Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - April 5 APPROVED MINUTES April 5, 2004 Monday-7:00 p.m. Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2004 Commissioner Smith moved to approve the minutes from the February 18, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2474-03 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 2003-0019 - KOREAN AMERICAN CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY A proposal to use a vacated day-care facility for a church and day-care and to allow a 20% reduction (from 10' to 8') in street side setback for parking. The site is located at 2261 N. Orange-Olive road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303-c (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item, and Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, answered questions from the Commissioners on this project. An overview of the changes to the project was APPROVED Planning Commission April 5, 2004 also given by the project's architect Kyo Sang Kim, (13028 E. Espinheria Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703). The Commissioners had voiced their concerns at the previous Planning Commission meeting over (a) traffic and parking, (b) adverse traffic impact on Shaffer Street, (c) the safety of the children, and (d) visibility at the street intersection. The architect stated that since the last meeting, they had addressed the concerns and requirements of the Planning Commission (noted above). He noted that the current visibility problem will be corrected by cutting down all the shrubs and cleaning up the area located at the comer. Chairman Pruett thanked the applicant for the changes made by the Korean American Christian Reformed Church. The commissioners had the following questions and comments: . Was this project noticed again to residents surround the property? Yes. . The gate that provides access to the main buildings from the parking lot area, is that a coded gate that would be accessible only to the staff? The southerly gate will be either coded or locked so that only employees will have entrance from that gate. The children and the parents will enter from the north end of the campus. . The 6' fence on the northerly comer of the property - will that remain? Chairman Pruett questioned whether there was a need to keep that fence along the parking lot on the north side. He stated that it creates a barrier between the facility and the community, and by removing it, it would create an openness. It is not a requirement, but since they do have that height currently, they would like to keep it, and they will be adding additional fencing (matching to existing). If the city requires it, they will remove it, but would like to utilize as much as possible if they could. Keeping the fence would enhance the security to the children. Commissioner Smith said she would not vote to remove it. Commissioner Domer stated that the fence acted as a deterrent to parishioners parking in the neighborhood (off Shaffer) and crossing the median and entering the church grounds, which they cannot do with the fence there. . On the plan, there is a trash enclosure and a storage area. The access to the trash enclosure appears to be through a parking space. Would there be any problem to the applicant in switching these two locations? There would be no problem in changing the locations. Chris Carnes noted that Staff has reviewed the trash requirements with the Public Works Department and because there would not be an excess amount of trash, the facility is going to a residential-type bin pick-up so they will reconfigure how they have the trash enclosed area, and their trash will probably be placed out on Shaffer. . Regarding the gate that separates the school property from the 17 parking spaces, is that a self-closing gate? It is an existing gate that is self-closing, and Chris Carnes noted that, if required, a condition could be included to require that it be self- closing. . Regarding the concern for street parking and being considerate of the neighboring community (there is no parking allowed on Orange-Olive), is there a possibility of adding an additional parking space in the parking lot at the new entrance off Shaffer? Unfortunately, no. If any additional cars were put to the north of the 2 APPROVED Planning Commission April 5, 2004 island area, it would not meet the 25' requirement and would block two-way traffic coming in and off of Orange-Olive. There is an existing planter, which could be removed. Staff agreed to look into ways to increase the parking. Commissioner Smith noted that this area is not the only parking available on site, and that there is additional parking in the south part of the property. There is a limit in place as to how much the church can grow due to the limited size of the facility and it is believed that the present parking is adequate. Commissioner Domer thanked Staff and the architect for bringing back this project in such a fine manner. He encouraged the applicant to work with the residents in the neighborhood and always keep an open communication to perhaps prevent any conflict. He also suggested that the church may wish to offer space to the community for community events, as appropriate Commissioner Smith thanked the applicant for the changes that were made. She moved to adopt Resolution No. 48-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 24-74-03 and Administrative Adjustment 2003-0019, with the following conditions: (1) Reconfigure the trash bins at their current location (2) Extend the wrought iron fence along the property on both Orange-Olive Road and along Shaffer with an automatically controlled locking gate on Shaffer. (3) Gate between the 17 parking spaces and the playground area be self-locking for additional security reasons. The Commissioners asked that Staff formulate a condition from the notes above to add Condition 10 that would deal with gates and locks, and Condition 11 to deal with fencing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2487-03 - HAIR CALIFORNIA BEAUTY ACADEMY A proposal to relocate an existing school from 636-640 North Tustin Street to 1110 North Tustin Street in order to comply with the code requirements for parking. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (class 1 - Existing Facilities). 3 Planning Commission APPROVED April 5, 2004 Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item. The applicant, Thuy Witham, presented her project and responded to questions. There was no public participation (either in favor or opposed) to the project. Members of the Commission noted the following questions and concerns: The Staff Report did not have information on the latest restaurant located at this site. . The previous C.U.P. included alcohol sales with the restaurant use. Ms. Roseberry asked the Commissioners to note Condition 8 in the resolution, which states that the approval of this C. UP. would replace and supercede an existing C. UP. that would eliminate the sale of alcoholic beverages. . Who is the current owner of the property because it states that there is on going code enforcement related to construction without building permits. The code enforcement issues have been resolved by the applicant. . Regarding the three shifts noted for teaching students, and the staff recommendation that limits the number of students on site at anyone time - what is the rationale behind this? Given that there are 60 parking spaces and limiting it to 35 students, does that impede the applicant's ability to grow? Generally when there is a school being proposed in a commercial area, and this is one of the reasons why there is a C. UP., staff looks at the number of parking spaces required and ensures that there is a condition on the project to ensure that the parking does not go over that. The applicant saw no problem with this restriction. . Regarding the loading zone, it is not listed on the site diagram (although listed as a condition in the C.U.P). It is customary for that type of commercial building to have a loading zone and a loading area. There is plenty of parking on the site to account for a loading zone. . What are the plans for the patio area in front? There are no current plans for now, but eventually it might be built into an office; in the meantime, it may be used for student breaks. Commissioner Brandman moved to adopt Resolution No. 08-04 approving Conditional Use Permit no. 2487-03. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Domer. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-0002, ZONE CHANGE 1222-03, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1720-03 - DEL RIO LLC. 4 APPROVED April 5, 2004 Planning Commission The applicant is proposing to develop the 73-acre subject site with 716 dwelling units. The project includes the dedication of 11 acres for use as a public park and 7 acres as permanent open space. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1720-03 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR Process. Commissioner Brandman recused herself as she has an interest in a company doing business with this project. The project was introduced by Leslie Aranda Roseberry and Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, gave the Staff report on this project. The applicant, Del Rio, LLC, is proposing a new residential development containing 716 dwelling units. The proposal includes the dedication and improvements for a new 1O.65-acre public park and 7 acres as permanent open space. The project site is located in north Orange and is approximately 73 acres in size. The project is presently located in a County Island and is under County of Orange jurisdiction. See Attachment no. 4 - Project Vicinity Map. The subject site was formerly used for the extraction of sand and gravel, and the applicant is presently in the process of filling the extraction pit with imported soils. Previous to this, the City Council has approved the Predevelopment Agreement by and between the City of Orange and Del Rio LLC, which in concept reviewed the proposal and established the criteria for the applicant to continue with the entitlement request. It also included that the City of Orange will process the annexation of the land from the County of Orange. The proposal, as it currently stands, does not include any plans for the residential or the park site, which will be submitted at a future date. The following questions/concerns were raised to staff by some of the Commissioners regarding this project: . Regarding the bio-swale, what year storm is that being sized to? The bio-swale is being sized to what is called the "first flush" storm (a one to one and one-half year storm). It's designed for the first storm to wash down all the debris that occupies the swale so that it doesn't flow into the riverbed. . Maintenance of the bio-swale is noted as "still to be