Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - July 19 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange July 19, 2004 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, and Smith ABSENT: Commissioners Domer and Pruett STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2004. Commissioner Brandman moved to approve the Minutes of the June 7, 2004, regular meeting; it was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Bonina, Smith None None Commissioners Domer, Pruett MOTION CARRIED (2) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1220-03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 288-03, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1718-03, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3829-03 - IMMANUAL LUTHERAN CHURCH A proposal to allow a change of zoning from Office Professional (OP) and Duplex residential (R2-6) Districts to Public Institution (Specific Plan) (PI SP)) to allow for a uniform zoning designation and single floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of .55 in place of the current split of .50 F.A.R. and .70 F.A.R. allowed under the OP and R2-6 zoning. The proposal also includes a request to allow expansion of existing campus APPROVED Planning Commission July 19, 2004 facilities including the relocation of an historic structure and to accommodate a three-phase master plan for an existing church and school campus. The site is located at 802 East Chapman Avenue, 137 and 147 South Pine Street. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1718-03 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The item was introduced by Sherman Jones, Associate Planner, who gave a description of the project. He noted that the church structure as well as the parsonage building were contributing structures to the district. The church is listed individually as part of the historic district, but the parsonage building is listed as a contributing structure. He noted that the proposal is for 3 separate plans. Phase I is the placement of the modular buildings that took place back in 2002. Phase II is the addition to the kitchen, and this is approximately 450 sq. ft., in order to provide meals to the fellowship and also to provide hot meals to the students. Phase III would be the replacement of the existing parsonage with an Early Childhood Education Building, which would move the classrooms which are in the temporary structures into the permanent building. The church's intention is to move the parsonage to a location within the Old Towne Historic District; if a location cannot be found, then it would be moved outside of the district. For the record, he noted that the modular classrooms are to be there until the new building is completed or within 8 years. Steve Amort, 12341 Eaton Place, Santa Ana, represented the applicant. He stated that he was the Property Director and Chairman of the Board of the properties and has been in that rOSillOl1 for four years. He noted that they had a small school, with combination classes in 4th/5t1 and 6thnth grades. It has been their desire to get to one class per grade. They have a maximum of approximately 20 pupils per class. He gave a detailed description of the history of the project, and said that as part of accreditation now, that they were being required to offer separate classrooms for those upper level classes. Rick Fox, Architect for Project, 275 S. Glassell, spoke to the project. He noted that in addition to the specific zoning issues that were discussed, this item will help the church expand as well as provide some very detailed guidelines for how the future buildings of the church will be built and designed. Even though there was not a plan for a replacement structure for the parsonage being presented, he wanted to ensure that the Commission was aware of the great amount of detail that had gone into the overall design guideline plans (which he stated were far more extensive than the Old Towne Design Standards had required). The public hearing was opened. (Vice Chair Bonina noted that he had neglected to officially open the public hearing earlier, but that the above comments by Amort and Fox were valid and part of the public record.) The Commissioners had the following questions: 2 APPROVED Planning Commission July 19, 2004 . For the record, why is there no replacement structure design? There are a couple of reasons why there is no replacement design. One has to do with the fate of the parsonage building. The church feels strongly that they need to feel comfortable that the parsonage can be relocated prior to embarking on a complex and detailed (and costly) design process. One of the things that they wanted to do to be good stewards of their own resources, is to make sure that they could complete the first phase, prior to the expense of the design of the replacement building. Second, there are timing issues that the church members feel are out of their control - i. e.. who will buy the building and when, when and where will it be relocated. what (/re the issues involved with getting approval for the new site for the parsonage. C'fc. . Assuming that the parsonage building is bought and relocated, how long will it be before the building is designed and built, and have you given any thought as to what will happen with the raw land left by the parsonage building. If the City Council approves the plan, the church intends to start advertising the house right awav for relocation. Assuming that a buyer comes along that is interested. there will he (/ good sense on the part of the congregation that they want to go forward, there needs to be DRC Review, etc., so that overall design and engineering could take up to 12 months or more. The construction of the building could take another J 2- J 8 months depending upon many factors. Certainly the raw land is somethinR that staff has expressed