Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/5/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California April 5, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Ch airman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez STAFF Jere P. h1urphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Bob Beardsley, Assistant City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF PIINUTES OF MARCH 15, 1982 Moved by Commissioner Plaster, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to approve the minutes of March 15, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master NOES : Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: TENTATIVE TRACT 11748 - DOUG SCOTT: A request to permit the conversion of 14 residential units to a condominium subdivision in the RP1-7 (Residential Multiple-Family) district on land located on the south side of Culver Avenue ap- proximately 960 feet east of Flower Street (1844 and 1846 West Culver Avenue). (Note: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission,. stating that this property contains .62 acres and is located on the south side of Culver Avenue approximately 960 feet east of Flower Street. It is zoned R-M-7 and presently contains a 14-unit apartment complex. The applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map to convert the 14-unit apartment complex to a condominium subdivision. h1r. Murphy pointed out that the density of the project is 22.58 dwelling units/acre with 15 covered parking spaces and 13 open, for a total of 28 parking spaces. The existing units were completed January of 1981. He explained that if a new condominium were to be constructed on the site, current zoning standards. would produce a project with the following characters s ti cs Density permitted: 16.33 dwelling units/acre Number of units: 10 units maximum Parking : 2.25 spaces per unit = 23 spaces . It was also pointed out that should the 14 units have been developed under the Planned Unit Development code it would have required 32 parking spaces at 2.25 per unit; one covered per unit. Mr. Murphy explained that the two-pronged issue relating to condominium conversions centers around the reduction of rental housing within the City and concomitant relocation of existing tenants. This request is different from most of the conversion projects which have come before the Commission. The project is only slightly over one year old and was developed under the multiple family ordinance. I t woul d not have complied wi th the P1 anned Unit Development ordinance i n effect at that time as i t regards parking or density. Also, since the units are new and require no upgrading of the on-site or off-site structures, the conversion does not seem to meet the intent of the Ci ty code to upgrade the existing housing stock. Planning Commission Minutes ' April 5, 1982 Page Two Mr. Murphy explained that Staff is concerned that a permit to convert this new complex wi 11 invite others to ci rcumvent the P1 anned Uni t Development Ordinance as it is written, The City Council, to date, has been reluctant to increase the allow able density i n the Planned Unit Development Ordi Hance. It is apparent that this project does not provide the open space or parking normally required by the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. However, the economi c and demographic forecasts for the 1980's i ndi cate smaller family size; some without children. The latter require more open space and larger living quarters for the family. Reduction such as those shown in this project provides the first time buyer a chance to acquire housing. In order to meet the i ntention of the Ci ty to pro- vi de a mi x of housing, i t may be appropriate to establish pol i ci es that allow apartment conversions only after a minimum time has passed after completion of the project; say 5 to 10 years. Staff analysis further reveals this particular project does not ap- preci ably decrease the rental housing stock due to its smal 1 14 uni t size. Further, the subsequent relocation of tenants is not likely to .present as great a hardshi p as with other projects as 79% of the uni is are occupied by adults (per applicant's data) who typically are more mobile and who have a less difficult time in securing alternate housing. In addition, SWR Development Company has offered a relocation assistance on an i ndi vi dual basis , guaranteeing that they wi 11 help locate adequate rental housing in the area in a similar rental range. Even so, Staff recommends denial of Tentative Tract 11748 for the con- version of the apartment project for three reasons: 1. The unit conversion removes apartment units from the City housing stock. 2, A 1 ike project could not be developed under present City codes . 3, The project does not contribute to the upgrading of the City housing stock. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Doug Scott, 230A South Pasadena Ave. , Tustin, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he wished to cl ari fy the fact that i t was not the intention of the contractors to convert these uni is from rentals to condomi ni ums when they were on gi Hal ly built. They did not intend to circumvent the Planning Commission. He took exception to the statements of the Staff in this regard. With regard to the three reasons given for recommending denial of this project, Mr. Scott stated that the only reason they are asking for a conversion is financial. They would prefer leaving this project as apartments, but there is no financing for apartments right now. However, there is financing available for condos. Apartments are not considered a good risk at this point i n ti me. Putting this into perspective, there are only 14 uni is i n the project. This does not displace that many residents from their apartments. They have done above and beyond what was stated i n the ordi Hance wi th regard to relocation of the tenants . Regarding the statement that a like project could not be built according to the present codes, Mr. Scott explained that very few apartments could be built to the present codes . He felt that to offer atwo-bedroom unit for under $80,000 is defi ni tely upgrading the housing stock. Mr. Scott said that he found all conditions to be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 