2003 - October 6
~tif~tJ. G--,l.,)
DRAFT
MINUTES
October 6, 2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
Chair Pruett, Vice-Chair Smith, Commissioner Brandman,
Commissioner Bonina
Brent Mullins, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Melanie Schneider, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
AUGUST 18,2003 AND AUGUST 25, 2003.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Vice-Chair Smith to approve the minutes
from the August 18,2003 and August 25, 2003 meetings with minor corrections.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
INRE:
Chair Pruett, Vice-Chair Smith, and Commissioner Brandman
None
None
Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None
NEW HEARINGS:
2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. - RECREATIONAL VEmCLES
A proposal by the City of Orange to amend various sections of the Orange Municipal Code in
order to provide definitions and regulations for the parking and storage of recreational vehicles
within the city limits.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in
Land Use Limitations).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 40-03 recommending to the City Council the approval of
Ordinance Amendment No. (Recreational Vehicles).
APPLICANT:
City of Orange
Planning Commission
October 6, 2003
Mr. Mullins introduced the item describing the existing ordinance as prohibiting the storage of a
recreational vehicle in the first twenty feet of a residential property, which essentially prohibits
them from being parked in a driveway. He described the elements of the proposed ordinance as
including the following:
. Continues to allow rv's in the side yard
. Breaks rv's into two categories: motorized and non-motorized
. Limits the number of rv's in the front yard to only one motorized or non-
motorized
. Prohibits non-motorized from parking on the driveway
. Restricts rv's from locating closer than 2 feet to any property line
. Categorizes rv's by size: Category I are greater than 28 feet in length and 8-12
feet in height
. Prohibits Category I rv's from locating in the front yard
The item was opened for questions.
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, and Smith discussed the following points:
. How the proposed ordinance addresses larger rv's.
. How the ordinance would function on a property with a large side yard or long
driveway
. What process a homeowner would go through to have the storage of their rv
approved, including the installation of additional paved area
. Whether grasscrete would be allowed in cases where a property exceeds the
percentage of allowable concrete
. What the restriction is for parking parallel to a building
. Aesthetics
. At what point rv's are too large to be stored at a home
. What the requirements are for driveways and curb cuts
. The fact that prohibiting non motorized vehicles from parking in the driveway is
intended to ensure access to parking
. The difference between storage and parking of vehicles in the driveway
The public hearing was then opened and testimony was then taken from the following
individuals in favor of the proposed ordinance:
Dan Slater: 278 North Pine Street
Nancy Hopkins: 715 East Cumberland Road
Jack Hatton: 648 East LaVeta
Don Scroggin: 2918 East Roberta Drive
Tom Hayflee: 3014 North Gayle Street
Robert Bradly: 873 North Highland
William Kerfoot: 1773 Greengrove
Michael Farrel: NA
Trudy Hoyle: 2427 East Vanowca
Ron Pughe: 740 East Vista Del Gaviota
Danny Lentz: 1236 East Quincy
Ken Wire: 1750 North Silverwood
2
Planning Commission
October 6, 2003
Kurt Branstedt: 2746 East Coolidge
Lois Barke: 2022 West Spruce
Jim Muhar: 423 South Crest Road
Sandra Ehrman: 4429 East Euclid Avenue
Toni Carlton: 3106 Hillcrest
Jim Owens: 163 South Cypress Street
James Hamilton: 271 North Sacramento
Steve Phillips: 2157 North Diamond Street
Allison Atten: 2010 East Rose Avenue
Carol Goss: 425 Lilac Lane
Abraham Lee: 4340 West Simmons Avenue
Herb Barke: 2022 West Spruce
Shawn Murray: 4140 Santa Cecilia Street
Tim Doring: 822 North Wavenly
Donald C. Delles: 228 East Brookshire Avenue
Howard Vaughan: 1165 North California Street
Lois Oliver: 1832 North Lincoln Street
Ron Frazier: 2902 East Oakmont Avenue
Jay Broyles: 330 Milford Street
Jeff Goodpaster: 441 South Parker Street
Jolm von Karvaly: 1527 E. Sunview Drive
Gerardo Vicra: 330 North Earlham Street
Ron Karell: 1342 East Trenton
William Green: 2219 West Beverly Drive (not here)
Jeff Holcomb: 634 North Handy Street (not here)
Mark Sheppard: 4428 East Euclid
Bruce Sneller: 506 East Almond
Stephen Heilman: 1429 East Oakmont Avenue
The issues raised by those speakers in favor of the ordinance included the following:
· Opposition to any ordinance that dictates what they can and cannot do on their property
. The fact that the speakers moved to Orange because there was no Homeowner's
Association or rules governing the placement of their recreational vehicles on their
property
. Belief that the proposed ordinance infringes on their personal property and constitutional
rights
. Statement that those who oppose rv parking on driveways should reside in a planned
community or one that is governed by a HOA.