negotiated." Will the city be responsible for this? As it is currently anticipated, the city would not absorb any of the costs of maintenance. It is still being studied as to who would be the appropriate body to actually perform the maintenance. Is there a reason why the maintenance issue has not been finalized? There may be more than one mechanism to do that - it could be a Homeowner's Association responsibility, a CFD could be established to pick up the financial responsibilities, in which case the city could perform that work, etc. The design of the bio-swale has not yet been completed, so there is no good estimate of costs at this time. 5 APPROVED Planning Commission April 5, 2004 . Is there any density bonus for home ownership opportunities? That will come at a later time; that is not part of the proposal in front of us tonight. . Will the commission be able to impose conditions of approval on any of the later phases to be developed? If the Development Plan is approved tonight (which includes things like sidewalk plans, etc.) then the commission cannot vary from that in the future. The commission, however, could recommend modifications to the Development Plan. . Please explain the affordable housing element of the plan. The city does not require residential developments to provide a certain percentage of affordable housing. But the developer is to consider the ability to provide affordable housing as part of the project. In this particular case, the applicant has presented that because of the high density he will be able to provide relatively affordable housing prices. . Is the existing width of Glassell, will that be the final width once this project is completed? Yes, it will be the final width, with the improvements that are being proposed with this project. It is not the ultimate width per city standards, but it has been deemed to be sufficient, and the appropriate mitigation measures have been included in this proposal. . The park that is included, will that be reviewed by the city's parks department? Yes, that is included in the development plan. . Who will be responsible for maintaining the trails? That will be determined prior to the final development of the property, and will be the same organization that also maintains the bio-swales. . Does the pit on site have to be filled in prior to developing the property? That has not been determined, but the applicant is considering it. If they do decide to do that, plans will have to be submitted as to how they can do that. At this time they have not submitted those plans. . What is the overall phasing of the project? Development will begin on the east side; the first residential area would be that adjacent to Glassell. And then it will proceed to the properties to the north and to the west. During that time the park site will be improved. Prior to development, the bio-swales and the green way areas will have to be installed first. The third component is the far northwest corner of the property. . What is the difference between the bio-swale and the greenway area? The bio-swale is the prominent feature in the water quality management plan, it is the strain portion of the treatment. The greenway is also part of the water quality management area, and it is the detention basin, but it also includes the passive recreational area, the trails and some picnic areas. The green way area is designed to hold the first flush water for 72 hours before it can be released. It ensures that any damaged biotics in there have been destroyed. Frank Elfend, the developer, (Elf end & Associates, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1260, Irvine, CA 92612), gave a presentation on the project. He thanked the staff for their work on the project, and noted that this project had been in development for three and one-half years prior to this presentation. He mentioned that an earlier proposal had been rejected by the city for a variety of reasons (traffic, not enough mixed housing, park was not large enough, no mitigation to the Orange School District, the Batavia-Riverdale extension, etc.) He further explained the work being done to mitigate traffic at six critical intersections, as well as to further develop the sports park area and the passive park area. Also, there was a need to provide an access point to the 6 APPROVED Planning Commission April 5, 2004 property that was viewed favorably by all parties (the developer, the city, the experts, and by the neighbors). The issue with the Orange County School District is one that has been worked on for quite some time by the developer. Mr. Elfend reported that they are very close to completing a Mitigation Agreement that will require the developer of the Del Rio project to provide a $6 million mitigation payment to the Orange Unified School District, which will be provided up front. The revised land-use plan also deleted all of the apartments and housing densities in excess of the City of Orange development standards. Of great importance to the developer was how they would interface their property with the R.J. Noble property, since it was no longer a part of this entitlement request. The current project provides substantial setback and screening from the R. J. Noble operation. The closest stationary use of the Noble project to the new development is approximately 1,000 feet. Mr. Elfend explained his company's involvement with the local neighbors, and the mitigating measures