5, 1982 Page Three Susan Gracie, 1844 W. Culver, Orange, Apt. 6, addressed the Commission, aski ng a question as to whether all condi tions for improvements wi 11 have to be made before the project is approved or after. Mr. Murphy replied that regarding physical changes , they must be complete with or bonded for prior to the approval of the final tract map and before the sale of the units. Giairman Mickelson asked Mr. Murphy if a certificate of compliance is sti 11 i n the ordinance and P1r, Murphy replied that he thought i t was s ti 11 there, but i t i s di ffi cult to handle administratively . Mr. Scott stated that several people have expressed an interest in purchasi ng these uni is . There bei ng no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mi ckelson said that he understood from the Staff Report that the applicant had met with the tenants and 14 of them had signed a paper that they were i n agreement wi th the conversion. He wondered i f th i s was all of the tenants and was told that i t was . Commissioner Hart commented that the development standards for condo- miniums have been discussed, as opposed to the development standards for apartments . He did not believe that the conditions should be different whether people are buyi ng or renti ng an apartment. He felt that the state- ment that housing is being taken off the market is not a true one, poi nti ng out that i f these renters buy a uni t they wi 11 no longer be i n the rental market. He did not see a probl em with this . Chairman Mickelson felt that the Staff was almost forced to make the analysis which they did. It was his opi pion that the Council is not so much opposed to changi ng the density factor i n the Planned Unit ordinances . They are opposed to taking the unilateral step at this time while they have a hi gh priced housing consul tant doi ng a survey. He felt that they are just biding thei r ti me unti 1 the analysis comes through from the housing consul tant. He also felt that anyone has a right to buy anything that anyone has to sell. He felt that the Staff also rightly pointed out this fact to the Commission, even though he did not feel it was as important as they felt it was. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to .recommend approval of Tentative Tract 11748, subject to the 30 conditions listed in the Staff Report, plus the conditions set forth in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1195, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 82-754 - BURNETT-EHLINE: "request to construct a condominium industrial park for commercial, office and industrial use i n the t~1-1 (Light Manufacturing) district on a parcel located 580± feet west of the centerline of Glassel l Street (324 West Katella Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 757 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application, stating that this property contains 5.5± acres of land located on the south side of Katella Avenue, approximately 580± feet west of the centerline of Glassell Street. The property has approximately 287 feet of primary frontage on Katella Avenue and approximately 420 feet of secondary frontage on Hoover Avenue. I t contai ns a 1 umberyard and a b ui 7 di ng for whol e- ~ sale/retail sale of lumber and related materials. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 5, 1982 Page Four I Mr. Lanz explained that the applicant proposes to construct amixed- use industrial park and condominium subdivision consisting of 24 uni ts; some wi thout frontage on a publi c street. The Staff has expressed several concerns: 1: That subsequent uses, either through sale or lease, may not meet standards of an integrated industrial park. 2. That a mechanism in the CC&R's of the Community Association needs to provi de the Ci ty a noti ce of future tenant changes . 3. That internal circulation and parking have the potential to be impacted i f us es are allowed i n the industrial park that exceed present parking patios. 4. That warehouse areas within the commercial units have the potential to expand commercial space unless conversion is pre- cl uded by the CC&R's . 5 . That office space and commercial i n industrial use areas become the domi Want use, creating parking probl ems . 6. That i ndustrial truck traffic be required to use Katel l a Avenue in order to preclude use through residential neighborhoods along Hoover Avenue. 7. That vehicul ar and pedestrian access points on Hoover Avenue be secure per Police and Fire Department standards. 8. That each unit is individually metered for water. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 757. Mr. Lanz pointed out that it is the Staff's opinion that, with appropriate conditioning, the proposed project is acceptable for three reasons: 1 . That the proposal is compatible wi th land uses and zoni ng i n the area . 2. That the proposal is i n conformance wi th the intent of the General Plan. 3. That the proposed use is compatible with the present use of the subject property . Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1195 and Tentative Parcel Map 82-754, subject to the 30 conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Commissioner Master wondered if the CC&R's provide the policing and enforcement needed for this type of project. Mr. P]urphy expl ai Wed that the City would be pri mari ly responsibl e for enforcement through the business license registration process. The reason that the Staff sug- gested the pl acement of the restri coons i n the pri vate deed restri ctions was so that in changes of ownership within the project, a new owner would be put on no ti ce through the deed restri ction that the parti cular unit might be restri cted i n its use, other than through normal zoni ng requirements. The CC&R's are a practical notice to a prospective pur- chaser, but the City would be responsible for admi ni strati ng the regulations. of the CUP through the normal business license review pro- cedure. He further explained that the deed would restrict the occupancy wi thin the i ndividual uni is based on those restrictions that are 1 fisted i n the Staff Report. Mr. Murphy felt that the Staff accepted this project mainly because of the unique feature of condominium ownership of the units . Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1982 Page Five i Chairman P~ickelson asked if there was a recommendation that a parking apportionment plan be approved. Mr. Lanz replied that no such statement has been made, but it is his understanding that the CC&R' s wi 11 take care of this . Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. John Harty, Irvine, representing Burnett-Ehline Company, addressed the Commission i n favor of this application, expl ai ni ng that based on their market studies there is nothing for sale in the County of this kind of mixed project. They are quite enthusiastic about the project. There is a similar project which they have done in Garden Grove and he felt that this one is an improvement over that project. The market wi 11 come from Orange its elf. It wi 11 be for local businessmen who need a small amount of space and wish to purchase that space. They have limited the kinds of uses which will be allowed in this project under the CC&R's and they will be uses that will be adequately parked. It is their experience i n this kind of thing that the real watchdog i s the individual owner. Mr. Harty further explained that under the zoning and the exclusions which they are putting i n, no one wi 11 be allowed to put i n a h i gh parki ng use. It is their understanding that under the ci ty ordi Hance assigned parking is prohibited. As a consequence, they will not be putti ng i n assigned parki ng because i t is their understandi ng that they cannot. Basically, they have about 32 addi tional parki ng spaces over the mi ni mum required by the ordi nances and, wi th the various protections of 1 i censi ng, zoni ng and CC&R's they are confident that this will be sufficient. Commissioner Master commented that the reasons he was concerned about the CC&R's was because of the property just to the north of this property which property the Ci ty has had troubl e wi th . Mr. Harty stated that the strong appeal for this project is that the individual owne rs wi 11 protect their own area . Chairman Mickelson wondered, with regard to the project on Harbor, whether they have assigned parking there. He was told yes. Chairman Mickelson felt that mixing retail with industrial probably would work better with assigned parking and he wondered what could be done in this area. Mr. Plurphy explained how this could be handled. Howard Artl e, 2740 Charlotte, Orange, expl ai ned that he owns the uni is just east of this property. Hopefully, these will not be uni is that wi 11 be detrimental to the peapl e 1 i vi ng i n his units . He pointed out that the lumber yard .which was previously there was a probl em i n the past, so hopefully this will be an upgrading of the property. Chairman Mickelson pointed out the hedgerow of 1 andscapi ng and setback of approximately 45-50 ft. to the north building that is proposed on the site north of the residential units . Mr. Harty gave a word of reassurance to Mr. Artle that this project would be much preferable to the lumber yard which had been there. This will be a very attractive project and an asset to the area. There being no one else to speak for or against this project, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the fi ndi ngs of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negative Declara- tion 757. ^~ Pl anni ng Commission Minutes Apri 1 5, 7982 Page Six Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1195 and Tentative Parcel Map 82-754, subject to the 30 condi ti ons set forth i n the Staff Report, pl us the condi tions 1 fisted in the Engi neer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1193, VARIANCE 1677 - L.C. (Bob) ALBERTSON, JR.: A request to construct atwo-story structure to house retail space on the ground floor, two apartment units on the second floor and provide 1 ess parking than required by City Code i n the C-1 (Coca l Busi Hess) district on property located on the east side of Glass ell Street approximately 245± feet south of the centerpoint of the Chapman- Glassell Plaza. (119 South Glassell Street.) It was the consensus of the Commissioners to dispense with the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Applicant, Ken Leung, addressed the Commission in favor of this appli cati on, stati ng that the condi tions 1 fisted i n the Staff Report were acceptable to him. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart wondered, regarding the parking requirements, if it has always been the rule downtown for the owner to provide thei r own parking. Mr. Murphy explained that, in this particular case, the problem is not so much the number of parking spaces but the type of parking. If the reuse of the area were the same as the previous use, there would be no requirement for addi ti onal parking to be provided. However, i n .this case, because of the residential nature of the second floor, long term parking for apartment residents is a problem. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 755. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1193 and Variance 1677, subject to the conditions as shown i n the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED AMENDMENT 2-82 A, B, & C proposed amendments to the zoni ng ordinance (existing and revised) concerning: A) Commercial storage B) Residential parki ng and storage C) Signs and promotions v P1 anni ng Commission Minutes April 5, 1982 Page Seven I Jere Murphy presented this item to the Commission, explaining that the changes proposed in the memorandum to the Planning Commission were suggested by Randy Mellinger, Code Enforcement Officer, at a recent meeti ng between Mr. Murphy and Furman Roberts . They concern three areas: outdoor uses, storage in residential front yards and "Special Promotions". This is basically an administrative change and will assist the code enforcement officer in explaining the intent of the original code. The proposed revisions are as follows: Amendment 2-82A: In Section 17.42.400 Outdoor Use Regulations, delete that portion of Line 7 which reads "...as are necessary to an allowed use or...". Reasons for this change are that the present wording is misleading. It implies that the property owner may have any number of outdoor sales or servi ce activities i f he determines the need for them. Wi th this phrase deleted, there