Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - January 21 Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2008 1 of 12 MiD utes Planning Commission City of Orange 21 January 2008 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner Commissioner Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Michelle Felten, Planning Intern Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session @ 6:35 p.m. Chair Imboden reviewed the Agenda with the Commission. Consent Calendar: Commissioners reviewed the minutes from the December 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, no changes or corrections were noted. Continued Hearing Item No.2: Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight would be presenting the item, as Senior Planner Dan Ryan was not present. Continued Hearing Item No.3: Chair Imboden asked Staff for an explanation of the amendment that had been added to the item. Planning Intern, Michelle Felten stated there had been an addition of 4 words to the Ordinance contained in Section 17.12.025(c)(8) that covered landscape. In the statement: shall ensure 100% screening, except gate access. (except gate access was added) and the word maximum was added to read: maximum 8' fence, in reference to the equipment enclosure. Ms. Felten stated that Staff had received correspondence from a wireless industry representative, John Koos, which was included in the Commissioners' packets. The correspondence did not change anything that was being presented on the item and he would not be present at the hearing. Chair Imboden stated there would be questions on the item and clarified that they would be making a recommendation to City Council. Continued Hearing Item No.4: Chair Imboden stated the item was a returning item. Commissioner Steiner asked if Staff had received any correspondence or contact from community members. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia stated the item had been re- noticed and he was not aware of any letters or calls received by Staff Chair Imboden stated there would be questions from the Commission on the item. Page 1 of 12 Pages January 21, 2008 2 of 12 Additional Business: Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight stated Commissioners indicated they had received phone calls from applicants. He reviewed the policy and found that when a call was received by Staff for a Commissioner, an email would be sent to the Commissioner with the caller's information, and it was left to the discretion of the Commissioner(s) to return the call. If an applicant contacted them directly they had obtained their phone number in another manner and not through City Staff. Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Steiner stated the Bagel Me application had gone before City Council on appeal and the decision of the Planning Commission had been overturned. Commissioner Merino stated the business owner was present at that hearing and presented justification for approval and the information presented had changed his view on the matter. Administrative Session closed @ 6:45 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT ITEM (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF December 17, 2007. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the December 17, 2007 minutes as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED COMMISSION BUSINESS: (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4279-07 - REYES RESIDENCE A proposal to demolish a 240 sq. ft. non-contributing one car garage, construct a new 264 sq. ft. one car detached garage, construct a 720 sq. ft. one-story addition to the main residence that fronts on Clark Street and construct a one-story 640 sq. ft. detached accessory second-unit with an attached two-car garage at the rear of the property. LOCATION: 215 N. Clark NOTE: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines 15305 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Page 2 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2008 3 of 12 Small Structures). The proposed work complied with the City's Local CEQA Guidelines as to: appropriate materials, secondary roof height, massing, placement and orientation of the addition in relation to the site, block and surrounding Historic District. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4279-07 for an Old Towne addition that exceeds 20% of the existing floor area for a non-contributing residence. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Imboden asked for clarification on the north side property setback, as he did not see a setback that was less than 5' on the plans? Mr. Knight stated on the north elevation there was a 4' 2" setback. All the detached structures from the main structures would maintain current zoning standards. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing. Applicant, Al Maciel, 2017 W. Alco Avenue, Santa Ana stated he had nothing further to add and was available to answer any questions. Chair Imboden stated one of the conditions from the DRC review was the request to add a ribbon driveway and the applicant had agreed to the condition. Mr. Maciel stated it was an option and they agreed to install one. The existing driveway had a brick pattern and they planned to match that with the ribbon. Chair Imboden stated in reviewing the site plan he could not locate the ribbon driveway. He asked if the pavers would remain and the ribbon would start approximately 20' back from the property line? Mr. Maciel stated it would be throughout the new driveway extension. He presented a drawing to the Commission. Chair Imboden stated he had reviewed the same drawing. For that era of a house, he was not sure that a ribbon driveway would be appropriate. There were already pavers at the front and to change to a ribbon he felt was out of character. He understood the ribbon driveway was an option and the original design would fit much better with the period of the house and overall made more sense. Mr. Knight stated he read the site plan and he felt the designer had a misunderstanding of a ribbon driveway and did not understand what had been suggested. He gave an explanation to Mr. Maciel of a ribbon driveway. Page 3 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2008 4 of 12 Mr. Maciel stated he now understood and that was not what he had agreed to. Chair Imboden stated it was given as an option and he felt the plan should remain as presented. Public Comment - None. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve DRC No. 4279-07 - Reyes Residence with the plans as presented, noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: (3) ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.12.025 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE WIRELESS COMUNICATION FACILITIES PROVISIONS An Ordinance amendment updating the City's definitions, requirements, criteria, and minimum standards for the design and placement of wireless communication facilities Previous Hearing Date: December 3,2007 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15305 (Class 5- Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 51-07 recommending the City Council approve the amendment to the wireless Ordinance. Planning Intern, Michelle Felten, gave a project overvIew consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Page 4 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2008 5 of 12 Commissioner Steiner stated Edison's new position was to not allow any permanent structures on their property, and asked what that meant in relation to the proposed Ordinance? Ms. Felten stated Edison's position did not specify wireless communication facilities. Their policy stated that they would continue to focus on natural facilities such as green belts and trails and they did not want to have permanent structures on their property. Edison anticipated growth and they did not want to have permanent structures that may need to be moved. Edison would continue to service existing agreements, however, would not be providing agreements for the future. Commissioner Steiner clarified the Edison position was for no more cell phone facilities? Ms. Felten stated the policy did not specify cell phones. Staff took that understanding from the notice Edison submitted. Commissioner Steiner asked if Staff had made an inquiry for clarification? Ms. Felten stated Staff had not. It was a notice received November 15,2007. Commissioner Steiner asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz if he could request Staff make the inquiry to clarify whether Edison would allow wireless facilities on their property. Given the emphasis for co-location it would be useful to know if they would continue to support installation of these facilities on their property. Commissioner Steiner asked in reference to (c )(8); the revision requiring all accessory equipment be located within a building enclosure, wrought iron cage, behind a block wall with lattice roof or an enclosure deemed to be the equivalent, the only one amongst those that included an existence of a roof was behind a block wall with a lattice roof. He recalled during discussion that some type of top would be included and a wrought iron cage could be interpreted to be just four sides and if Staff would clarify what was meant? Ms. Felten stated a wrought iron cage was meant to be four sides and a top. Commissioner Steiner asked if the requirement was for all equipment to be in an enclosed structure with a top? Ms. Felten stated yes, that was correct. Commissioner Steiner asked if there would ever be an instance where the equipment would exceed the 8' permitted height and be taller than a perceived roof? Ms. Felten stated with previous projects the 8' height restriction covered equipment that had been proposed to Staff. Mr. Knight stated the reason for raising the permitted height from 6' to 8' was to ensure the equipment would be beneath the height of the enclosure. Staff had not experienced proposals that would have exceeded the 8' permitted height. Page 5 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2008 6 of 12 Commissioner Merino asked if equipment exceeded the 8' height would there be design alternatives to accommodate that equipment, such as lowering the interior slab to lower the equipment? Mr. Knight stated that was correct and the highest equipment Staff had seen in reviewing Royal Street and similar applications was 7'. The applicants proposed a 6" slab above that in order to keep the equipment safe from flooding which gave an additional clearance above the 7' 6" height. Commissioner Bonina asked under No.2, Facilities, Parks and Public Right-of-Ways; when it was stated: applicants who locate within the public right-of-way or on a public owned controlled property, did that suggest the facility would be on a public structure or public property? Ms. Felten stated it would be on an existing facility, such as a light pole. Commissioner Bonina asked why that situation would not require an alternative site analysis? Ms. Felten stated applicants would be encouraged to co-locate, rather than adding an additional monopole elsewhere within the City. The thought was to stream line the process for the applicant and give them an incentive to co-locate. Commissioner Bonina stated within the public right-of-way there were alternative structures and would there be a reason to choose one structure over another? Ms. Felten stated the applicant would negotiate with the City Attorney's office and Public Works in determining what public right-of-way facility would be used. Commissioner Bonina stated the City would be responsible for negotiating what public structure they would recommend for the installation. Mr. Sheatz stated if an applicant chose to locate in the public right-of-way there was not a lot of negotiating that would occur. State and Federal Law would allow them to locate in that area. The City would not have much leverage at that point. The areas that the City had more control was with the support equipment, and when an applicant chose to locate on a light standard or telephone pole, the City was able to require the applicant to place an underground vault for their equipment. Commissioner Bonina asked on a public owned property or public right-of-way with an existing facility would stealth be required? Mr. Sheatz stated stealth would not be required. Commissioner Bonina clarified on a new pole in a public right-of-way the installation would not need to be stealth? Page 6 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2008 7 of 12 Mr. Sheatz stated yes, that was correct. He did not feel the City