Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - July 7 ~t500.<;.;;;);~ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: (1) July 7,2004 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m, Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Smith Chairman Pruett Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 3, 2004 AND MAY 17, 2004. Commissioner Domer moved to approve the amended minutes of the May 3 and May 17 meetings. Commissioner Brandman seconded the motion. Commissioner Domer wished to note that he abstained from the vote of the May 17th meeting, as he was not in attendance at that meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Bonina, Brandman and Smith None Commissioners Domer (May 17th Meeting Minutes Only) Chairman Pruett MOTION CARRIED (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2489-03 - LIBERTY CHRISTIAN CENTER AND NOAH'S ARK LEARNING CENTER (DANIEL HERNANDEZANDJENNYHERNANDE~ A proposal to allow the establishment of a church and preschool/daycare facility on property zoned M-2 (Industrial District). The site is located at 2248 N. Batavia Street. This item was continued from the June 7, 2004, meeting, Planning Commission July 7, 2004 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class I - Existing Facilities). The public hearing remains open from the last meeting. Vice Chair Bonina noted that the hearing was open from the previous meeting of June 7, when this item was continued. (The Planning Commission meeting of June 21, 2004, was cancelled due to a lack of quorum). He invited anyone from the audience who was opposed to this project to speak; there being none, the meeting continued. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item. She noted that the item had been continued from the June 7, 2004, meeting. She noted that Chuck Lau, Associate Planner on the project was in attendance in the audience should anyone have questions. She introduced the applicant, Daniel Hernandez, who in turn, introduced his mother Jenny Hernandez. Ms. Hernandez noted that she had reviewed all of the materials that had been sent to her. She was in agreement on all of the Conditions of Approval, and noted that they would complete all of these. Relating to Item 6, she noted that they would be receiving the easement/lot adjustment from the owner of the property. Pertaining to Item 15 stating, "the applicant shall remove the existing middle driveway approach and replace with a full sidewalk, curb and gutter." She noted that she had asked Mr, Lau earlier if that meant the whole front of the property, or if that meant just that one portion that was to be removed from the driveway, He stated that it was more than likely the entire front. She had submitted to him some photos of the property that showed two large trees in the front, and how their roots are so huge they go all the way to the street. She felt that those trees would need to be removed in order to accommodate the width of the sidewalk. She asked that the Commission consider allowing them to continue the landscape improvements that they had made (which she noted blended in nicely with the surrounding properties) and not have to complete the sidewalk across the entire front of the property, She also noted that only 3 other businesses in the area had complete sidewalks and gutters in front of their property. She noted that all other requirements noted in the Conditions of Approval were fine, and she was in agreement with them. Vice Chairman Bonina asked that the applicant review for the Commission the plans for the site. The applicant responded that the State Licensing Department regulates the amount of children allowed at the site based on the square feet. The space that would be used for the preschool itself would only accommodate 48 students, and the goal is to get licensed for 48 children. That would require the maximum of 5 staff. And the operations would be from 6:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m" Monday through Friday, no Saturdays or Sundays, The church portion, which is the center portion of the building, would only be used on Sundays. Commissioner Domer asked, regarding the sidewalk issue and understanding that the applicant is leasing the property, is there a stipulation in the lease as to who would pay for the improvement of the sidewalk? Mrs. Hernandez noted that on the lease it states that all improvements to the property are at the lessee's expense. Commissioner Domer asked Staff if there were a timeline as to when the sidewalk improvements must be made? Planning Manager Roseberry answered that, 2 Planning Commission July 7, 2004 in general, they like to have timelines that are tied to a specific project, i.e" something like "before first submittal of plan check" or "issuance of building permits," etc. So a timing would have to be worked on for that. Commissioner Domer then asked ifit was unheard of to stretch an item, due to budget, beyond the first occupancy? Alice Angus, Community Development Director, stated that in response to that if the Commissioners were looking to extend the timeline, you could do that by wording a condition and decide upon a timeline, She further stated that they would want some type of bond or deposit for that improvement, however. Commissioner Brandman verified with Ms. Angus that it was the City's Master Plan to put sidewalks along that side of the street. Ms. Angus agreed that it was. Ms. Brandman noted that the Hernandez' are leasing the property, and wondered if they were not there, would not the owner of the property be responsible to put in that part of the sidewalk. Ms, Angus clarified that only when there were improvements to the property would the sidewalks be required. She stated that it could be reworded that at time of occupancy the improvement either be done or a bond established for the value of the improvement with a timing that the improvement be done no later than six months after occupancy. This would buy the applicant some time, they would be in the site and established and making revenue. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz noted that this was a Condition that was attached to the C.U.P, so the assumption is the condition is there to mitigate an impact that is created by the project. He stated that he would not want to see the Commission extend the timeline to complete the sidewalk improvements out further than the six months suggested, then you begin losing the nexus issue. His preference from a legal standpoint is to keep it tied as closely as possible to the occupancy. Commissioner Smith stated that she was quite troubled by this entire issue. She stated that it was her understanding that you add curbs and sidewalks when you do new construction, not a use change and there is no major construction to the building, yet a phenomenal mnount of money is being required for new curbs and sidewalks. If this was the last piece on the street without curbs and sidewalks she could understand why the city would be leaning to have it completed. But if there's only two or three spots on the street (and indeed there are), she was just wondering if there was a hidden agenda here from USF Bestways, Inc. because the Hernandez' got into this lease without any idea that this would be required of the project. Commissioner Smith stated that she felt it was unfair to ask someone with a C.u.P. that is leasing to incur these high expenses, and not impose this cost on the owner. Ms. Angus stated that the Public Works Department did see this issue as a nexus with this project. She noted that it is then the Commission's call as to whether they agree. Commissioner Domer noted that there appeared, on the plans, to be a lO-foot right-of-way for the driveway, owned by the city. The current condition of approval is good, because they are removing all the asphalt area and something must be put in it's place, and so cement work would have to be done there anyway. There's an economy of scale in doing another 100 linear feet of sidewalk anyway, and therefore he would not be in support of a delay being allowed, Commissioner Brandman stated that she is concerned about the tree issue, and if the applicant is required to put up a sidewalk, it will not be long before the roots become a problem with the sidewalk. She feels that this is a very unfair encumbrance. She also felt it was a dangerous 3 Planning Commission July 7, 2004 situation to have the school with sidewalks in front with two entrances that could cause problems with students using the sidewalk. Daniel Hernandez, in response to a query by Vice Chair Bonina, stated that the lease on the property commenced on January 1, 2004. They did not want to go forward until they had gone through the entire process, but the owner stated that she would not release to them the documents for the Commission and Staff Review until they were signed. They signed with the owner believing they would be given time, but they were not. They have been paying rent of approximately $8,000 per month and are behind in their payments and may be evicted. Their entire savings have been poured into this project, and they need to move forward to the point where they are getting revenue. They have put over $100,000 into this project, and are trying to work something out with the owner to extend and give them some time to recoup their investment. Vice Chairman Bonina noted that there appeared to already be curbs and gutter on the property (judging from his review of the plans) and that there would only be a 40-foot strip relating to the sidewalks that would need to be provided. Alice Angus stated that the plan provided by the applicant showed a new sidewalk, so that was not necessarily conditioned by staff. The condition refers just to the area where the driveway would be removed. The applicant is asking to change their plan, and not be required to do the sidewalk from driveway to driveway, Commissioner Brandman moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 28-04 approving Conditional Use Permit no. 2489-03, with the removal of the one word sidewalk on Condition 15. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. It is noted that the Commission agreed to allow the applicant to change their plan and remove the sidewalk fTom the plan. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Smith None None Chairman Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Brandman moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Smith None None Chairman Pruett MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m, 4