they have taken (including building a block wall along the Tamarin-Orange frontage with Glassell Street, to minimize noise). The Del Rio developers continued a community outreach program, going door-to-door to inform the neighboring property owners of their plans. He reported that, to date, they have informed nearly 1,000 property owners. The effort-to-date has resulted in 70 letters of support for the project, which have been submitted to the city. Mr. Elfend presented documents to the Commission that stated that R.I. Noble's operations were daytime - and therefore nighttime noise concerns were not an issue; additionally, because of the site's topography (the machinery is located within a depression), significant noise does not leave the site. That is further noted in the second handout, where R.J. Noble indicates that the days of operation are Monday - Sunday (for the moment), but that the hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Mr. Elfend explained that the reason he wanted these documents put into the public record is that the City had received a letter (that day) which indicated that the R.J. Noble facility operated 24-hours per day. He also provided copies of an arbitration regarding the crushing operations by R.I. Noble that noted that R. J. Noble would move the crushing operation to the bottom of a hole that is being dug on the property "as there is no other place to put it." Some of the commissioners had questions/concerns for Mr. Elfend: . Are the hours of operation that you mentioned the hours for the entire site, or are they only for a specific area? The hours are for what R. J Noble calls the Del Rio portion of the site, as well as their subsequent expansion. The actual asphalt operation itself, according to information provided by the county, they are to comply with the restrictions of the noise ordinance of the county, and that is not a 24-hour operation for that site. (Chair Pruett requested that this line of questioning not continue, as it was unfair to put the applicant in the position of addressing the hours of operation of RJ Noble). . How deep is the bio-swale? (This question was answered by Mr. Pat Fusco, Fusco Engineering). We don't like the bio-swale to be deep, ever. The purpose of the bio-swale and treatment wetlands is to percolate the water into the soil and get it down there fast, and so our expectation would be that if water was to pool in there right after the first flush storm, it would only be there for 48 hours or less and maybe 6-10 inches. . When it says in the Development Agreement that the owner/developer will fund and construct the multi-stage treatment system (the bio-swale), when it says funding, what is it 7 APPROVED Planning Commission April 5, 2004 talking about? Is that the construction of it and not the maintenance? As of right now, there are some significant engineering that goes into the maintenance side of it, and then the financing segment of it will be part of the CFD or the HOA., but the developer will bear responsibility for that. . It is clear who has responsibility for all parts of this development (trails, landscaping, etc.) but it is not clear who bears maintenance responsibility for the bio-swale. The Development Agreement states that at the end of the project development, the bio-swale will be deeded over to the city. That creates two questions: (1) once it becomes the city, it appears the city will bear financial cost for maintaining it unless it's funded by the developer for the long-term; and (2) it appears that the homeowner's association will have responsibility for maintaining the trail, and the trail is on the other side of the development, so essentially by dedicating that land to the city, you are separating the trails from the development. How do they maintain it if they don't have access to it? Chris Carnes stated that there have been no final decisions, and would prefer postponing the final decision for the bio-swale (maintenance, size, etc.) until the Tentative Tract Map. At that point there will be a design for the bio-swale, they will know what the phasing for the project is, and the funding source responsibilities can be better defined. Chair Pruett went on to explain that it was important for the commission to focus on the fact that the impacts of R.J. Noble are R. J. Noble's responsibility - and are not part of the discussion before the commission, and they are required to operate under their regulations and City Code. The commission should focus on the Del Rio project and it's impacts. Commissioner Smith questioned whether the developer should be responsible for mitigating the noise made by the neighboring business (R.J. Noble). Assistant Attorney Gary Sheatz noted that the environmental analysis is based on the Del Rio project. Based on CEQA, it is not the developer's responsibility to mitigate the noise. If they choose to make sound attenuations (double-paned windows, for example) to make it more pleasant for the homeowners, that is their business, they are not required to do so. Public Participation Opposed Michael Benthall, 3039 W. Rippling Crest Hy Finkelstein, 242 E. Riverview Dennis Lambert, 3103 Sand Bar Circle Comments included: . Property density is too high. . Concerned for the children - no backyards, no family neighborhoods. . Answers to open questions are vague and nebulous . Proposed traffic light adjustment doesn't work . Could more parking be included in the development plan (sports park will bring in many additional cars). . First notice received 2 days prior to meeting . Not enough sound mitigation . Intersection at Richland & Glassell is too close to Riverdale. 