HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/17/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Orange
Orange, California
May 17, 1982
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 Mickelson, Coontz, Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Paster
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 Yamasaki , Director
of Planning & Development Services ; and Dori s Ofsthun, Recording
Secretary .
Chairman Nickelson announced that there would be a slight change
in the agenda this evening, due to the fact that Commissioner
Master's wife had passed away this past weekend. He announced
that funeral arrangements included a rosary to be said for the
deceased on Tuesday evening at 8:30 p.m. at St. Norbert's Catholic
Church and a mass at 8:30 a.m, on Wednesday morning, also at
St. Norbert's Catholic Church. He then asked Commissioner Vasquez
to lead the assembly in prayer for Commissioner Master and his
family.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 3, 1982.
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz,
to approve the minutes of May 3, 1982, as transmitted.
AYES: Commissioners P~ickelson, Coontz, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 26, 1982 STUDY SESSION
(HOUSING CONSULTANT'S REPORT)
Commissioner Coontz stated that these are not formal minutes and
some of her remarks had not been included. She felt that these
minutes should be used for reference only. Chairman Nickelson
suggested that a note could be dropped into the file with regard
to any corrections which the Commissioners might wish to be made.
By consensus, the Staff was directed to keep a copy of the minutes
of the April 26, 1982 study session on file for reference.
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1204, VARIANCE 1685 - ORANGE SURGICAL
SERVICES:
A request to permit construction of a two story, outpatient surgical
center and medical office building in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
District subject to rezoning to the OP (Office-Professional) District
prior to construction; request to vary from height and side yard
ordinance requirements in the OP zone. Project property is located
on the south side of LaVeta Avenue at the terminus of Lemon Street
(302 West LaVeta Avenue). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 765 has been
filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Mr. Murphy explained that this is the first item under NEW HEARINGS
and should be removed as it has not yet been advFrtised. This will
be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting on P~onday,
June 7, 1982.
,~ Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page Two
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1203 - FLOYD H . FIELDS:
A request to allow a restaurant in the M-2 (Industrial) District
on land located on the west side of Glassell Street approximately
810± feet north of the centerline of Taft Avenue (1822 N. Glassell
Street). (NOTE: P~egative Declaration 764 has been prepared in
lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Norvin Lanz presented this application before the Commission,
stating that this property consists of approximately .22 acre of
land and is located on the west side of Glassell Street, approximately
810 feet north of Taft Avenue. It is zoned M-2 (Industrial) and
contains a single-story house and a two-story storage building.
Mr. Lanz explained that the applicant proposes to construct an 800
square foot bui 1 di ng to be used as a restaurant with a seati ng
capacity for 26 people and including 14 parking spaces. This will
be a complete restaurant, preparing at least two meals per day.
He pointed out that the Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed
a general concern regarding the lack of improvement of Glassell Street,
although the property has been utilized as a residence since ap-
proximately 1920 and a second building was added to the property
around 1977.
Staff recommends that the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board
to file Negative Declaration 764 be accepted.
Staff also recommends that the proposed project be approved for the
reasons that the proposal use is consistent with the intent of the
City of Orange Zoning and General Plan; that the proposal is in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and is compatible
with nearby uses ; and that the proposal is not detrimental to the
health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project. Approval
i s recommended, subject to the 17 conditions set forth i n the Staff
Report.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Floyd Fields, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of
this application, stating that the building in back is strictly for
storage. He explained that the messy yard is because they have
torn down two garages and several big trees. This will all be
cleaned up. When the house is torn down he does not intend to live
in that area. He further explained that the architecture of the
restaurant building will be of Spanish design with ample room for
parking. He was concerned with the next door mess. He accepted a71
of the conditions set forth i n the Staff Report.
Verna Lawson, 1859 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to this application. She voiced her concern over the
parking facilities and she also wanted to be sure that it was OK to
have a parking stall for the building in the rear. Staff explained
to her that the 14 spaces being provided by the applicant are one
more than the Code requests.
Mrs. Lawson was also concerned that people will be living there.
She also wondered if this could be changed later on to a bar, which
would cause more congestion. She pointed out that there are five or
more cars on that property that are never moved. She wondered what
would happen to these cars.
^~
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page Three
Mr. Lanz explained that there is no request for residential use.
Mr. Field responded to the questions asked, by stating that as
far as the cars in the streets are concerned, that property has
been dedicated but not paved. He is a car collector and that is
why he is building a large building in the back of the property to
store his cars. His son works with radios as a hobby and uses space
in the building in the back. He assured the Commission that there
would be no residential use. He also explained that he had no
intention of bringing in a bar.
Chairman Mickelson explained to Mrs. Lawson that a bar could not be
brought in without coming before the Commission for approval.