wi 11 be no such confusion. The property owner may have those outdoor sales and service activities as specifically allowed in the district. Amendment 2-82B: Del ete entirely Section 1 7.72.060 as i t is presently worded and add new wording to read: 17.72.060 Storage in Required Front Yards. It shall not be permitted to store any object in the front yard, except a motor vehicle on a paved access way to enclosed parki ng spaces . Vehicles used for com- mercial purposes shall not exceed five and one-half feet (5'6") . The reasons for this change are that the present wording allows storage of objects of less than 5'6" in height in the front yard. There appears to be no good reason to allow the storage of anything in the front yard except vehi cl es i n driveways . The intent of the section the way i t is presently worded could be defeated, i n many cases, by pavi ng the front yard. If the front yard is deep enough and paved, vehicles could be stored there. Amendment 2-82C: Amend Section 17.78.050 of the new code and Section 17.84.050 of the existing code concerning exemptions to the sign ordinance by adding a subsection "L" which would allow an exemption when a permit is obtained for an event called a "Special Promotion". Subsection "L" to read as follows: L. An event which qualifies as a "Special Promotion" and for which a permit has been granted by the Current Pl anni ng Administrator. A "Special Promotion" is a commercial event, of not more than fifteen (15) days durati on for which the use of certain signs and other adver- tisi ng devices are appropriate, but which are otherwise prohibited by provisions of this Chapter, and for which a permit has been granted prior to the erection or placement of the signs or advertising devices. The following regulations shall govern the issue and use of "Special Promotion" permits 1. The Current Planni ng Admi nistrator is authori zed to issue permits for "Special Promoti ons" for up to fifteen (15) days duration, except that not more than three (3) permits shall be issues fora "Special Promotion" at one location during one (1) calendar year and there shall be at 1 east ninety (90) days between the end of one (1) "Special Promotion" and the beginning of the next "Speci a] Promotion" at the same location. 2. Applications fora "Special Promotion" permit shall be filed in the Department of Planning and Development Services, on forms furnished by that Department, at 1 east five (5) days prior to the begi nni ng of the event. A processi ng fee of Five Dol 1 ars ($5) shall be paid at the time the application is filed. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 5, 1982 Page Eight 3. All "Special Promotion" permits shall be subject to the following genera 1 requirements a nd restrictions a. Obtain all other required approvals, permits or licenses from the City of Orange or other agencies and observe all laws concerni ng health and safety. b . Maintain the permi t appl i cati on i n a conspi cuous place on the premises at all times during the "Special Promotion". c. Signs, advertising devices and displays shall conform to the restrictions i ndi Gated on the permit and the site plan which is sketched on the face of the permit form or attached thereto . d. Signs, advertising, devices and displays, and the supports for same, shall be erected or placed only on property in pos- session and control of the permittee. Off-site signs, advertising devices and displays shall not be permitted on the property of another pers on or entity nor i n the pub 1 i c right-of-way . e. Portable signs or banners shall not exceed a total of one (1) square foot of area for each lineal foot of building frontage, up to a maximum of eight (80) aggregate square feet. f. The aggregate length of all wind signs, strings of balloons, streamers, and pennants shall not exceed twice the length of the buil di ng frontage and shal l not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet above grade. g. Within ten (10) feet of any private vehicular access of public street, no sign or advertising device shall exceed forty-two (42) inch es i n height or be 1 ess than eight (8) feet above grade and shall be within a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet. 4. The Current Planning Administrator may impose special requirements and restrictions , i n addition to the general requirements and restrictions enumerated in Section 3, when unusual conditions exist at or near the proposed location, such as limited parking, or certain signs or ad- vertising devices would be inappropriate because of the nature of a nearby use. 5. A promotional event held in the month of December shall not be considered as a "Special Promotion", therefore, neither an application nor a "Special Promotion" permit shall be required. Nevertheless, all of the general requirements and restrictions stated in Section 3 shall apply, except 3.b and 3.c which are applicable only to the "Special Promotion" permit. The proposed addition of the "Special Promotion" permit will give business occasional opportunities to use signs and other advertising devices wi~ich are otherwise prohibited. Chairman Mi ckelson opened the public hearing. Guy Reese, Original Orange Antique Association, wondered i f thi s means that the City wi 11 dictate the amount of sal es a bus i Hess may have on its own property, off public property. Mr. P-1urphy responded that Items A and C are related. .The intent is that on a daily basis the outdoor sales and service activities not take place. Mr. Reese s ai d that under those circumstances , thei r organization adamantly opposes thi s action. Mr. Murphy pointed out that at the present time Staff interprets the code to not allow for any outdoor sales. Therefore, Item Cis giving the retai 1 i ndustry something they do not have now, which is to have outdoor sales on a regulated basis. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1982 Page Nine ~'' P1r. Reese felt that Item C was never enforced and is prejudi ced and there should be a consti tutional point of 1 aw called. Thei r organization is opposed to prohibiting outdoor sales on individual properti es . He felt that the owner of a busi Hess should not be restricted i n doing whatever he must do to make a profi t. Carol Johnson, 100 S. Glassell , Oranae, .addressed the Commission, stating that she concurred with Mr. Reese' statements. The merchant has many adversi ti es today. They are bei ng badly hurt and a few more restrai nts wi 11 put a lot of merchants out of business . These smal l merchants should not be considered a problem when they are just trying to keep their heads above water. Merchants are having serious problems today and i t is necessary at times for them to push thei r merchandise hard. Katie Drumm, l18 S. Glassell, Orange, president of the Antique Association, addressed the Commission, stating that they want to work wi th the Ci ty on this si tuation. However, they are trying to create a busi Hess atmosphere and bring in more business. They need some better conditions. Commissioner Hart felt that these people have a unique problem and he was not sure that the Staff has worked with them i n trying to solve their problems . Chairman Mickelson stated that the Staff has recommended a study session for another item and he thought these items could be placed on the study agenda, i nvi ti ng the merchants to this study session. Mr. Reese stated that he has suggested a user fee per day for special permits, without limitations. With such a situation, he did not think people would be having sales every day . Commissioner Hart suggested April 26th for the aforementioned study session. Chairman Mickelson felt that a resolution could be reached on this. Gene Sobol,. Orange, addressed the Commission and said that he deals wi th many business people i n Orange County on a dai ly basis . He gets a lot of feedback from many people. He explained that they recently recei ved a noti ce that they must take their banners down. Many peopl e called him extremely irate about this. He called someone on the Staff in the Planning Department and the man explained that he had been hired several months before and been given a list of tasks to do, among them banner enforcement. He said that he had sent out 400 or 500 notices to merchants on Tustin and on Glassell. One of the rationalizations was that there are over 2000 busi nesses i n Orange and this only represented a small number of people. Mr. Salman pointed out that this list in- cl udes lawyers , doctors , dentists , etc. , people who do 'not have a need for banners or have offices di rectly on retail streets . Therefore, 4-500 busi nesses comes to a lot. There are severe problems i n the retail business community today. There are many businesses who will go out of business wi thout the signs and banners . There must be more fl exibil i ty in these times. He felt that this is 'not a time to be narrow minded and dictate policy that wi 11 hurt the business communi ty badly. Mr. Sobol explained that banners increase sales for the busi nesses 20-30%. They need the banners i n order to survive. Chairman P~1i ckel son stated that i f every shoe store i n Orange County put up the same banner, they would all be in the same position. There needs to be some creativity in the sales approach of the small merchants. O Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1982 Page Ten I Mr. Reese directed comments to Mr. Minshew, stating that these were things which should be discussed prior to the April 26th study session. He thought there should be a call for constitutional law regarding the fact that a banner is a banner and there should be no distinction of legal and illegal for different types of banners. Mr. Johnson spoke about the solution which has been discussed. He pointed out the swap meet at the Orange Drive-In Theatre, which meets i n the open three days a week and this i s considered perfectly 1 egal . However, the small businessman is not allowed to operate in the open. The businessmen would 1 ike the city to co Hsi der a sol uti on. Dick Pei per addressed the Commission, stating that he owns a business on Tustin Avenue and has many small white signs which have not brought i n busi Hess . He has put up a 1 arge banner which has drawn many people. He explained that he must use a landmark in order to bring people in to his business as the place where he is located is difficult to see. Most businesses set back off of the street are difficult for peopl e to see as they go down the street. He admitted that the street shoul d not 1 ook 1 ike a ci rcus , but felt that the business people should be given consideration. He was 100% in favor of a banner outside of a business . Phil Adler, 1915 E. Katella, Orange, addressed the Commission, ex- pl ai ni ng that he has a Suzuki motorcycle shop and things are very tough economically at this time. His complaint is not so much whether a banner exists and whether he could conduct an outside sale, but for the pri vi 1 ege of maki ng that decision on his own. He requested a moratorium during these difficult times. There must be means other than restri cti ve measures to control banner and outdoor sales . These are very bad times and the merchants need a lot of help ri ght now i n order to survive. Phil Perry, Handy Street, Orange, addressed he felt that the problems are similar in all before the Commission. He has no desire to home and feels the merchants should not want business . He felt that most of the people c unsightly things in and around their city. some type of control and would like to atter is coming up. the Commission, saying that three of the amendments see unsightliness near hi s this near their places of f Orange do not 1 i ke to see He was fully in favor of d the study session that There being no one else to speak for or against this item, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to continue this item to May 3, 1982. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez POTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to hold a study session on April 26, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in Conference Room "C" to study proposed Amendments 2-82A, 2-82B and 2-82C to Revised Zoning Code -outdoor uses, storage in front yards and "special promotions". AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED ~i~ Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1982 Page Eleven ~ IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1154, VARIANCE 1660, TENTATIVE TRACT 11646 - ORANGE CITY GROUP: A request to allow construction of a 16 unit, condominium planned unit development with six (6) affordable units i n the R-D-6 distri ct and to deviate from the maximum allowable density and coverage development standards on a parcel located on the south side of Almond Avenue beginning at a point approximately 159± feet easterly of the centerline of P1ap1 ewood Street (Referred to the P1 anni ng Commission from the P1arch 16 , 1982 City Counci 1 hearing) . Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, reviewing what has occurred with regard to this application. He recalled that the Planning Commission, at its public hearing of February 17, 1982, recommended denial of Conditional Use Permit 1154, Variance 1660 and Tentative Tract Map 11646 to the City Council and suggested a revised design be submitted that contained 14 units with 4 units (25% or above) designated for affordable housing as a plan more appropriate for the site. Further, such a proposal would conform with the Government Code 65915. Mr. Murphy explained that the original 17 unit condomi ni um proposal , reflecting 6 units as affordable units , was heard at the ~1arch 16 , 1982 public hearing of the City Counci 1 . The City Counci 1 granted a 30 day continuance to April 20, 1982 and directed the applicant to re- submi t a design with a 1 esser density within the range of 6 to 15 units per acre, as reflected in the General Plan; the new project design to be submitted to the Staff and the Planning Commission. On March 29 , 1982, the applicant submi tted a new deli nn depicting 16 total units of which 6 units are designated to be affordable. The change involved removal of one, two-story unit from the five-pl ex structure previously depicted at the south end of the project. In addition, the former emergency fire exit at Washington Avenue is re- moved and a turn-around is provided near the south perimeter wall. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the specifics of the March 29th project vs. the project heard by the City Council on March 16th are that the number of units would now be 16 instead of 17, density being 15.09 vs. the previous 16.51, with on-site parking of 40 spaces as opposed to 42 spaces . He noted that the parking now meets the PUD ordinance i n the R-D-6 zone. Density exceeds General Plan density 1 imi is by .09 units/acre. The applicant has agreed to contract with the Orange County Housing Authority to administer the sale and resal e control of affordable housing. The City must establ ish an agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority to administer the sale and resale of these affordable units within the City. P1r. P~lurphy said that the Staff review of the proposal reveals the necessity of providing a modified cul-de-sac for the eastern terminus of Washington Avenue. He pointed out that the City Council, on March 16, 1982, moved to accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negati ve Declaration 734. Staff analysis reveals the proposal approximates the General Plan density 1 imi is with which the appli cant was directed to comply. Staff also notes that 37.5% of the project i s i n affordable units . The State 1 aw only sets the minimum number of affordable units at "25% of the total project". Further, deletion of the Washington Street emergency exit appears to mitigate some concerns of neighbors i n that area regarding traffi c on ~,, Washington Street. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1982 Page Twelve Mr. Murphy expl ai ned that the Planni ng Commission should, upon completion of the public hearing, make a determination as to whether the applicant has modi fi ed the proposal i n accordance with the direction of the Ci ty Counci 1 . If the Commission recommends approval of the project, the following conditions are recommended: That the Tentative Tract Map 11646 be subject to all conditions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. That approval be subject to the 33 conditions as noted in the February 1, 1982 Staff Report, except for the deletion of Condi ti ons 5, 8, 9 and 10. Condi ti ons 5 and 8 are to be replaced with the following Con- di tions 5. That a modified cul-de-sac be installed at the eastern terminus of Washington Avenue as approved by the Depart- ment of Public Works. 8. That the applicant establish an agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide the necessary admi ni s- trati ve services for the sale and resale of affordable units i n the Ci ty ; all subject to the general agreement established between the City of Orange and the Orange County Housing Authority to provide this s ervi ce i n the City . Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has received some six 1 etters i n opposition to the proposal , but these appear to have opposed the previous plans. A petition bearing 56 signatures has been received also, in opposition to this project. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Murphy to compare what is allowed against what is proposed, which Mr. Murphy did, explaining that the proposed density is 15.09 units/acre. The General Plan category for the area is 6-15 units/acre, which means that the proposed density is .09 acre over that allowed by the General Plan. Chai rman Mi ckelson pointed to the plan i n front of the Commissioners, wondering if the hammerhead could be made to cut off the cul-de-sac at a different point, making the remaining area a greenbelt. Mr. Murphy responded that the Planni ng Staff- had suggested this as a possibl e change to the Environmental Review Board, but it was the Fire Department's desire to see the hammerhead retained so that they might have access to the south end of-the project. Chairman Mickelson then questioned the .recommendation for a modified cul-de-sac, poi nti ng that Mrs . Ki nder had mentioned that they would lose two parking spaces i f this were done and he agreed wi th her. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff was trying to make that corner more attractive and provi de a way for cl eani ng the street wi th the street sweeper. Chairman Mi ckelson opened the informal public hearing. Robert Agui l ara 21661 B rookh urs t, Huntington Beach , a ci vi l engineer and architect for this project, addressed the Commission, stating that he represented P1r. Davis, the applicant. He pointed out with regard to the cul-de-sac that someone must bear the cost of providing this cul-de-sac. He saw no problem with changes in the turn-around or hammerhead. They will certainly cooperate with the City in the development of the project. Ron Davis , 34102 Street of the Ruby Lantern, Dana Point, the applicant, addressed the Commission, saying that he felt there had been errors in the calculation. They are only asking for .1 increase in density, rather than the .9 increase which had been mentioned. When they brought this project back the idea was that they were aski ng for 11 units at the normal pri ce, the remai ni ng uni is being affordable uni is . These are the two exceptions he would take to the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 5, 1982 Page Thirteen Mr. Davis explained that the affordable units are being offered as a contribution to the remaining uni is . The only advantage that the affordable units offer him as a builder is that it helps him spread the cost of the property among all of the uni is . He felt that they have made every effort to conform to the Ci ty standards and are asking for the bonus based on State law. They feel that they have provided sui table parki ng and have spoken to the needs and objections of the s urroundi ng residents . Mr. Davis added that he is philosophically opposed to having the County control the sale of the affordable units, but he is willing to go along wi th this if his project is approved. He pointed out that he has had this project for over a year and is hurting very badly financially. Chairman Mi ckelson asked a question wi th regard to whether the acreage i s 1 .06 acres net and Mr. Murphy replied i n the affirmative. There are 16 units proposed on this acreage with 15.9 density. The applicant is as ki ng only for .1 unit i n the density -not one full unit more i n density . Commissioner Hart wished to make note of three letters of opposition: Mr. & Mrs. James Orr Mrs . Flo Kinder Mrs . Cherry James Orr, 1018 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project, stating that he went to 58 people who signed a petition against this zone change. He pointed out that the person who purchased this property knew that 11 units were al 1 owed on i t. Therefore, that is what he should do. He also spoke with regard to the parki ng prob 1 ems that wi 11 be generated with this h i gh a dens i ty i n such a small area. John Gould, 1022 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He pointed out that there-are no children i n this area at all . The area is composed of mostly senior ci ti zens . If even hal f of these uni is have chi 1 dren there wi 11 be no place for them to play. There is no compatibility for this project in the area. He spoke of the extreme parking problems i n this area at this time. P~1ore density will cause even more problems. Mrs . Hardin, 264 S . Coolidge, Orange, addressed the Commission i n opposition to this application, stating that she is concerned about the fact that the applicant should be kept wi thin the al 1 owed density of 11 units. We do not need more units in that area. She explained that they enjoy that area and if these units are put i n, wi th windows overlooking their yard, plus things that will destroy their neighborhood, she is opposed to the enti re project. Flo Kinder, 1542 E. Hickory Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She asked questions about the cul-de-sac at the end of the street, wondering whether this is the city's proposal or the applicant's proposal. Chairman P1ickelson explained this to her in greater detail. She also wished to know what a hammerhead is. Chairman Mi ckel s on explained that this i s a method to be able to come into an area and turn around and come back out again. This is done to aid such things as a fire truck to enter a tight area. Mrs . Ki nder explained that more peopl a woul d have appear at this hearing but she was told at 4:00 p.m. that this item would not be on the agenda tonight, after being told that it was on the agenda last Friday. She asked for more clarification regarding the General Plan designation and density bonus . Chai rman Mi ckelson explained that the General Plan designation calls for 6-15 units/acre. If this were zoned for the maximum density of 15 units, i~t would be in compliance with the law. But the zoni ng i n that area is for 11 units . Therefore, i f the City were to change the zoning to a higher density it would be consistent wi th the General Plan and not i n conflict wi th i t and, therefore, woul d be considered by the legislature to be a proper action. He further explained that Sacramento has said that the General Plan now takes P1 anni ng Commission P1i nutes Apri 1 5, 1982 Page Fourteen precedence over zoning, which used to be just the opposite. They have also stated that the Ci ty's housing el ement must provide more affordable housing. Mrs . Ki nder expressed resentment over the fact that Sacramento dictates what we can do i n the Ci ty of Orange. She explained that she is very happy with East Washington, which is a lovely street of duplexes. She does not want to see this area grow like Topsy. She felt that a decision must be reached very soon, as it was not fair to all concerned. Chairman Mickelson explained that there is still some flexibility allowed in the decision for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Plaster quoted from the State mandate which reads: ".... the City must grant a density bonus of 25% over that allowed by the zoning ordinance..." stating that "zoning ordinance" are key words. Chairman Mickelson replied that even though i t was not stated i t was apparently their intent to exceed the General Plan by that amount, even though they did not put i t into the 1 anguage. He explained that the Ci ty's densi ty bonus program which they have as a pol i cy statement refers to increases in the General Plan designation, as well as zone. Therefore, theoretically, the ap~flicant is within his rights to ask for what he is asking for. Mr. Gould stated that basically what the nei ghbors are i nterested i n i s whether they have any sayso in Orange ci ty government, as to what is going to happen i n thei r nei ghborhood. They would 1 ike some