Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-1996 PC MinutesC_ p./-J-4-<'^--" C-.2S'O(). (;....<,,4 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange February 5, 1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attomey,Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR 1996 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to nominate Randy Bosch as Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 1996.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to nominate Ben Pruett as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 1996.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED INRE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2133-95 - CIRCLE K Lynn Duff, 1341 East Maple Avenue, representing Circle K, requested a continuance of their application.She has completed the paperworX for the CUP request on Tustin, but she lacks the land owne~s signature. As soon as she obtains his signature, they will be ready to proceed.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2133- 95 to the April 1, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED INRE:CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 1/15/96 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED I Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 INRE:NEW HEARINGS 1_ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2135-95 - THOMAS P. COX ARCHITECTS, INC. (WALGREEN EXPRESS) The applicant is proposing a drive-thru operation in conjunction with construction of a new 1,900 sq. ft.pharmacy, located at the southeast comer of Chapman Avenue and Main Street (addressed 111 South Main Street).NOTE:Negative Declaration 1487-95 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented a full staff report as there was opposition to this project. The proposal is a drive-thru pharmacy that is 1900 square feet. It is a retail operation; the only reason there is a conditional use permit required is because of the drive-thru use. There is a pick up and drop off window on the north and south sides of the building, accessible from the driveways on Main and Chapman. Access to the site is limited to right tum in and right tum out at both of those locations. There is no left tum permitted from either the west bound lanes on Chapman or south bound lanes on Main.The site has been affected by future road widening improvements that are slated for 1998. There will be a dedication of the property to put in a right tum lane and bus bay. Also, there is a 50 x 50 foot landscaped area at the very comer to match the Redevelopment Agency's landscape theme for that intersection.Commissioner Smith asked if the site were two lots?Mr. Donovan replied yes. It's two lots and also part of the proposal is to shift the property line over a little further to the south.Commissioner Smith asked if each lot were big enough for a full sized building with parXing, or is there some reason why a smaller sized building with a drive-thru configuration is proposed?Mr. Donovan said the existing use, American Savings Bank, is two parcels. The parXing area is a separate parcel, but it's part of the same development.Commissioner Smith understood it would become smaller with the dedications, bus bay and required landscaping.Mr. Donovan explained there is no minimum lot size in a commercial zone. Thereisnowayofsayingthesiteistoosmall. Staff uses a balance to evaluate a project as to what the architect has proposed and the square footage. A parXing requirement is applied based upon the parXing ordinance and landscaping.Mr. Jones added the applicant has chosen to show the separate parcel and some kind of development on there. The staff report points out the separate parcel and its future development is not before the Commission. The applicant wanted to show the shared access coming onto the site. But, that will be handled through some future entitlement process. The restaurant pad shown may be too large because it does not provide enough parXing.Commissioner Pruett asked if staff discussed with the applicant as to how the building is positioned on the property? If it were tumed 90 degrees, that takes care of some of the ingress and egress issues as it relates to opposing traffic.Mr. Donovan replied no. There were comments made through the site plan review process, but it may not have been clearty articulated. The public Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 Aoolicant David Sheegog, 3242 Halladay, Santa Ana, architect for the project, representing Walgreen's, was available to answer the Commission's questions. Commissioner Pruett asked if there was any consideration of tuming the building 90 degrees to where the drive-thru bays are on the east and west side of the building, rather than on the north and south?Mr. Sheegog knew it was Walgreen's decision as to what street they were going to face their building on.Both intersections are busy streets. Walgreen's uses a formula to dictate which street they want their building to face towards. Many of their stores have that cross over aspect. In the traffic studies they have done at their other locations, traffic has not been a problem. This was Walgreen's typical layout for a comer lot.Chairman Bosch explained this was a conditional use permit and the Commission was required to make findings with regard to the appropriateness of the requested use relative to potential impacts on the neighborhood. In this case, the use is only for the drive-thru window. He was not a fan of drive-thrus and his concem was relative to what that does for building placement and appropriateness on the site.Mr. Sheegog felt they would have similar concems if the building were tumed 90 degrees. It doesn~alleviate the problems. There could be pros and cons made to both designs. This is the design Walgreens would like to bring forward at this time.Chairman Bosch was concemed about the queueing problem and he would like Mr. Sheegog to address that with regard to the volume. On the northeriy drive thru lane where it appears that even a second car in order to maneuver