Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange January 7, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p. m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Master STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning;Jack McGee, Director of Commur.;ity Develop~ ilerft;Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney;Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and --Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Scott,- seionded byCommis~ sfone~.Murphy, that the Minutes of December 19, 1990 be approgt~recorded. K AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED tip ;IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT1878-90 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1362-90 - IDM CORPORATION:A proposal to allow the cor~~~lidation . o£. t~~.~y„ •10 story office buildings into a singlej~3 story ~ fee b,~;i,~.ding with an equivalent square f ootug~. ~ pr'oposal '; ~ s a modification to previously approvedCon~itt't~l Usep`~ tit- ,1721-88. Subject property ~slocated'bn the east side of State College Boulevard between Orangewood ~,i~e and the Santa Ana Freeway (Orange Drive~-In Theater) . x °°NOTE: Negative Declaration X362-90 has been pr~pate:~ to assess the envi ronmentail impacts obi this • pro'~ t~,Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The apticnt`a.on ~ a modification of a previ ou sly approved Conti tirl.:'£;~E~xPPe'`a~ t and site plan. A conditional use permit ~ r~quir~s~ tto authorize the office use it the indus~~ial z4a~e at~ d •'~?~.:permit the building height ih excess mf the industrial .~~;;height limitations. In 1989 IDM rece~~~;~'ed tp~nval f~~rt~-I~: ity Council of a one million six hundred- s~v~~A~ty~f'ive ~! nt~ ~;-square foot office development proposalw~+thd~,v~~,,.~n~ '~ o,-•,occur in two phases. At this tithe IDM' is ~~t~~,'~ t;modify that site plan, alth~irea:a-~~,~ Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1991 - Page 2 construction phasing and same square footage to be developedineachphaseoverall. The original proposal consisted of two 10-story buildings and one 18-story building in phase one in the City of Orange, and two 18-story buildings in phase two. The proposal to consolidate the two 10-story buildings into one 23-story building would have the equivalent square footage of 500,000 square feet. One other significant change to the site plan is the re-orientation of the primary access on the site. Previously the primary access was taken off the sou therly driveway onto Anaheim Blvd. and currently the proposal shows phase one primary access re-oriented to the westerly driveway off of State College. This change results in the creation of a five legged intersection. City Traffic Engineers of both Anaheim and Orange have expressed concerns with this intersection, particularly with regard to its safety and operational efficiency. The applicant has made one additional request for a time extension of the approval of Conditional Use Permit 1721. If the current proposal is approved, the applicant requests that the two approvals run concurrently. The Commission has several major considerations to make. One is the 23-story building height. Another, is the five legged intersection. Another, the extension of the original Conditional Use Permit 1721 and the two alternative proposals running concurrently. One correction was made and noted in the staff report. Under "Project Determination" Page 8) it states the Planning Commission will make the final determination on this item. However, because the original proposal was approved by the City Council and this is a modification to a City Council approved project, the Commission's action should be a recommendation to the City Council. The f first Declaration. the changes prepared for and shadow Declaration, previous prop item for consideration A Negative Declaration was and the anticipated impa the original project and studies are incorporated which will be the primary sal and the current one. is the Negative prepared to discuss cts. An E.I.R. was certified. Traffic into the Negative changes between the There are a few minor corrections/modifications in the staff report: Condition 17, (Page 10) the last word in the second line "prior to issuance of material..." should be "prior to issuance of building permits...". Condition 54, (Page 18) Chapman Avenue at Rampart Street one line was left out and needs to be inserted: "Construct a westbound free right turn lane." Condition 55 (Page 20) very first sentence was repeated from the previous page. It is to be crossed out. Lastly, Condition 116 (Page 27) above "Note:", rather than saying "for duration," it should say "for curation,". t Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1991 - Page 3 The public hearing was opened. Applicant Ron Winkler, IDM Corporation, 5150 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, understood the City has been in receipt of a letter from the Anaheim Planning Department requesting a continuance of the hearing so they could further study some of the impacts along State College caused by the re-configuration of the intersection. It is IDM's request to also continue the hearing to another meeting date. Chairman Bosch acknowledged receiving a letter from Anaheim making that request, as well as a copy of the letter to the City of Orange Traffic Engineer, similarly requesting a review of the signalization and phasing of that intersection. Those speaking in opposition John Lauer, Principal Transportation Planner, City of Anaheim, is not opposed to the project, but is glad to hear a request for continuation in order to give them time to study the traffic impacts and signal coordination along the State College corridor. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch pointed out there are a variety of unresolved issues and perhaps other new issues that need to be addressed with regard to this. The Commission is aware of the five legged intersection, the large distance across the intersection, lane stripping and signalization concerns. One significant issue in the application is the impact of the building height to surrounding properties. The Tentative Parcel Map must also be revised if the C.U.P. is altered. The Commission needs to consider the concept of two alternative proposals (or approvals) running concurrently on the same site if the C.U.P. were to be approved. Commissioner Scott asked if a 30 day extension would be sufficient for the applicant to work with City staff from both cities? Mr. Winkler did not have a problem with that time frame and he could submit something for staff's review by February 1, 1991. Chairman Bosch stressed the Commission's concern about their having adequate time for review prior to another hearing. Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 1991 - Page 4 IN RE: hoved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to continue Conditional Use Permit 1878-90 and Negative Declaration 1362-90 to a special meeting of February 11, 1991, 7:00 p.m. If the Commission does not receive the necessary information by February 1, 1991, the meeting of February 11, 1991 shall be cancelled. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner NEW HEARINGS Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott Master CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1885-90 1366-90 - ASPEN-MAIN PARTNERSHIP: MOTION CARRIED AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION A proposal to allow a mixed use office, commercial and industrial development in the M-2 zone on property located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Struck Avenue. This application is a revision of a previous development proposal which was denied by the Planning Commission. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1366-90 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. A staff report was not presented. Ms. Wolff stated the Traffic Engineer brought to her attention there was one condition that was-left out of the staff report. Condition 26 should be added regarding dedication of access rights at the two northerly driveway locations to provide future reciprocal access rights to the property to the north. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Rick Blomgren, Architect for the applicant, 1010 West Chapman, Suite 210, asked if the Commission had any questions. Chairman Bosch asked if he were f amiliar with the conditions, including the omitted condition which will be added? Mr. Blomgren had read the conditions and had a couple of clarifications/questions. Page 4, Item 11, indicated there were 70 parking stalls in the proximity to the DMV building. There are 76 stalls. Item 12, the parking ratio would be changed from 8.73 to 9.17 parking stalls. Page 8, Condition 9, regarding five fire hydrants. They have had a preliminary meeting with the Fire Department and there is a possibility they may be able to do with four hydrants. They request the condition be amended to four. Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1991 - Page 5 Commissioner Scott preferred to leave that condition as it stands with five hydrants since a representative from the Fire Department was not at the meeting. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1366-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ~ ~ ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1885-90 subject to the alterations in the conditions, plus the additional condition 26 which would provide reciprocal access to the property to the north for future circulation. AYES: Commissioners NOES:' None ABSENT: Commissioner IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF ORANGE: Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott Master MOTION CARRIED 1-91 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1369-91 - A proposal to amend sections of the Orange Municipal Code to add provisions regarding the keeping of exotic pets on residentially zoned property. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1369-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. Staff is looking for input and guidance from the Commission. The ordinance takes the direction of providing Zoning Administrator approved permits and Administrative Adjustments which is fairly quick and inexpensive remedies for minor modifications to the code. The Zoning Administrator would approve Administrative Adjustments on a case-by-case basis for miniature livestock or exotic pets. Staff proposes the miniature livestock only in the R-1 zones -- R-1-6 through R-1-15 (they are currently permitted in the R-1-20 and 40 zones) and exotic pets to be permitted in all the residential zoning districts (R-1,2, and 3 and 4). The proposal is based on the number of pets per property. The intent is to be fairly consistent with the miniature livestock as with dogs and cats because of similar impacts on the neighborhood. The applicant is Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1991 - Page 6 provide a consent form from property owner, notification of adjacent property owners for such permits and an affidavit stating the animal is not dangerous and the owner accepts responsibility. Chairman Bosch has some concern with the Ordinance as written and he would benefit from further education and discussion on the intent of exotic animals. He is also concerned that an Ordinance not be written so specific as to individually name species so that it has to come back before the Commission or Council every year. He suggested looking at development__ standards, as well as definitions of the types of animals to assure the development standards are readily understandable to the citizens who wish to have pets. He personally would like to have a study session to look into this further. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-91 and Negative Declaration 1369-91, for 90 days to allow time for additional comments and research by staff, to a study session on April 8, 1991 at 5:30 p.m.. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch asked what the policy or procedures was regarding the role of enforcement? Is enforcement currently on a nuisance basis? Mr. Godlewski responded enforcement is currently on a nuisance basis. They don't have active enforcement that predicated the Ordinance. It was brought about by a citizen's concern to the City Council and staff was directed to look into the Ordinance. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. s 1 d