given by Staff and subject to the 16 conditions listed in the Staff Report, plus the additions and revisions listed in the Staff's memo of February 2, 1983. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Nlaster, Nickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 993 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to rezone property from the C-2 (.General Business) District to the MH (Mobile Home) District on property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue 208.5± feet east of the center line of Berkeley Street (30U West Lincoln Avenue, Mobile Ritz Mobile Home Park). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 5.41 acres of land and is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 208.5± feet east of the centerline of Berkeley Street. The property is developed with an 80-unit mobile home park in the C-2 zone. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Eight Mr. Lanz pointed out that on May 18, 1982 the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 15-82, prohibiting the conversion of any mobile home park to any other use, pending completion of a study on the appropriate land use provisions which should be applied to all mobile home parks. At the same hearing, the City Council directed Staff to commence public hearings to rezone existing mobile home parks to the mobile home district. Mr. Lanz explained that the City Council extended the mobile home park conversion moratorium to April 1983 which was originally adopted by Urgency Ordinance in March 1982. He also explained that the Housing Advisory Committee recommendations of November 10, 1982 were heard at the January 3, 1983 Planning Commission meeting and recommended for adoption to the City Council. The City Council adopted the policies at their January 11, 1983 hearing and directed Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions for Council adoption. The Staff has reviewed this proposal and has express two concerns: 1. Should the City Council decide to rezone this property to the MH zone, the City General Plan Land Use Element will require an amendment ,to residential use in the area prior to reading the final zoning ordinance. Such zoning action would infer tacit approval of a General Plan revision. 2. Some tenants may develop a false sense of security and not realize an owner may yet-reuse the site by the notice and rezone procedure like that used for this action. Staff recognizes the 5.41 acre C-2 parcel is a large parcel, but notes that there is a limited foreseeable market support for commercial use due to a restricted capacity to develop housing to the north, limited access in a mid-block location, the lack of offsetting intense com- mercial development and drawing power along this street. Even so, some unique retail Land Use demand is present as evidenced by a recent proposal to develop a public storage facility on unincorporated land across the street from this park. However, it is noted that the present park owner expresses interest in continuing the park operation of this well maintained park at this time. Two options are commended to the Planning Commission: 1. Deny Zone Change 99 3 without prejudice and implement the City Council policy that a change of use, closure or re- version to acreage requires preparation of a Tenant Dislocation Impact Report and, possibly, a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan, or 2. Approve Zone Change 993 using the Resolution of Intent procedure requiring that an appropriate General Plan Amendment be approved prior to reading the final ordinance for the following reasons: a) The proposed zone is compatible with the surrounding uses and zones. b) The proposed zone is consistent with the foreseeable and present use of the property. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Dan Jacobs, owner of the Mobile Ritz Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, reading from a;letter sent to him by Mr. Lanz re- garding this zone change. He said that he has no intention of closing the park unless it becomes economically unfeasible to run it. Mr. Jacobs said that he is against the Mobile Home zoning for Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Nine his park because he feels it downgrades his property. He did not think there was any concern on the part of the tenants that the park would be converted and did not see any benefit in rezoning the property. Commissioner Mickelson asked if Mr. Jacobs had been the owner of this. park from the beginning and he replied in the affirmative. h1r. Jacobs pointed out the commercial zoning which surrounds the park and explained that other parks which have been rezoned were not located in C-2 zoning. His is a unique situation, But he does not want his property jeopardized by placing .Mobile Home zoning on it. Commissioner Coontz responded to Mr. Jacobs by .stating that all the city is trying to do is give the mobile home owners a chance to come before them and make their statements, since they own their homes but not the land. Mildred Palmer, 300 W. Lincoln, Space 10, Orange, addressed the Commission and said that she understood Mr. Jacobs' point of view on this situation, but, at the same time, having seen what has been done in some of the other parks, what assurance do they have that they will always have their mobile homes there. It is her understanding that the zoning could be changed again. Commissioners Coontz and Hart explained to her in greater detail how the mobile home zoning works for the protection of the tenants. Mr. Jacobs again addressed the Commission, stating that he felt that the only thing that will happen through this zone change will be the devaluation of his property. They do not intend to sell or convert this property during their ]ifetime. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mickelson agreed with hlr. Jacobs in that this property is different from the other properties which have been rezoned, This property is consistent with the zoning in the General Plan. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, .seconded by Commissioner Hart to deny Zone Change 993 without prejudice and implement the City Council policy that a change of use, closure or reversion to acreage requires preparation of a Tenant Dislocation Impact Report and, possibly, a Tenant Relocation Assistant Plan. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION DENIED hir. Murphy asked if the Commission wished for this application to go to the City Council, since a denial would normally not go on. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart for a continuance of Zone Change 993 to the next meeting on February 23, 1983, to allow Commissioner Vasquez to review and vote on the matter. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION DENIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to pass this unresolved matter on to the City Council for resolution. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners Hart, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION DENIED Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Ten There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the tie vote and whether this would go to the City Council. However, no decision was made. Disposition of the matter was left in the hands of the staff. ZONE CHANGE 991 - LOUIS B. KENNEDY: A request to rezone from R-T1-7 (Residential h1ul ti pl e Family) District to the C-1 (Local Business) District on land located on the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue (2125 North Tustin Street). (NOTE: Negatige Declaration 813 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains approximately 7.8 acres and is located on the northeast corner of Nleats Avenue and Tustin Street (2125 North Tustin Street). It is zoned RM-7 (Residential Multiple-Family) and is an abandoned mobile home park, formerly known as Lamplighter Village. h1r. Murphy explained that the applicant requests to rezone the property to the C-1 (Local Business) District to allow an office development in the future. However, no specific development details have been submitted with the proposed rezoning request. He pointed out that the Staff has recommended approval in the original staff report on Zone Change 991, utilizing the Intent to Rezone procedure because there are no plans available for the development of the property at this time. The applicant, Mr. Kennedy, has indicated that he must ask the Planning Commission and City Council to not only approve the zone change, but also adopt the ordinance zoning the property C-1 (Local Business) now. Mr. Murphy said that the Staff has prepared an alternative to the Resolution of Intent process if the Commission wishes to grant h1r. Kennedy's request. This alternative, although not as fool-proof as the Intent to Rezone procedure, would give the Commission and Council almost the same plan review opportunities. He pointed out that this alternative process would consist of two parts. The first part would be the recording of a City Council resolution on the property that will serve as notice to any buyers that addresses the following: 1. Requirement that any development of the property be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council to insure adequate interfacing with surrounding land use (i.e. mobile home park, street access, height of structures, etc.) 2. Statement that the adjacent mobile home park is to be considered residentially zoned for purposes of the height limit on buildings in the commercially zoned site. 3. Special studies may be required prior to the review and in consideration of specific plans for the property, i.e. traffic, utilities, shade and shadow, etc. 4. Certain off-site improvements relating to traffic circulation may be required as part of the approval of specific plans for the property. Such improvements could include, but not be limited to, traffic signals, street widenings, traffic islands, special channelization and striping studies, etc. The second part of this alternative process would be a requirement that the applicant, Mr. Kennedy, be required to include the facts stated in the above-referenced resolution in his joint venture or sale escrow instructions and that the City Attorney's office have an opportunity to review and modify the escrow instructions prior to their execution. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Eleven If the Planning Commission wishes to utilize this alternative, a motion would be in order to recommend: 1. Approval of Zone Change 991. 2. City Attorney be directed to prepare and record a resolution, as outlined, on the property. 3. The applicant be directed to include resolution facts in any escrow instructions and submit them to the City Attorney for review prior to execution. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Louis Kennedy, 9345 Montreal Lane, Beverly Hills, the applicant, addressed the Commission, explaining that his problem is two-fold. He originally borrowed money to relocate the tenants of the mobile home park and when he applied for the General Plan Amendment, the bank loaned him money, with the understanding that the property would be commercially zoned. It was his understanding that the City would approve this zoning, since when the General Plan was Commercial automatically it became Commercial. He explained that his second problem is that there is no way he can get this marketed unless it is zoned Commercial. He would be very happy to go along with all of the City's recommenfations. He felt that the alternative process would protect the City. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 813, insofar as this is a zone change only and specific plans are yet to be approved. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Zone Change 991 and, rather than usinn the Intent to Rezone procedure, that the City Attorney be directed to prepare and record a resolution on the property, including the following: 1. Requirement that any development of the property be reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council to insure adequate interfacing with surrounding land use (i.e. mobile home park, street access, height of structures, etc.). 2. Statement that the adjacent mobile home park is to be considered residentially zoned for purposes of the height limit on buildings in the commercially zoned site. 3. Special studies may be required prior to the review, and consideration, of specific plans for the property, i.e. traffic, utilities, shade and shadow, etc. 4. Certain off-site improvements relating to traffic circulation may be required as part of the approval of specific plans for such property. Such improvements could include, but not be limited to, traffic signals, street widenings, traffic islands, special channelization and striping studies, etc. ~. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Twelve A requirement would be made that the applicant, Mr. Kennedy, be required to include the facts stated in the resolution in his joint venture or sale escrow instructions and that the City Attorney's office have an opportunity to review and modify the escrow in- structions prior to their execution. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, P-1ickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson explained that the reason he had voted no on the environmental question was because he felt that we are losing sight of the overall picture. He did support the motion to approve Zone Change 991 because he thought it was the only thing to do under the circumstances, but he did so with reluctance. However, he felt that a look is taken at the City and the potential for re- development in the C-1 zone, there is probably 150 to 200 acres on both sides of Tustin that have C-1 unrestricted. He pointed out that many of those buildings have come close to reaching the end of their economic life and those owners would have the ability to tear the building down and redevelop according to the C-1 zone without any of the restrictions which are being imposed on hlr. Kennedy. He felt that it is unfair to place these restrictions upon Mr. Kennedy only, without perhaps doing a study of the City's commercial zoning and perhaps making some changes in it. Commissioner Coontz felt that all of the Conunissioners are concerned with the traffic impact on Tustin. However, she felt that Mr. Kennedy probably would want them to place these restrictions upon him rather than waiting for what might happen down the line. Commissioner Master felt that Commissioner Mickelson's comments were very appropriate. He concurred in his concerns and thought perhaps it should be recommended to the Council that a study be made of the C-1 zoning process. Commissioner Coontz asked Staff for the status of the study which was initiated several months ago for commercial zoning along Tustin Ave. Mr. Murphy did not know exactly where the study was at this time, but said he would find out and report back to the Commission. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend that the City Council direct Staff to prepare a study to determine the ultimate development of the commercial areas of the City in terms of zoning, height and bulk, etc. so that we can, hopefully, get to a position where our zoning is more uniformly applied; said study to be incorporated into a study which is now going on at the request of the Planning Commission, and perhaps using this study as a first phase of the second study. AYES:. Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED VARIANCE 1713 - MAX GEFFNER: A request to provide less than the required number of parking spaces per City Codes for a retail use on property located on the east side of Tustin Street 674± feet south of the centerline of Heim Avenue (2393 North Tustin Street). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Envirohmental Review.) Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Thirteen By consensus of the Planning Commission members, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Martin Weinberg, 11851 Simon Ranch Road, Santa Ana Heights, co-owner of the property in question, addressed the Commission. He handed out to the Commissioners copies of letters written by the tenants of the property, speaking to the parking situation on the property and their parking needs. Mr. Weinberg stated that the property is presently occupied by Riviera Sofa Bed Co. He explained that this point in time it is economically feasible to cut the space in half, the other half of the space to be occupied by C&R Clothiers. Both of these tenants would be considered-high ticket low customer count type retailers, which results in fewer parking spaces being used by customers. He also pointed out that they have figured out away to add a few more parking spaces, bringing the total to about 30. Mr. Weinberg told the Commission that they are anxious to bring in C&R Clothiers, as they feel they will add to the economy of the area. They plan to improve .the property considerably. Both tenants indicated that their maximum use is 10 parking spaces each. Therefore, they feel that their parking will be adequate. He explained that Brunswick Bowling, their neighbor, is a Chicago based property and they have had very little success in getting extra parking spaces from them. Commissioner Mickelson asked if their average number of customers listed in the letters is number 'per hour or per day. The answer was per hour. ~J Commissioner Coontz commented that the parking spaces in front are so easy to get into that the back parking spaces might not be utilized much. Commissioner Hart asked if C&R intends to keep their other Orange location open and the answer was in the negative. Commissioner Hart pointed out that this, then would not change the sales tax base. Mr. Weinberg pointed out that one of the reasons that C&R is motivated to move to this particular spot is that they will have more space than in their present location and they believe they will do a more sub- stantial business. Chairman Hart explained that the City is more concerned about the neighbors' parking spaces being taken up by this tenant's customers. He then explained that the basis for granting a variance is hardship and he asked what the hardship is in .this case. Mr. Weinberg replied that the hardship is that they are not getting the highest and best use of their property. He pointed out that there is a physical barrier between McDonald's and their property which might tend to discourage use of their parking lot. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz did not see any particular justification for this variance. She felt that it is unfortunate that the building is laid out the way it is because it discourages using the parking in the back. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to deny Variance 1713 for the reasons as stated by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1983 Page Fourteen Mr. Weinberg asked that the Commission reconsider their denial of the variance and approve if they get approval from Brunswick for the use of 15 of their spaces. Mr. Murphy explained that there would be a deed restriction placed upon the Brunswick property under this consideration which would be recorded. Max Geffner, Anaheim, one of the owners of the property in question, addressed the Commission, explaining that there is a sign on the building now which states that there is parking in the rear. He asked if they have the 15 spaces from the bowling alley, would they need a variance, and was told they would not. ZONE CHANGE 992 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to rezone property from the R-1-6 (Single Family Residence) District to the C-1 (Local Business) District on land located on the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Anita Drive. (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) By consensus of the Planning Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing and, there being no one to speak for or against the application, closed the hearing. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 992 from R-1-6 (Single-family residential) to C-1 (Local commercial) and R-0 (Recreational-Open Space),-using the Intent to Rezone procedure, for reasons as stated by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Wednesday, February 23, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. C