behind a car waiting at the north side window, will have to partially block the exit lane for the south bound window as a car drives around the north bound on the east side of the site. Isn~this setting up a situation that is really dangerous and limits the site by doing that?Mr. Sheegog felt it could be a real issue if it were another use (such as McDonald's or bank teller lines).Traffic studies have been made at their other stores and the studies showed only two cars queued at one time during a period of 2 1/2 minutes.Chairman Bosch asked why there were two drive thru lanes if there is such a low volume and rapid response at the windows?Mr. Sheegog said it had to do with the intemal operation of the store. It was also a way Walgreens has diminished their queueing issue. Twenty percent of Walgreen's sales were using the drive thru as opposed to walk up traffic in the Anaheim store.Commissioner Pruett, using the site plan on the wall, explained how to tum the building 90 degrees. The trash and other activities could be moved down, out of the way, to share the area with a future use. You would be taking that 14 foot area off the back of the building. That would solve a lot of the traffic circulation because the building would be facing the other way.Mr. Sheegog said it was part of Walgreen's criteria to always have an escape lane. They would never put it against a property line. (Commissioner Pruett was not suggesting that.)Commissioner Pruett would like the applicant to take another try at making it wOrX another way and reevaluate the site.Mr. Sheegog could not speak for Walgreen's, but he could take the Commission' s direction and suggestions to Walgreen's so that they could decide what they want to Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 Those sDeakino in oODOsition Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, had concefrlS about the project, but the Commission voiced most of them. There is already a pharmacy across the street from the proposed use. She asked how long do they tie up Redevelopment for a project? The City apparently still owns the land. There was no rebuttal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett would like to see the applicant take this issue back to his client (Walgreen's) and come back to the Commission with a proposal, or look into his proposal he outlined to reconfigure the site. It would be a better project for the site if it were done. Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Sheegog if 30 days would be sufficient for them to continue this item? (Yes.) This will allow Mr. Sheegog time to go back and look for an altemative solution, including dialogue with staff, in order to come back to the Commission. There is no pre-approval or presumption If it will worX or not.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2135-96 to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 1996. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith didn~ think this was the right location for this project. There is too much traffic and it was too busy of an intersection for a queueing problem to possibly occur. She didn~ think it was compatible with other uses on that comer; the architecture of the building was not compatible with the Southwest Design Standards. Even with a continuance, she was not sure this was the best use for this major intersection.Chairman Bosch said the Southwest Design Standards were important. The Design Review Board looked at this project, yet he didn~ see this design as one that provides the transition the DRB discussed.This is a transitional location. The proposed exterior architectural design doesn~ conform to the Guidelines at all. He would want to see not only a hopeful reconfiguration of the drive up lanes, but the circulation would have to be revised, the architectural design would have to be modified from the proto-typical one because it doesn~ fit in with the area. He felt it was an improper use for the site as it is presented now.2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2138-95 - RUSSELL A. SHULL The applicant is requesting approval of the on-site sale of beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant.The site is located at 1736 North Tustin Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act per State CECA Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, a presentation of the staff report was waived.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Russell Shull, 1260 East Bell Avenue, Anaheim, has a business in Anaheim, which has been successful the past three years. He also has a beer and wine license at that location and has not had any problems.He wishes to open a restaurant in Orange for families.The public hearing was Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 Commissioner Smith commented the Police Department has confirmed that they are not protesting this license application. It is a commercial district and there is a presence of several other restaurants, which do serve alcohol. It was noted this project was exempt from the provisions of CECA review. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2138-95, with the 11 conditions of approval listed in the staff report, including condition 10 which calls for a one year review relative to any excessive police calls or service and other related problems. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED INRE: MISCELLANEOUS 1. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS In recent months, several representatives of the wireless communications industry have approached the City with requests to modify the current Zoning Ordinance provisions pertaining to cellular antennas.Industry issues were presented to the Planning Commission in an informational study session held on December 4, 1995. This item is now before the Commission to determine whether staff should proceed with an ordinance amendment, and if so, which issues the Planning Commission would like addressed.A report outlining and analyzing the specific proposals is included in the packet.Joan Wolff, Senior Planner, presented a full staff report on wireless communication antennas. She briefly summarized the C~y's existing ordinance regulating cellular antennas, and then summarized the requests the City has received regarding desired changes to that ordinance. The provisions regulating cellular antennas were adopted in 1991, and though they were reformatted with the recent Zoning Ordinance update, they were not changed at all. The regulations are:1. Cellular antennas are permitted in commercial and industrial zones only.2. Ground mounted antennas must be located at least 100 feet from a residential zone boundary, and may not exceed 65 feet in height.3. Building mounted antennas may be a maximum of 10 feet in height, and the height of the antenna from grade may not exceed the building height permitted in the zone. All associated equipment must be located in the building.In order to obtain the coverage they need, wireless telecommunications providers have asked that the City modify the ordinance to make it less restrictive. They have requested a number of specific changes.These changes include:1. Allow antennas in public rights of way.2. Eliminate the distance requirement between antennas and residential zones.3. Allow antennas in residential zones by administrative site plan review:o in athletic fields of schools and parks, and o on properties containing legal non conforming uses 4. Allow antennas in residential zones by CUP in all other areas outside of schools, parks and non conforming commercial uses.5. Allow antennas on public facilities (Public Institution zones).6. Allow antennas by CUP in circumstances where ordinance provisions cannot be met. 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 7. Allow building mounted antennas to exceed 10 feet in height, and allow associated equipment to be located outdoors instead of within the building. She prepared an exhibit showing the existing antennas in the City (there are approximately 8). She also asked the various providers how many new antenna sites they expect to construct in the future, and general location of their anticipated facilities. Within the next couple of years, Orange can expect approximately 20 new antennas. The location of these facilities is generally considered proprietary information, and such information has either been withheld, or provided with the condition that it not be made public. Longer range projections are not available, because once each company establishes its initial networX, additional antenna placement will be based on customer demand. This item is on the Agenda for discussion purposes. This is not a noticed hearing, although copies of the staff report were sent to each individual who signed the attendance list at the December 4 study session. Although no decisions can be made, staff is hoping that the Commission will provide them direction as to whether or not the current ordinance should be amended. If so, which of the requested provisions should be incorporated? On Pages 7 and 8 of the staff report is an itemized list of the proposed changes. Staff would appreciate as specific a direction as possible. Commissioner Romero asked how the existing antennas were placed? Was there a CUP requirement prior to their placement? Ms. Wolff responded they have building permits. The way the ordinance is structured now, if they meet the 100 foot distance requirement from residential, and they comply with the 65 foot height requirement, or the building mount antennas comply with the building height requirements of the zone, then they are permitted without a conditional use permit. They only need a building permit and are located in the commercial and industrial zones. The ones on South Flower Street in the Mobile Home Zone have been there for quite awhile. Those pre-date the ordinance and the exact history was not known.Public Inout Marie Luna, Project Manager with the Planning Center, representing Pacific Bell, 1300 Dove Street 100, Newport Beach, supported amending the ordinance specifically to allow wireless communication antennas in residential zones, particularly given that many parX sites are zoned residential. They support the antennas being placed in ball fields where they can be combined with the existing light structures. In addition, they would suppori the placement of antennas on legal non conforming commercial uses, which also happen to be in residential zones. One additional zone the staff report did not mention is the planned development area where there are water tanks or public facilities that are zoned planned development, which have the residential overlay district.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange ParX Acres, recommended any cellular installation in a residential zone be subject to a public hearing.Leslie Daigle, LA Cellular, also supports the proposed ordinance and looks forward to locating in these areas, particularly on some City parX sites.Bill Blodget represented ParX Orleans Homeowners Association, which is on South Glassell. They were bounded on the east by two commercial pieces of property; one being a gas station. They're bounded on the south by the river and by the freeway. On the south side, from the far east to the west side they felt there were two locations that would be applicable to a cellular site. It's not the focus of the Association to look to the south. It's their focus to look to the east. On the east side, they're at ground level with Glassell and on the southwest side, they're probably 40 feet below the freeway. They're looking at this for economic reasons because of deferred maintenance. They need income and it would behoove them to have this type of site.Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, thought there needed to be a presentation with each proposal. She didn~ think it was in the best interest of the City to stick these antennas up where ever the providers wanted them to go. Why are these antennas needed? Are the providers asking to exceed the 10 foot height outside? She asked that the long-time homeowners be protected. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 Chairman Bosch explained the reasons for additional antennas and the height requirements. Mr. Blodget mentioned his cellular phone does not worX at ParX Orleans because of a lack of proper antennas. He wrote to the Mayor on October 27, 1994 requesting that this be reviewed under the CUP process. He never received a response. He heard about the study session prior to this meeting. Commissioner Pruett asked what they were looking at in terms of density or the grid that is served by one antenna? Ms. Wolff understood that it varies; It depends on whether it is a cellular antenna, which has a wider range or a PCS antenna, which has a narrower range. The average spacing is between 1 1/2 to 2 miles, but that is also dictated by the demand, number of users and quality of coverage. Topography would also be a factor. Commissioner Romero asked about signal interruptions because of trees, heavy foliage, or high rise buildings? His concem is with the mono pole and its looks. Is there any way to make it more appealing by hiding them among the foliage? Has any city required the providers to hide the mono pole with any foliage? Ms. Luna explained unless the trees were very dense, the antennas that were typically used on mono poles can transmit. There are ceriain types of antennas that need line of sight, and typically those are microwave dish antennas. Foliage, in and of itself, is not a problem. But if there is a row of heavy duty Eucalyptus trees, antennas need to be placed carefully. There was a site in Irvine, next to a golf course at Campus and Harvard, where the mono pole had to be carefully placed. They wanted to use the aesthetics of the trees on the site to minimize the effects of the mono pole, but had to be careful of how it was placed. In some cases, tree branches do need to be cut in order for the antennas to have a clear transmission. There have been requirements of additional foliage from other cities to screen the base transceiver stations. Commissioner Romero asked what the Planning Center anticipates five years down the road with regards to numberlvolume of antenna requirements and providers within a 10 square mile area? Ms. Luna could only speak for Pacific Bell Mobile Services. They have proposed up to 7 sites in the City of Orange, and felt the sites would be adequate for a minimum of two to three years. Subsequent to that, the type of antennas that are used will be capable of doubling their channel capacity. So that their projection of 7 antennas could serve for up to 6 years. There are four providers on the marXet: L.A. Cellular and Air Touch, who are the original cellular companies. Since then the FCC basically opened up for auction the opportunity for other providers to buy within the electromagnetic spectrum to be able to use that spectrum for communication services. The two providers who won that auction were Cox Cable Services, being represented by J.M. Consulting, and Pacific Bell Mobile Services, who she represents. Ms. Daigle's understanding was that four additional carriers will be coming into the marXet and they will be auctioning some type of narrow band spectrum. There will be nine carriers at some point. Spacing of antennas depend on the demand of the particular networX and customer demand. The PCS operates at a different power level, and therefore requires more site for similar demand than L.A. Cellular. From L.A. Cellula~s perspective, over the next couple of years they anticipate several sites, one of which they are actively pursuing at the 22 Freeway and Grand. Commissioner Pruett's concem was the proliferation of the antennas, and how many Orange was going to end up with if rules are adopted to open up the marXet. It's true the marXet is driven by the Interstate Commerce. But as it relates to land use planning and issues, his concem was how to manage the proliferation of the antennas over time. By allowing these antennas in certain areas, he was concemed about what they were doing and if they were setting a precedent for future action in this area. Where he was headed was the concept of easing the City into this issue. He suggested the City be in a position of possibly opening up a certain number of antenna sites, possibly in the public right of way or on public property. The people interested in those sites would basically make a proposal in terms of how they would approach it and some of the other issues related to it. Put forward a proposal on how they would do this and then six months later, go through a similar process to open up a few more sites. He wanted to make sure they were doing the right thing and managing it correctly. He realized it presents 7 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 some problems for the utilities or different providers. He wanted their reaction to his suggestion in moving this in a gradual fashion. Chairman Bosch stated the Commission's purview was land use and land use decisions. It sounded like Commissioner Pruett was entering into an area that is the purview of the City Council with regard to uses of public right of way and licensing agreements or proposals for how that would be developed. The key concem is to advise the City Council of how the Commission felt. Technology might be accommodated in the City in a way that meets private and commercial needs without negatively impacting the community at large. Mr. Soo-Hoo replied that was correct. The purview of the Planning Commission is the land use on private properties. If the Commission wished, it could go ahead and suggest a concept to the Council for it to pursue. The primary evaluation before the Commission though should be proposals that relate to private properties.Commissioner Pruett appreciated their comments and agreed. He was suggesting that by easing into this, it would allow the City to evaluate the new land use planning issue. He was reluctant to open the gate without managing how or what was going to come through that gate in terms of how it impacts land use from the