Therefore, this could be controlled. Mrs, Lawson was concerned
about the restaurant parking being used by these collector cars .
Mr. Lanz explained further about the parking situation, pointing
out that the parking calculations were mainly for the restaurant.
However, three of the spaces would be used for storage, with ten
having to be used for restaurant parking. Also there will be a
garage on the first floor of the storage bui 1 di ng, i n order to house
the cars which Mr. Fields collects.
Chairman Mickelson further explained that the City has an enforcement
capabi 1 i ty to keep the parking i n the proper context. Mr. Fields also
explained that when he leaven the premises after the restaurant is
built, several of the cars will be removed at the same time.
Commissioner Coontz felt that all points which had been clarified during
the public hearing were worthwhile, since she thought that the Staff
Report had not been totally clear on some of these points.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Ch airman closed the public heari ng.
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file
Negative Declaration 764.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
approve Conditional Use Permit 1203, for the reasons as outlined in
the Staff Report, and subject to the 17 conditions as set forth i n
the Staff Report.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 82-756 -SANTIAGO PLAZA ASSOCIATES:
A request to provide a four lot subdivision to construct four office
buildings in the C-1 (Local Business) District on property located
on the west side of Santiago Boulevard approximately 240± feet south
of the centerline of the northbound Noh 1 Ranch Road off-ramp of the
Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway (55).
. Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page Four
~ Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating
that thi s property contains 0.9 acre of 1 and located on the west side
of Santiago Boulevard, approximately 240± feet south of the center-
li ne of the northbound Nohl Ranch Road off-ramp of the Newport-
Costa Mesa Freeway (55). The property is zoned C-1 and is presently
vacant.
Mr. Murphy explained that a Tentati ve Parcel Map has been fi 1 ed i n
order to divide the 0.9 acre parcel into four lots. Proposed lots
one through four will contain .19, .21, .28 and .22± acre respectively.
Rectangular lot one will be 151 feet deep, with 55 feet of Santiago
Boulevard frontage, .while lot two will be 150 feet deep and provide
62 feet of Santiago Boulevard frontage. Parcels #3 and 4 are "L"
shaped, lot 3 being the most extreme "L" shaped portion.
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story office building on
each lot. The office space will total 14,921 square feet and a
common reciprocal parking agreement between the four parcels will
provide space for 61 vehicles, of which 35 percent wi 11 be compact.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the parking meets City codes . Two drives
will access Santiago Boulevard and the northern drive will share
reciprocal access with 21± feet of the access provided to the parcel
to the north of this applicant's original parcel.
Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff had no major problems with the
type of development being proposed. However, because of the unusual
lot configuration proposed in this application, Staff did not feel
comfortable in approving the application and, therefore, had asked
the applicant to approach the P1 anni ng Commission for its review.
He pointed out that the lot configuration has two long term problems
1. Proper redevelopment of land in the future and the
difficulties in trying to reconstruct a project
on four separate ownerships at that separate location.
2. Concern for signing for the project. Even though a deed
restriction might be required on the parcel map that woul d
require a consideration of the four lots as a complex and
require signing to be treated as a single unit, future
land owners could take the position that each lot fronting
on Santiago could be an approval place for future signing
for the project.
Though Staff has no major concern with the proposed use or structural
configuration of the project, they are very concerned about the
configuration of the lot subdivisions. Subsequent owners of either
parcels 3 or 4 will be greatly hampered in future efforts to redevelop
their parcels if the business climate requires it. Staff feels a
one lot condominium subdivision or a five lot subdivision with four
"postage stamp" lots would be more appropriate for this parcel's
development. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 82-756 for two reasons:
1. The site is not physically suited for this type of
subdivision.
2. The resultant shape of parcels three and four do not
assure the use of them as buildable lots for the present
or the future.
However, should the Commission decide to approve Tentative Parcel Map
82-756, Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions which are
set forth in the Staff Report and in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet.
Planning Commission Minutes
" May 17, 1982
Page Fi ve
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Roger Rhoades, representing the applicant, Santiago Plaza Associates,
who recently purchased this property from Lusk-Nohl Company. He
explained that thei r objective is to create an estheti cal ly pleasing
office development, comprised of four separate office buildings on
four separate lots, covered by strict CC&Rs, approved by the City
of Orange and approved by the Ci ty Attorney, as wel 1 . He explained
that these bui 1 di ngs can be sold individually to business people or
investors .
Mr. Rhoades explained that they recognize that these are small lots,
but after surveying the market, what is selling in the marketplace
right now are small buildings on small lots. In Orange County office
condominiums and air space condominiums are not doing too well. What
they are hoping to offer is in demand at this time. They have been
told that each individual lot must have individual access to a
major thoroughfare or they cannot get a loan. He pointed out the
four separate lots on the Tentati ve Tract Map, at the same time
pointing out the storm drain on the south and east sides of the
property. He then explai ned to the Commission how this had to be
reconciled into the lot configuration. Therefore, there was only
one place to cluster the buildings.