would see a new pole with just a cell antennae, the applicant would be locating on another facility. They had not run across another instance where a wireless company wanted to install a new pole in the public right-of-way and he did not expect the City to see such an application. Commissioner Bonina stated on the distance between non-stealth facilities and residential zones which excluded the public right-of-way land or publicly controlled property, if it was a non-stealth facility or an enhanced non-stealth facility such as on a light standard, which would not allow monitoring of a distance requirement, it could conceivably be closer to a residential zone than the Ordinance requirement permitted. Ms. Felten stated on a non-stealth, co-located facility there was not a distance requirement. For example, on an installation on a light standard, it would need to be architecturally compatible with the light standard and integrated into the pole. Chair Imboden stated one of the issues discussed at the last meeting that went back to the revisions to the Ordinance, under No. 8 stated the facility could be located behind a wrought iron gate, block wall with lattice roof or enclosure deemed equivalent by the Community Development Director. He stated they had struggled with the Police Department's concern for site security and keeping them visible, and there seemed to be a conflicting requirement for the applicants to screen the facility, it appeared that there was a straight forward requirement on the landscape, that read: within 2 years it must fully screen the equipment. He asked if the requirement had been reviewed by the Police Department? Ms. Felten stated she had spoken with Crime Prevention and the requirement for a roof or cage top was added after Crime Prevention's review of the proposal. The Police Department did not have an issue with the landscape requirement as long as there was no way for someone to climb into the enclosure. Chair Imboden asked when would the Community Development Director need to approve alternative enclosures? Ms. Felten stated through the SRC meetings, or any other review process prior to the project being presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Knight stated there were instances in the Zoning Code, in uses under a particular district, where it stated: other uses that may be deemed equivalent by the Community Development Director. It was not necessarily an approval. A project could come in that did not meet the codes specifically and they would be brought before the Community Development Director for review and modification prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. Chair Imboden stated on the requirement for a block wall with a lattice roof, and asked did they only want a block wall with a lattice roof and did they want to be that specific? Commissioner Merino stated it could be handled by exception. Page 7 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2008 8 of 12 Commissioner Steiner stated looking at the requirement from a legal perspective, the presence of the word or along with: the enclosure or an enclosure deemed equivalent, allowed some other alternative deemed equivalent to be proposed. Commissioner Merino stated in the City Wireless Communications Review Matrix, Staff was proposing on a stealth co-located facility to be approved at the Staff level and not warrant Planning Commission review, and asked ifhe understood that correctly? Ms. Felten stated yes that was correct depending on the zone. Commissioner Merino asked if the Planning Commission would see less of these types of proposals if the applicant complied fully with the Ordinance? Ms. Felten stated yes. Commissioner Merino stated he would like to see a very simple checklist to review for Ordinance compliance. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Merino stated he would like to commend Staff for a stellar effort in bringing the item before the Planning Commission. The City had come up with some very good alternatives and he would support the Ordinance. Commissioner Bonina stated he echoed Commissioner Merino's statement and appreciated Staff taking in the information from other Cities and the comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Merino made a motion to recommend Planning Commission Resolution PC 51-07 to the City Council. Ordinance amending Section 17.04.042 and Section 17.12.025 of the Orange Municipal Code to reflect changes to the Wireless Communication Facilities Provisions. The item is categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2677-07; VARIANCE NO. 2180-07; VARIANCE NO. 2185-07; VARIANCE NO. 2186-07; MAJOR SITE PLAN NO. 491-07; AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4189-07- W ALGREENS A proposal to demolish the existing 26,228 sq. ft. Drug Emporium and replace it with two new buildings totaling 23,220 sq. ft. One building would be for a 24-hour Walgreens Page 8 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2008 9 of 12 The second building would contain with a drive-thru window consisting of 14,820 sq. ft. retail and restaurants and would be 8,400 sq. ft. LOCATION: 1539 E. Chapman Previous Hearing Date: October 15, 2007 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per state CEQA Guidelines 15302 (Class 2- Replacement or Reconstruction) because the project will replace a structure with a new structure of substantially the same SIze. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 41-07 approving the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Major Site Plan Review and Design Review Committee application. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner stated he had met with the applicant's representatives on this item. He asked Mr. Garcia ifhe had interaction with any of the neighbors? Mr. Garcia stated he made phone calls and sent emails. No concerns were expressed with anyone that he had made contact with. Commissioner Steiner asked when speaking to the neighbors had he described to them the changes in the plan? Mr. Garcia stated yes he had. Commissioner Steiner stated Staff indicated that based on the photometric study there would be no light spillage. In reviewing the photometric diagram and the samplings taken on the western properties, specifically the residences, it appeared that for 1 or 2 of the buildings there would be some light spillage. Mr. Garcia stated there would be some light spillage, however, according to Crime Prevention it would not be above any threshold. Commissioner Steiner stated it was not a matter of any light spillage, but rather light spillage that did not reach any unacceptable levels. Mr. Garcia stated yes, that was correct. Page 9 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2008 10 of 12 Commissioner Steiner asked if the light standards at the western edge of the parking lot were 30' tall and was there any discussion with the applicant to reduce the height of those standards? Mr. Garcia stated the standards were 30' and he had not discussed the reduction with the applicant. Mr. Knight stated the Zoning Code read: beyond the exterior boundaries of the property that caused illumination of residential districts in excess of .5 foot candles - .5 foot candles was the acceptable level. It would be checked in the field and any adjustments deemed necessary would be required of the applicant. Commissioner Merino stated the residences would not be affected by any lights or fixtures on the building itself but spillage over the top of the building from the parking lot light standards. Mr. Garcia stated yes it would be from light standards. Mr. Knight asked if Commissioner Merino was referring to wall packs? Commissioner Merino stated yes, and in the Staff Report the spillage was referring to the light coming from the light standards in the parking lot as there would not be spillage through the building. Mr. Knight stated it could be clarified with the applicant. Commissioner Bonina asked on the landscaping Variance, in addition to the trees, 87 required and 64 proposed, was there also a landscape area that was less than the minimum requirement? Mr. Garcia stated yes. City code required that landscaping be installed along the perimeter of all property lines. Due to the circulation and access points the applicant was not able to fulfill that requirement at all points. Commissioner Bonina stated 10,311 square feet was the total landscape area after the dedication was provided. Mr. Garcia stated yes, that was correct. There was a 15% deficiency in landscaping. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing. Steve Sheldon, address on file, stated he wanted to thank Mr. Garcia for assisting with the project and for helping them address concerns of the Commission and the neighbors. They contacted adjacent property owners and met with many of them. They felt they had met their concerns. Additionally, they sent out their own notice to a 300' radius from the applicant team and they did not receive any responses. Page 10 of 12 Pages Commissioner Steiner asked if there was any flexibility on standards? January 21,2008 11 of 12 the height of the light Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Sheldon stated they had spoken with the neighbors and they were willing to reduce from 30' to 25', and a plan for that would be presented to Staff. Amy Ciolek, Deerfield, IL, stated on the photometric plan included in the report it was run without taking into account the 15' wall separation. Commissioner Steiner stated the parking was no longer an issue, as the new proposed use had changed and asked how had that changed? Ms. Ciolek stated they had adjusted the square footage and the restaurant was within a limit that eliminated the parking issue. Commissioner Bonina stated he felt it was a much better plan from what had been previously presented and the fact that the Police Department was in concurrence with the project was encouraging. Commissioner Merino stated at the last meeting he had challenged the W algreens' team to come up with a better solution, and he wanted to congratulate them on bringing forward a better solution. The drive-thru window was not an issue and the Police Department was now on board. He thanked Walgreens for being the good neighbor that they had intended to be. Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Ciolek if they had gone out and met with the neighbors regarding the revised plan. Ms. Ciolek stated they had met with or contacted the neighbors who had been present at the DRC or PC meetings and they had also sent out a notice to those neighbors within a 300' radius of the project. Chair Imboden stated he was also pleased with the plan and felt the Walgreens' team had truly listened to their concerns. He stated that the AlC units should be placed as far away from adjacent properties. Referring to the drive-thru window, Chair Imboden asked for the distance it was from the adjacent property lines as he wanted that dimension noted in the plans. Chair Imboden opened the hearing to Public Comment. Windy Casada, address on file, stated she was appreciative of the work Walgreens had completed. She wanted to ensure that when construction started that a temporary fence would be installed. Mr. Sheldon stated an 8' fence with screening would be erected during construction. The drive-thru window would be approximately 35' from the adjacent property lines. Page 11 of 12 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2008 12 of 12 Commissioner Steiner stated on the drive-thru, vehicles would build in space to the area based on the angle they would enter from. Mr. Sheldon stated yes, that was correct. Commissioner Bonina asked if stacking would be at an angle? Mr. Sheldon stated yes, stacking would be at an angle. Chair Imboden stated it appeared that it was well over 60', and there could reasonably be a stacking of 3-5 cars that was more than adequate. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 41-07, Conditional Use Permit 2677-07; Variance No. 2185-07; Variance No. 2186-07; Variance No. 2180-07; Major Site Plan Review 491-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4189-07 - Walgreens, the project was categorically exempt from CEQA with the following condition: · Per the discussion with the applicant that the drive-thru window be located approximately 35' from the rear property line. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (4) ADJOURNMENT Chair Imboden made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers Monday, February 4,2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:45 Page 12 of 12 Pages