standpoint of density and a variety of other issues. How many antennas does the City want in terms of density? What types of locations is the City looking at? He wants to ease Into this so as not to make some mistakes.Chairman Bosch said the key concem would be the placement of antennas, type, size, height. There are limits to what the Commission feels are proper land uses. That may mean that sort of limitation will create some holes in an essential coverage pattem to allow adequate communication. That would be detrimental to advancing the technology in serving the citizens. Then there is always the process to look into in terms of waivers, variances and staff review where that might be proven to occur that helps the problem without opening up the whole City to begin with for the best proposal that comes along. And, it separates it from the commercial aspect that the City Council would have under their purview relative to how they might allow these uses to occur on public lands.Commissioner Pruett was not trying to be obstructive or was not opposed to this. It's something that is a value to the community. He was a little concemed when they had 10 antennas by one provider and may have as many as 10 providers. That's a big density issue.Mr. Bennyhoff asked what the range of the antennas were? Did it depend on line of sight? Do they have a certain radius of effectiveness?Ms. Wolff said the antennas do not have endless signals. They're not like radios; they don~ have that kind of power. The range is approximately 11/2 to 2 miles.Susan DeSantis of the Planning Center, made the observation they were not just dealing with an issue of range, but also an issue of capacity. There is a difference between the various technologies that are being used in terms of the amount of volume of calls that can be handled. The Commission might benefit from having some of the technical radio frequency experts here to address some of the issues involved with the design of the systems. It would be very difficult to identify fixed locations and to try to worX the design of the system within those fixed locations. Because the needs and technical requirements of each of the systems vary. Commissioner Pruett's suggestion would be difficult to worX with from a service provider point of view. They have been wOrXing with the City since April of last year;wOrXing within the existing parameters of the Zoning Ordinance and identifying locations that will meet the technical requirements of Pacific Bell Mobile Services. They have identified 3 sites that happen to fall within residentially zoned areas that are either on non conforming properties or in one instance, in a Public Institution zone. She believed all three of those sites would be found acceptable by the Commission. She was looking for some way to help make this more tangible to the Commission by bringing some examples forward of what it was they were talking about. With Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cox, California PCS, these two companies are developing the personal communication services - the new digital technology. They don~ have an existing networX in place at this time, as L.A. Cellular and Air Touch do. The needs are different. In terms of the baseline networX, they are talking 8 I Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 about 7 sites within the City of Orange. As they look down the road five years from now, as they are seeking to meet the marXet demands that might exist, it is their belief that they will be able to meet those needs without putting up additional antennas. They will accomplish this through what is called micro cell technology. She didn~ think there would be a significant proliferation beyond the numbers being discussed. Even though there are more antenna facilities required with the digital technology, generally speaking, the height will be lower, 35 to 40 feet, which is the same height as the lighting standards and many traffic signals. They will blend in easily with the existing vertical elements. The other factor with digital is that you are dealing with significantly increased capacity - more than seven times what is available now through the analog technology. They are putting in place a digital system and it would be operational by January, 1997.Ms. DeSantis gave another example about a site. The site they identified is with the Orange County Medical Building, it's parXing lot backs up to the freeway. In the parXing lot, they would be able to replicate the lighting standard - exact height - you wouldn~ even know it was there. They're looking for ways to make them invisible and to locate them in areas where there would be no aesthetic or health and safety concems.Ms. Daigle said as far as heights go, they're looking for optimum height. Higher is not necessarily better.They don~ have anything in their inventory that is 200 feet tall. Most of their antennas are within the 60 foot range. They are currently analog with most of their sites. And '96 is what they call "digital deployment". They're going to be doing a lot of add-ons to their existing facilities. This communication brings public safety - the 911 worXs off of that, emergency roadside service, they provide phones to police and fire. Ms. DeNiro asked whose responsibility would it be for the liability and upkeep of these antennas?Chairman Bosch explained that would need to be discussed with any property owner. If a provider leased sites from them, whether it was the City or private property owner, as well as their own liability for it. It would have to be addressed in the lease and insurance that went with that.Commissioner Pruett assumed they would be able to set design standards for the antennas. (Yes.)Commissioner Smith referred to Page 2 of the staff report with some of the requested changes the Planning Center recommended: Reauest: Allow antennas in oubfic riohts ofwav. She was in favor of that; however, it would absolutely have to have review for design, placement, safety, etc. She recommended that not be done without review. Each