Mr. Rhoades then gave three major reasons why they chose thi s
Tentati ve Tract Map: (7) marketing; (2) fi nand ng; and (3) reconci 1 e
with the storm drain.
Answeri ng the Staff's concerns , Mr. Rhoades addressed himself to
Item 9a i n the Staff. Report, wherein the Staff stated its concern
that future owners of lots 3 and 4 are likely to expect certain
property rights (such. as special identification signing for obscure
business locations) despite CC&R restrictions imposed when the
developer constructed the project. They expect there to be signage
on the individual bui ]dings and th ey would propos e a monument sign
on the face of the buildings, with Buildings 3 and 4 having a small
sign facing the freeway. They do not intend to take advantage of
the Ci ty of Orange.
Addressing 9b of the Staff Report, wherein the Staff suggests that
a condominium or "postage stamp lot" concept subdivision would better
convey the intent that the entire original parcel operates as one
unit, Mr. Rhoades explained that this is not what they intend to
achieve. They are not addressing condominiums and "postage stamp lots"
would eliminate the 1 enders .
Regarding 9d, where Staff has stated that it is not feasible or
possible for the City to insure that all four parcels will be
developed to completion as now proposed. Failure of market demand
for uni is on 1 ots 3 and 4 coul d 1 eave the City wi th 1 ots found
difficult to develop or market. They disagree with this item. They
have closed escrow and committed the funds. Leaving Lots 3 and 4
vacant would be inconceivable.
Mr. Rhoades then stated that all other items mentioned in the Staff
Report are acceptable. They are trying to meet the concerns of the
City of Orange. They would recommend that the Planning Commission
approve Tentative Parcel Map 82-756 as submitted, subject to:
1. All conditions listed in Staff Report are acceptable, except
for 9b through 9f.
2. They agree with special conditions on page 3 of the .Staff Report.
3. Strict CC&Rs to control future subdivisions and possible signage
problems in the future.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page Six
~, He stated that they look forward to working with the City of
Orange Staff and the Ci ty Attorney to sol ve these objectives .
He then stated that he was open to any questions which the Com-
missioners might have.
Commissioner Coontz brouaht up a development on North Tustin where
the buildings in back of the development are completely invisible
from the street and it is very difficult to discover who is back
there. She felt that this was part of Staff's concern with this
proposed development. With regard to signing for the freeway, this
i s something that the owners of Lots 3 and 4 woul d have to come to
the Ci ty for. She thought that this is selling something to an
individual owner which h e might never realize. She said that she
understood Staff's concern in this regard.
Mr. Rhoades explained that their intent is to provide a sign giving
individual identification to individual buildings. He also pointed
out that Lots 3 and 4 would have the opportunity to be signed on
the south side of the building.
Commissioner Coontz also felt that these buildings should be offset
so that anyone from Santiago could see all four of the bui 1 di ngs .
She did not feel this had been done in the best way possible.
Mr. Rhoades felt that by 1 ooki ng through the courtyard, Bui 1 di ngs
3 and 4 could be seen. He felt that a monument sign would also be
of help in this situation. It could be accomplished with a monument
sign along Santiago. There could also be signs on the south side
of the property.
Chairman Mi ckelson wondered i f the storm drain on the property had
been there when the property was purchased. Mr. Rhoades answered
that i t had been.
Chairman Mickelson expressed sympathy to the comments regarding
marketing and financing. He felt that the bankers are behind the
times with what they request. However, he did not want to accept
the configuration as presented, especially Lot 3. He had the same
fear as the Staff has that there wi 11 be problems several years down
the road. Mr. Rhoades sti 11 felt that this could all be control led
through the CC&Rs .
Commissioner Coontz spoke to Lots 3 and 4, pointing out that there
is no parking in the rear area. It is used only for access. Mr.
Rhoades explained that there is reciprocal parking provided so that
all of the owners will have the same equal rights to access to the
property, as well as parking.
Chairman Mickelson asked for clarification of statements regarding
#9 i n the Staff Report and Mr. Rhoades explained that they do not
agree with the Staff i n this regard.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that there are 11 conditions in total, in-
cluded in the Staff Report and the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet,
which the applicant has reviewed and accepted.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Coontz observed that the property to the south had a
lot of pol i ti cal input, which this one does not. She thought i t was
i nteres ti ng, and this may be why the individual to the south i s not
i nterested i n reciprocal parking, because of all the trouble they
had in developing that property. She agreed with the conditions
recommended by Staff.