. That rv parking increases rather than decreases the value of property
. Expense to store rv and maintain insurance would create financial problems
necessitating the sale oftheir rv
. How amended ordinance will affect their commercial vehicles
. Issue of motorized vs. non motorized
. Line of sight and setbacks
. Revenue to charitable organizations and the sale of property will decrease with proposed
ordinance.
. That other local communities allow rv's to be parked in the driveway
Testimony was then taken from the following individuals in favor of retaining the proposed
ordinance:
3
Planning Commission
October 6, 2003
Dorothy Stewart: 1126 North Grand Street
Jeff Mulford: on file
Mel Vernon: 2301 East Hoover
Those speakers opposed addressed the following issues:
· Desire for the 60/40 rule, relating to 60 % paving and 40% landscape, to be enforced so
that people don't just cement the majority of the front yard to accommodate the
proposed ordinance
. That rv's cause view obstruction and safety hazards
· If fences must be lower in height in the front yard, same rule should apply to rv's
· That an appraiser suggested a neighbor move his rv prior to showing his home
Commissioner discussion then ensued. Items that were discussed included:
· Allowance of commercial vehicles on residential property
· Rv owners who use their rv as their primary vehicle
. Parking versus storage within the 20 foot setback
. Handicapped issue
· Appropriate process to use to allow rv's and the cost of that process
· Differentiation between motorized and non-motorized and desire not to block access to
parking
· Property rights versus health, safety and welfare of the public
. Referendums
. Trash and unsightly storage that was shown in photographs
. Boats
. Amortization of existing rv's
. Complaint procedures
. Property rights versus enforcement of codes
. Investigating parking rv's on public streets
. Allowing non motorized on non-pavement areas
. Extending the line of sight beyond two feet
. Extending the allowable vehicle beyond 28 feet in length
. Distinguishing what is an rv versus a transportation vehicle
. Fire hazard ofrv's too close to buildings
. Notification to entire city through water bill
. Euclid Ohio case
. Difference in Category rv's
. Measurement of rv length
MOTION
Moved by Vice Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this item to
November 3,2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Chair Pruett, Vice-Chair Smith, and Commissioner Brandman
None
None
Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED
4
Planning Commission
October 6, 2003
Chair Pruett then clarified that the public hearing had been closed so that when the item is
brought back on November 3rd, it will be at the discretion of the Commission ifthey chose to
reopen the hearing and take any additional testimony.
RECESS: 11:50
RECONVENE: 12:00 a.m.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2445-03 - THE VILLAGE AT ORANGE
(FORMERLY MALL OF ORANGE)
Proposed establishment of a new signage program as part of the comprehensive remodel and
expansion of an existing regional shopping center complex.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 (Accessory Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 39-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2445-03.
Chuck Lau, Associate Planner, gave a brief introduction of the item, which was a conditional use
permit for a signage program for the Village at Orange.
Commissioner discussion followed with the Commissioners asking for clarification on the
directional aspect of the signage. The applicant was then asked to speak.
Brad LaRue, 425 California St., San Francisco gave an overview of the sign program.
Commissioner Brandman queried the applicant on how he was going to dress up the rear
entrances and a discussion on the landscaping of the site ensued. There was also discussion on
the directory signage.
MOTION
Moved by Chair Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt Resolution
No. 39-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2445-03 with the change on pg. 27 of the
plans relocating signage C1.D from the location shown on the map which is the S.E. corner of
Walmart will be relocated to the N.E. corner ofWalmart at that intersection.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Chair Pruett, Vice-Chair Smith, and Commissioner Brandman
None
None
Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2457-03 - TARGET CORPORATION
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the off-premise sale of beer and wine for an
existing retail store, and to make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity.
5
Planning Commission
October 6, 2003
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 38-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2457-03 and make a
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity.
Mr. Mullins introduced Chuck Lau who gave a brief presentation on the request by
Target for an offpremise license for the sale of beer and wine. He explained they were
currently only proposing to sell wine but that in the future they may wish to also sell beer, that
there is a condition that the alcohol be unrefrigerated and that the request is to provide a public
convenience in terms of one stop shopping. He then asked for questions.
Commission discussion then followed with Commissioner Brandman expressing her
concerns and her desire that there be no refrigeration allowed. Chair Pruett discussed the
convenience the license provided to the public. Commissioner Brandman inquired about the
hours of operation and the number of Targets in Orange County that have licenses to sell beer
and wine.
Ana Gillman, the district manager for the Target stores responded to the Commissioner's
questions.
MOTION
Moved by Chair Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt Resolution No. 38-
03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2457-0, and making a Finding of Public Convenience or
Necessity.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Chair Pruett, Vice-Chair Smith, and Commissioner Brandman
None
None
Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION
Moved by Vice-Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to the next
Special Planning Commission meeting on Monday, October 13,2003 at 6:30 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Chair Pruett, Vice-Chair Smith, and Commissioner Brandman
None
None
Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 pm.
6