a concern about. The site cannot he left complete" IIn/el/ced but the site will not be left in a unfavorable condition, and we have discussed plans to plant grass or something similar to bring it back to a park-like condition. . You mentioned that the parsonage is a keystone to your plan. Will you not move forward if the parsonage is not moved? We have discussed the timeline involved. There is an 8-year window that was one of the driving factors (the time limit on the modulars). We haven't given much thought to failure in moving the parsonage structure. . The congregation should be complimented on the restoration and upkeep of the building, especially the light on the steeple, which is gorgeous. Have you thought about adaptive reuse, right where it is, with extensions and additions') It's been here some 80 years or so, has housed your pastors, and has some history to your congregation (reference St. John's which has done something similar). That was looked into. The parsonage is in its third location now. It is Victorian in style and out of context with the mission style church and school. Trying to shoehorn everything we need the new building to accomplish into the existing structure just would not work. . Is there any discussion for moving the Mexican Fan Palm trees back onto the site rather than removing them? There has been much discussion on this, it has not been determined (they are over 100 feet high) whether they will even survive a move. There is definite historical value to the palms, and would like to see a plan to keep them on the site. . We need to understand how the building will be marketed, that is a huge piece of this project. It is important to understand the process and how long and at what price point the parsonage will be marketed. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission July 19, 2004 The public was invited to speak. Gary Heimbigner, 321 N. Plantation Place, Anaheim Reverend Robert Darbatz, 2534 E. Burly Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street David Miller, 735 E. Fairway Mr. Heimbigner stated that he, too, would like the Mexican Fan Palms to remain. He believed that the parsonage could be moved out through the back of the property without impacting the trees. He mentioned that one of the people that was interested in the parsonage was located just one street back, so it would be a short move. Reverend Darbatz mentioned that he had been a resident of Orange since 1969. He believes the relationship between the church and school is symbiotic. Both are blessings to each other. He mentioned that having just gone through the accreditation process that they must keep up with the demands on the elementary school. Mr. Frankel is with the OTP A. He noted that they had reviewed the project at the DRC level, and their main concern is with the parsonage. Being a contributor to the district, they want to make certain that it is relocated within the district's boundaries. He would like some assurances that the parsonage relocation efforts are resolved before the church goes forward with the project, and would also like to ensure that it remains a single-family residence. As far as the overall project itself, Mr. Frankel felt it was premature to comment until the plans were finalized. He also felt that it would be a possibility (as mentioned earlier) to back the house out of the property and retain the palm trees. Prompted by a follow-up question by Commissioner Brandman relative to relocating the house, Mr. Frankel stated that the OTP A would not be in favor of moving the parsonage outside of the Old Towne Historic District. Mr. Frankel also stated that he knew of someone who had expressed interest in moving the parsonage to his currently underdeveloped property in Old Towne. He stated that as long as they conformed to the Secretary of the Interior's standards, the OTPA was fine with it. Mr. Miller stated that he has been a member of Immanuel all of his life. He noted that during the 82 years that Immanuel Lutheran had been in existence, he believed that they had been an important part of the community. He stated that from within the congregation had come a former mayor, a congressman, several city council members and even an American League pitcher. He urged the Commissioners to approve the plan before them, as it was a win/win situation for the congregation as well as the City. Following discussion on what was contained within the items before the Commission for approval, Sherman Jones stated that there were wording changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (differences between the DRC and the Staff Review Committee). Commissioner Smith said there needed to be clarification regarding the differences between the Staff Report, the DRC and the errata sheet provided to the Commissioners. The final version, according to Sherman Jones, was contained within the errata. The public hearing was closed. 4 APPROVED Planning Commission July 19, 2(J()4 The Commissioners felt it was absolutely vital to have a strong marketing plan in order to effect the move of the parsonage, and urged the applicant to work closely with OTP A towards this end. Commissioner Brandman moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-04 recommending to the City Council the approval of Zone Change No. 1220-03, Major Site Plan Review No. 288-03, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1718-03, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Design Revic'A Committee No. 3829-03 and all the conditions listed in the resolution with the following conditions: (1) Explore possibilities of moving the parsonage through the back of the property to save the Mexican Fan Palm trees. (2) Finalize the parking agreement (3) Site plan and elevation to be reviewed by Director of Community Development and a timeline to be approved by the Community Development Department (4) Marketing Plan incorporating the OTPA be developed and managed by the Community Development Department Commissioner Smith noted to the applicant that it would help to raise interest, keep the momentum going and raise money for the project to utilize a rendering of the new project in their fund-raising and marketing of the parsonage building. Vice Chair Bonina stated that he would like a condition in the motion to include that the house should remain within the Old Towne Historic District. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated that it would be in conflict with the Mitigated Negative Declaration to do so, as the Mitigated Negative Declaration stated that the property could be moved outside the historic district. He noted that mitigation measure CR-2 stated that all other measures should be exhausted prior to looking outside the district for a suitable location. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, and Smith None None Commissioners Domer, Pruett MOTION CARRIED (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2499-04 AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2262-98 - LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL A proposal to amend existing Conditional Use Permit No. 2262-98 to increase its current enrollment from 950 students to 1,150 students. The subject site is located mid block on the west side of Santiago Boulevard between Villa Vista Way to the north and Meats Avenue to the south. The site is located at 2222 North Santiago Boulevard. 5 APPROVED Planning Commission July 19, 2004 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15314 (Class 14 Minor Additions to Schools). Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, introduced the item. The applicant wishes to increase the number of students allowed at the school. The initial cap on the enrollment was committed to when there was an initial plan to expand the high school The previous City Council action did allow a substantial increase in construction of buildings at the high school. The applicant is not requesting any other changes to the approval done at that time. The Staff Review Committee has reviewed the proposal and reviewed a traffic report in conjunction with the application and found that the proposal should not have an impact on local traffic. It was reviewed that there was a minor modification to the initial proposal in terms of some parking. The original proposal had parking under a portion of the school buildings and it was found that if the applicant was to do that the additional construction cost wasn't worth it to have the parking. At this time the applicant has not fully built out the campus, and the parking as provided today is meeting the code required parking since it is based on the number of classrooms. The Staff Review Committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposal since it appeared that the use is providing a public service in terms of education opportunities and also that the expansion did not appear to have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Staff did review with the police department the past police activity in the vicinity, and the police department found that the typical police service calls around high schools that this was substantially less than it was around public high schools in the city. Staffs review also recommends approval subject to three conditions. (1) Future monitoring of enrollment - the applicant shall mail the City a copy of the required letter sent to the State Department of Education. (2) An annual review done by the Police Chief and the Community Development Director regarding police activity in the vicinity of the high school (3) As the applicant implements the final implementation as each building permit is issued, the parking provided on site shall be reviewed to ensure that it complies with code. The applicant was invited to speak. Rich Kahler, 2644 N. River Trail Road - he is the Director of Operations at the school. He stated that one of his primary responsibilities over the past several years is to be the staff representative for this expansion plan. He noted that this amendment to the c.u.P. was to increase the total number of students only, there would be no new construction required. He noted that they had changed the starting time for 7:30 a.m. (1/2 hour earlier than the other public schools in the area), in order to ensure there was no traffic conflict on the street. There are 5 or 6 events that cause overflow during the year - including back-to-school night, prospective student orientation, new student orientation, etc. One third of the students stay for after-school programs which further reduces the traffic impact. He referenced a neighborhood meeting in mid-June. He said some concerns came out of the meeting including students still parking illegally on neighboring streets. late night noise, and concerns that the parking lot lights were kept on all night. He further l1otl'd 6 APPROVED Planning Commission July 19,2004 that the school provided for a security guard from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. seven nights per week. The public hearing was opened. Vice Chair Bonina noted that he had not opened it earlier as it should be, but that the public testimony was still valid and on the record. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . The theatre has 700 seats, and the gymnasium could seat 1400. It would be in the Commissioner's best interest, if it's not in the existing permit, that major events would not be scheduled in the gymnasium and the theatre concurrently. We have been doing that all along to avoid conflict of major events. There could be a conflict if ClF. schedules a game, and as long as it is up to the school, then it would be fine. In that event, the neighborhood should be informed, and like Chapman University, you should do everything possible to avoid impact on the surround neighborhoods, including valet parking and shuttles. . The staff reports states that you are currently at 1,060 students, when you have been gi ven permission to have only 950. How did this happen? When we think of dealing \lirh rh(' city, it's traffic, parking and noise. When we look at the student popuLation, it's how many kids can we accommodate in a classroom, can we schedule the classes, and things like that. Plus, it was very unexpected. Only two schools in the Lutheran system west of the Rockies have more than 400 students - Las Vegas Lutheran and Orange Lutheran. It was completely unexpected to have the school blossom this far, and to have a waiting list of 150 students is beyond our expectations and caught everybody by surprise. As far as notifying the City, that did come up last year, and it basically took a year, but since it happened the previous year by about 40 students, then realistically yes, we should have had this meeting about a year ago. We knew we had the parking and the traffic taken care of, it was a matter of the fact that we had space in our classrooms for these students so we accepted them. They still turned over 100 away each year for the last two years. We won't have to think that that's going to happen again? No, sometimes with a private school you never know how many students you're going to have or what budget you're going to have to work with until the school year starts. You realize that it is part of your Conditional Use Pelmit that you stay within the enrollment numbers. Violation of the conditions can lead to the removal of your Conditional Use Permit as I know your consultant Mr. Beam has informed you. . If this item is approved tonight, can you tell me how many spaces extra you think you'll have on a daily basis in your parking lot? We built more than what was required, but we will issue permits for all of those so we will fill it up. There still probab~y will be more than 40 spaces more than the city requires. . To the extent you can, can you give me as much detail as you can regarding the parking, and what are the penalties if the requirements are not adhered to. Parking permits are issued first to seniors and then juniors. As far as monitoring the surrounding neighborhoods, Villa Vista has been where the most overflow parking has occurred. It was monitored on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays and they would respond to a complaint if someone called, then someone was sent over. A student does get ticketed and may receive 7 APPROVED Planning Commission July 19, 2004 detention and a fine, and the next step is they may get a suspension if they don't follow the rules. Have you had any of your students go to the level of parent discussions? Yes. you always get someone who disobeys the rules, sometimes the parents take the kevs. etc. Have you gotten to the level of suspension? Not for parking, no. . The parking problems in the neighborhood are reflective of a student population of 1060, and you're requesting to be able to go to an additional 90 students, is that correct? Yes. . Could you break out the probable population through the grades? Seniors - 239, Juniors 251, Sophomores - 292, and Freshmen - 310. . If you are allowed to expand your student population, will it be even across the board (freshman, sophomore, junior & seniors). This is relative to the parking, etc. It will always be higher in the freshman class, because over four years you always lose students from that class, parents move away, etc. You might start out at 310, but end up with 275 by the time they're seniors. . The original c.u.P. has been reviewed, and there is no provision for not holding simultaneous events. It could have been just something that the City Council asked us to do, in addition to minimizing activities by outside groups in respect to the neighbors. CIF. rules preclude us from using the facility on Sunday for sporting events, and out of respect to the neighborhood, we have turned down hundreds of requests (soccer, etc.) to use the field. We have said no. The public was invited to speak. All were opposed to the project. Steve Phillips, 2157 N. Diamond Street. Stated he lives two houses south of the southerly boundary of Lutheran High School's parking lot. He said he would address just one issLle tll;!! troubled him. He has lived in his home for 32 years, he was involved in the building and design process as a neighbor when Lutheran did their addition. There were a lot of promises made to at the time of the original c.u.P. and those dealt with parking, security and keeping the gates locked. He has never seen a security person. Noise is a serious problem because of students in their cars with their radios. He discussed this with the Dean of Students and nothing was done about it. Jim Koch, 2167 N. Diamond Street. He lives next to the school, they share a common wall. His concern is just as much with the Commission as it is with the school as a neighbor. Several promises were made when the school went through the expansion. Conditions of approval were made by the Commission and no follow-through has been made. The traffic problem is still not under control. The Staff Report states that you talked to the City of Orange Police it was not addressed that there had been substantially more activity over the last 3-4 years than what had happened previously (it was only noted that compared to other schools, it was less). What guarantee is there that enrollment will stop at 1 1 50? If the City wants to approve this, just make sure you follow through on it. Jean Krever, 2307 N. Sacramento. There have been inconveniences that the growth of the school has imposed on the neighborhood. The major issue is the traffic. She leaves and tries to get out through the 7:30 a.m. crowd and there is no "keep clear" section, there is no light. And they are forming a line to get into the driveway, which they take care of at the school, but not for the surrounding neighborhoods. There are vulgarities and profanities, and it is very uncomfortable to approach the comer and know you are going to be involved in a tense situation. Her daughter was 8 APPROVED Planning Commission July 19,2004 involved in a fender-bender at the stop sign. If they're already at 1090 population, where does it stop? Kim Hayden, 2326 E. Villa Vista. It is difficult to find parking in her own neighborhood. She is in college and sees kids smoking and dumping trash. The kids do not take it seriously enough to where they don't park there. The students speed up and down the street. She stated that she wants to make Villa Vista a permit parking only street. (Mr. Hohnbaum stated that permit parking is done through the Public Works department through an application. The traffic engineer, in particular, would be reviewing it. Also, a petition would need to be circulated among the neighbors.) Sue Hayden, 2326 E. Villa Vista. Shares a common wall with the north side where the gymnasium is located. Her privacy has been lost in addition to her view, which is now a 40-foot concrete wall of the gymnasium. She now has heard that they will be adding additional modular classrooms on the north side of the school. Parking is also a problem, it does not appear that the school follows up when they ticket a student's car. Jeff Mulford, 2321 N. Clinton Street. He and his wife have lived in the neighborhood for over 35 years. He attended the meeting on June 14th, invited by Mr. Kahler. This year was really a severe year, where he called on a daily basis. In the meeting with Mr. Kahler, the residents assumed that the parking lot is full, which it is. He read a letter that he sent after the June 14th meeting to Mr. Kahler. He reiterated that he wanted to work together for the good of the neighborhood. In the letter he stated that Mr. Kahler and the neighbors had agreed that there would be no student parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, with particular emphasis on no parking on Villa Vista Way. Also of concern is the property owned by Lutheran High School on the comer of Villa Vista and Santiago Boulevard. It was being used as additional parking for students. The high school says no longer will student parking be allowed at 2343 Villa Vista Way. He hopes the high school adheres to its promise to keep the students off of Villa Vista Way. Mr. Kahler stated that he was aware of the concerns for the parking on V ilIa Vista and the new Dean of Students was made aware of the problem. He noted that the new gymnasium was actually smaller than that originally proposed in the plan. As far as the six-foot perimeter wall, they have been adding sections of the wall each year, with the north side being done this past year. Mr. Bonina stated that at the end of the day, the real issue boils down to parking. There were other issues brought up, and the major issue raised was that of parking. He asked Mr. Kahler what he could suggest to eliminate or minimize the parking problem. Mr. Kahler stated that some of the disciplines needed to be accelerated (parent meetings, suspensions), they should do it earlier in the year to set an example, and there should be further enforcement to ensure no parking in the neighborhood. Commissioner Brandman asked what the original agreement was with the city, in terms of timeline and the construction of the perimeter wall. Mr. Kahler stated that there was no specific timelines, it was just part of the phased construction. Ms. Brandman asked if the school was in violation of that phasing policy? He stated no, there were approximately seven phases identified originally, the 9 Planning Commission i\.PPROVED July 19, 2004 wall itself was not identified with any particular phase, they have just been taking a section at a time as they can. Commissioner Smith stated that she would support the comments made by Commissioner's Bonina and Brandman. She stated that it appeared that Mr. Kahler was realizing that the parking issue was, indeed, the problem of the school. She said that looking at the number of people in the school, it looked as if 20-25 of the students were parking in violation, which is approximately 2% of the school. So as not to blow the issue out of proportion, that meant that 98% of the students were in compliance. The public hearing was closed. Co-Chairman Bonina asked if there were any further questions, there were none. He also stated several things that he would like to see included in a motion (and they are detailed in the actual motion, below) either to continue or approve. Commissioner Brandman moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 29-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2499-04 amending CUP No. 2262-98, and it was seconded by Vice Chair Bonina with the following conditions: (1) Rental property should have parking limit stipulated in the lease. (2) The gate should be closed from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (3) The perimeter wall must be completed. (4) No parking in the surrounding neighborhoods will be allowed. (5) School should provide Courtesy Education (relative to driving and parking). (6) No simultaneous events shall be allowed. (7) Discipline shall be enforced for ticketing, parent meetings and suspensions for students parking in the no parking areas. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman and Smith None None Commissioners Domer, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Brandman moved to adjourn the meeting, and it was seconded by Vice Chair Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman and Smith None None Commissioners Domer, Pruett MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 11: 12 p.m. 10