Planning Commission Minutes
' May 17, 1982
Page Seven
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson,
to approve Tentative Parcel Map 82-765, subject to the five con-
ditions 1 fisted i n the Staff Report and the six set forth i n the
Engineer's Plan Check Sheet.
Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Johnson to explain further about the
Staff's concerns in this matter. He wondered, from an engineering
standpoint, how strongly the Staff feels about this. Mr. Johnson
explained that this is an irregular shaped parcel and there have
been, in his memory, only a few parcels like this. These parcels
could not stand alone for all intents and purposes. The four parcels
are a uni t and he does not believe they could stand alone without
many problems . The idea of having the CC&Rs deleted i n the future
and having these lots stand separately would create many problems.
Chairman Mickelson then asked Mr. Rhoades is they are locked into
this precise 1 ayout and P1r. Rhoades answered yes .
Commissioner Coontz with drew her motion and Commissioner Mickelson
withdrew his second.
Chairman Mickelson then asked Mr. Rhoades what a three week delay
would do and he replied that this would cost a lot of money.
Mr. Rhoades again addressed the Commission, stating that prior to
purchas i ng this property, their engineer contacted Mr. Brotherton
at the City of Orange regarding the configuration. No problems
were foreseen by the City at that time. They felt that they had
some direction from the City as to lot configuration. He explained
that they do not see a problem for the life of the project, with
a good set of CC&Rs .
Commissioner Coontz pointed out how hard i t is to get freeway si:gnage.
Mr. Rhoades replied that this was. only. a suggestion, not absolutely
necessary. There will be four separate signs along Santiago so that
people going by will know what is there.
Chairman 1~lickelson reopened the public hearing to allow more input
into the subject.
Gary Ryerson, architect for this project, addressed the Commission
stating that the sign they come in with will address itself to
traffic on Santiago Boulevard. Any other type of signs or graphics
will follow an outline with regard to square footage and the area
where they can 6e placed on the buildings. There will not be any
type of freeway sign program presented to future buyers . The only
thing they will be able to choose will be the style of letters.
The signs wi 11 be freeway oriented but they wi 11 be on the bui 1 di ngs .
The only monument sign will be on Santiago.
Commissioner Coontz asked h1r. Murphy a question with regard to
freeway oriented signs and he replied that freeway oriented signs
would have to come before the Commission for separate approval.
Chairman Mickelson asked if these were treated as individual parcels,
could they have signs on the frontage. Mr. Murphy felt that they
could only have one sign on Santiago. Mr. Rhoades pointed out that
this is all they are asking for.
v
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page Eight
Mr. Murphy pointed out that in talking to Per. Brotherton, he stated
that he had warned the applicant that he might have trouble with
the configuration of the lots as they are proposed. He also ex-
plained that they have attempted to deal with the matter as quickly
as possible.
Chairman Mickelson again closed the public hearing.
Chairman Mickelson then explained that he does not like the layout
of lots, but he suspected that they probably meet all of the City
requirements . Therefore, he wondered how the Commission could deny
this application. He felt that this could work.
Commissioner Coontz was concerned about the signing for the purchasers
of Lots 3 and 4. She felt that this was what the Staff was trying
to i 11 ustrate. She felt that the record should show that the
Commission recognizes that there may be difficulties down the line
and they must accept this from that standpoint.
Mr. Minshew pointed out the wording in Condition #5 in the Staff
Report, which states: "Prior to sale or lease of any parcel
compliance with the conditions above shall be certified by the
department offices referenced by number below:" suggesting that
the words ..shall be submitted for review and approval" instead
of "certified".
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson,
to approve Tentative Parcel Map 82-765, subject to the five condi-
ti ons 1 i sted i n the Staff Report and the six set forth i n the
Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, with the wording in Condition #5 to
be changed from."certified" to "submitted for review and approval".
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz
NOES: Commissioner Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Master ~10TION CARRIED
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m., to be reconvened to a
regular meeting on June 7, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center
Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 17, 1982,
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Nickelson at 7:30 p,m,
PRESENT: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Master
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez
that this meeting adjourn at 8:45 p.m. on Monday, May 17, 1982,
to reconvene at 7:30 p.m, Monday, June 7, 1982 at the Civic
Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange,
California.
I, Jere P. 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,
May 17, 19 82,
Dated this 18th day of May, 1982 at 2:00 p.m.
J r P. Murp y, City Plann r and
ec etary to the Planning Commission
Qf the City of Orange.
C*~
J
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
SS. OF ADJOURNMENT
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Jere P. 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 was
held on May 17, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to
the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached
hereto; that on Play 18, 1982, 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 May 17, 1982 was held.
^~