kind of say i n their des ti ny . Commissioner Hart explained that State law provides the applicant with having 25% bonus over the 11 units which are allowed by 1 aw . There was further explanation wi th regard to the affordable housing part of th e density bonus . Mr. Gould brought up the point of children again and Commissioner Hart pointed out that the 1 aw states that chi 1 dren cannot be di scrimi Hated against. The Planning Commission has no choice in the matter. Mr. Gould felt that there shoul d be some way for the applicant to make a profit and the nei ghbors s ti 11 remain happy . Mr. Davis explained that he would be delighted to build 11 units on this property if he could make a profit. He is trying to provide affordable housing for people i n the City of Orange. These extra units will allow him to make a small profit on the 11 units by spreading it out a little more. All he wants is for a resolution to be made. He merely wishes to recover his cost, make a small profit and provide some affordable housing for the communi ty. Chairman P~1i ckel son asked him about interest rates on these uni is . Mr. Davis replied that he will be able to offer 2z% under the prime rate, which would be 14% on a $60,000 mortgage. The 2nd Trust Deed would be 11 %, a. $10 ,000 down payment would be required with a purchase price of less than $80,000. Plonthly payments, including anticipated taxes and associate fees would be around $900.00 per month . If there i s a reduction i n the prime rate the interest would go down on the affordabl e uni is . The other units wi 11 be priced at what the traffic wi 11 bear. Flo Ki nder asked what the other units would sell for i f the affordabl e units will be $80,000. Mr. Davis responded that they would probably sell for around $100 ,000. The uni is are basically the same, except i n quality of fixtures, etc. Mrs. Kinder stated that originally the applicant wanted 17 units, without affordables .on 1 .03 acres. Now we are talking about 1.06 acres. She feels that the desire is for 17 units and the affordable issue came in much later. She questions this at this point. People are saying their quality of life will be disturbed by the building of this project. Planning Commission Minutes - April 5, 1982 Page Fifteen Commissioner Hart pointed out that the debate has gotten into a financial area and this is not the issue. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Hart pointed out that on February 17th the Planning Commission recommended that the design be changed to 14 units, 11 of whi ch would have been normally allowed and three allowed for bonus . He has not heard anything to change his mind on this. This would be allowed by the zoning and city code. Commissioner Master concurred with Commissioner Hart's statements. He is in favor of the density bonus and he still concurs with the 14 uni is . He asked why the Negati ve Declaration was included in this action as he thought this had been approved. Mr. Lanz stated that the Negative Declaration was approved by the City Council previously. Commissioner Master recommended denial of Condi tional Use Permit 11 54, Variance 1660 and Tentati ve Tract 11646. There was discussion among the Commissioners on this denial . Chairman Mickelson asked for a review of the Commission's last action and Mr. Lanz read the last action, which was denial of the proposed project. Commissioner.' Hart brought out that the original plan was for 11 and 3. Moved by Commissioner Master to recommend denial and redesign to ac- commodate 14 units, 10 allowed i n the zoni ng and 4 as a bonus . After some discussion, Commissioner Master struck his motion. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend that approval be given to a redesign of 14 units, of which three are to be affordable housing. Chairman P1i ckelson stated that he would not support the motion, going back to his original argument that Mr. Davis brought his project to the Commission on the basis of the density bonus. With his current design, h e has alleviated the problems which were i denti fi ed at previous meeti ngs , namely, two stories that were adjacent to the single story to the west, which is now one story. He felt that 16 units on this site does not have all of the problems which had been imagined. The lower the density i s on this project, the 1 ar'ger the. units wi 11 be and the 1 arger the families will be who purchase the units. We will be defeating the pur- pose. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mi ckelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to include on the agenda for the April 26th study session the Housing Consul tant's report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to be reconvened to a regular meeti ng on Apri 1 1`g, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Co:ancil Ch zmb ers , 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California . EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY . PLANNING COPIMISSION HELD ON APRIL 5, 1982. The regular meeti ng of the Orange Ci ty Pl anni ng Commission was cal 1 ed to order by Chai rman Coontz at 7:30 p.m, PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Plaster ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master that thi s meeting adjourn at 10:30 p.m. on Monday, April 5, 1982 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, Apri 1 19 , 1982 at the Ci vi c Center Counci 1 Chambers , 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I , Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certi fy that the foregoing i s a true, ful 1 and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, April 5, 1982. Dated this 6th day of Apri 1, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. Jere~P, Murphy, Ci ty Planner and Secr tary to the Planning Co mission of~e City of Orange. r n C~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER OF ADJOURN~1ENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acti ng secretary of the Planning Commission of the Ci ty of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was ~re7d on April 5, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on April 6, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspi cuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of April 5, 1982 was held.