8 APPROVED April 5, 2004 Planning Commission . Not enough time for public to respond to these issues. . Concerns about traffic cutting through neighborhood to avoid traffic lights . R.I. Noble's operations run well into the night; as opposed to what is reported. Not marked as Opposed or In Favor Dennis Steinwand, 236 E. Riverview Lisa Whaley, 345 E. Meadowbrook Lyle Overby (RJ. Noble), 11505 E. Lincoln Martha Martin, 3102 Sandbar Circle Comments included: . Mr. Overby stated that RJ. Noble believes project should be conditioned to mitigate noise. Invited commissioners to tour facility. . No overall concerns with project. . Never notified. Concerned with traffic and noise. Trucks come day and night. In Favor Lenore Hubbard, 101 W. Riverdale Avenue, #57 Nanci Townsend, 101 W. Riverdale, #53 Dennis Lauzon, 147 Riverdale Mike ShortIe, 3116 River Mist Albert Lopez, 445 E. Riverview Avenue Sandy Downs, 101 W. Riverdale, #56 Harriett Abbott, 2712 Pampas Street Diana Leatherman, 2724 N. Pampas Street Jon Dumitru, 469 S. Orange Larry Trabue, 3130 River Mist Circle Comments included: . Pleased with incorporation of sound wall . Developers have listened to them and made changes, where appropriate . Multiple projects have been proposed for this site, and believe that this solution is best for the community. . North Orange needs attention, this project will help bring that . Too much RJ. Noble noise . Concern that county will not manage the islands . Tours ofRJ. Noble have been denied . Would like to see a light at Richland . Tired of the dirt and mess, would like to see this project go through. Terry Austin, traffic engineer and principle with Austin Faust Associates responded to two topics made by the public: the traffic signal at Richland and cut-through traffic. Evaluation suggests that the neighbors will be better off with the Traffic signal at Richland. Traffic can back up and it looks like it's happening at Riverdale, but in actuality that back-up is related to access to the freeway. That is something that neither the city nor the project can solve, although there are some things that are underway in the future that hopefully will help that - and these are being done by Caltrans. The signal, as proposed, will create a gap so that residents can get out of their 9 APPROVED Planning Commission April 5, 2004 neighborhoods (without it, and the subsequent traffic back-up, residents can not exit their neighborhood). As relates to the cut-through traffic, the Del Rio project cannot change this, it cannot make changes in a residential neighborhood. What Del Rio is doing, is ensuring that the problem that currently exists there today will not be exacerbated. Most importantly, Del Rio is ensuring that no one exiting the project can go straight at Richland into the adjacent neighborhood. The proposal is that the traffic signal at Richland will only allow you to turn left or right. The commissioners made the following comments: . The problem of cut-through is still not being solved by the signal at Riverdale. By only having left and right turns, it would create a barrier to the people who live in the project who need access to the park, so that would not be beneficial to that community. . Will there be a left-hand turn going from west to east on Lincoln? It does not seem that there will be enough traffic to warrant a signal, but there will be the ability to turn left. . Concerned about the park going in last; it is noted that park will go in after 260th house developed. . Do not immediately restrict the ingress/egress to the development prior to trying it without the left-hand right-hand turn restriction first. Moved by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Vice-Chairman Bonina to adopt Resolution No. 12-04 recommending to the City Council the certification of Final Environmental Impact Report 1720-03 as adequately reviewing the environmental impacts of the proposal and as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett and Smith None Commissioner Brandman None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Vice-Chairman Bonina to adopt Resolution No. 13-04 recommending to the City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment 2004-0002. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett and Smith None Commissioner Brandman None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Vice-Chairman Bonina to adopt Resolution No. 14-04 recommending to the City Council the approval of Zone Change 1222-03 and a Development Agreement by and between the City of Orange and Del Rio. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett and Smith None Commissioner Brandman None MOTION CARRIED 10 Planning Commission ,APPROVED April 5, 2004 MINUTE ORDER: That the City Council seriously consider requiring the sports park to be constructed earlier than specified in this development agreement. The park not only provides recreational space, but also serves as a significant buffer of up to 1,000 feet between the new homes and the RJ. Noble operation. The meeting was adjourned to a Joint Study Session with City Council and Parks on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 6 p.m. in the Weimer Room regarding CIP Budget. 11