proposal would need to be reviewed. The Planning Commission reviews site by site so a precedence doesn~ necessarily follow development. She favored staffs recommendation that support poles be designed and constructed in a manner that would allow them to be used by more than one utility or one telecommunication provider so as to avoid the proliferation of poles and antennas. She would be in favor of looking for more than one way to use the poles. She wondered about putting poles where there are already a proliferation of poles, such as the electric company's substations and other lines of sight where the utilities are not underground. She wouldn~ mind having mono poles in line with those particular standards as the sight line is already interrupted.Reauest: Eliminate the reauirement that antennas be located a minimum of 100 feet from a residential zone. She would not like to eliminate the requirement that antennas be located a minimum of 100 feet from a residential zone. That would be a minimal distance that should be kept, especially in the event of earthquakes or wind where that pole might topple over or something on the pole might fly Into the neighborhood. She personally would like to see a greater distance.Reauest: Allow around mounted antennas in residential zones in athletic fields of schools and Darks. bv administrative site olan review. Overall, she was not in favor of the mono poles in residential zones and athletic fields, in schools or in parXs. She wondered about the unresolved question of electromagnetic fields in high population areas where there are children and families. It's not a good idea to jeopardize health and safety until it is resolved. Now, the comments by the lady from the Planning Center about particular sites that have already been specified, she thought that would be interesting to take a look at 9 r Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 those three sites. The Commission would be interested in knowing exactly what they are talking about in terms of placement. Perhaps there are some sites that are already impacted by tall poles, by electromagnetic fields, by other things that aesthetically interrupt the sky or the neighborhood streetscape. But, in general, she would oppose putting the antennas in parks, in schools and in residential areas. She is always in favor of the most public notification as possible. Although the question, Since perception of aesthetic of visual impact is somewhat subjective, what level of public notification needs to occur?, serves the public and offers a nice convenience of communication, it also impacts the public. She believed people should know what is happening in their neighborhood, especially in the areas of unresolved issues such as electromagnetic fields. Should the DRB be routinely involved in the aesthetic/screening aspects of proposals? She would definitely say yes. That's why Orange has a DRB. It is to ensure they have a nice looking and efficiently wOrXing community. With this type of technology, there would be no exception. Reouest: Allow around and buildino mounted antennas in residential zones on orooerties containino leGal non-confonnino commercial uses. bv edministrative site alan review. She was willing to take a look at that because legal non-conforming buildings don~ occur that often. It would be okay with her to have building mounted antennas. She would be more in favor of putting antennas on existing structures and poles than adding more to the community.Reouest: Allow around mounted entennas in residential zones in locations other than athletic fields and non-confonnino commercial sites. bv conditional use oennit. Not now. Perhaps, as things evolve and there is a greater need for more antennas, then they could look at the antennas in residential zones. In housing residential zones, she would say no. However, she hears the comments that some parks are located in residential zones. She's not sure what that is about. If there are parks with taillight standards or if there are parks that need light standards and these companies would want to assist the community in providing lights on those poles, then the Commission should take a look at it. But to just put mono poles in residential areas or parks indiscriminately she would not be in favor of.Reouest: Allow antennas in Public Institution (PI) Zones. She felt this was more appropriate. Public Institution Zones have already been zoned to be of public use. These types of structures - mono poles and antennas - fall into the category of public use. She would be in favor of allowing them in Public Institution Zones, of course, with the approval of the owners of those properties. Again, review of each site would be mandatory. There should not be any indiscriminate placement of antennas.Reouest: Allow antennas bv CUP in those circumstances where the ordinance orovisions cannot be met.She has not formed an opinion, because if they said yes, that in the future instead of talking about Old Towne issues, they could spend their time talking about where to place mono poles and antennas. She had a hunch there would be a lot of requests for CUPs. She would rely on the other Commissioners'input on this item.Reouest: Allow buildino mounted antennas to exceed 10 feet in heiahi. and allow suooort eouioment to be located outside the buildino. She favored this, because there is already a building there. There has already been some kind of review of its design and placement. That would be the most logical place to look for. The nicest looking antenna pictures were those placed on the sides of buildings. You couldn~tell they were there. The problem is with exceeding the 10 foot height because Orange is very sensitive to tall buildings.Proliferation of antennas and health and safety concems were previously addressed; therefore, she did not offer additional comments.Commissioner Smith already went through the list on Page 8, except for Item F: Detennine which processing requirements should apply to the various types of antenna applications. She would be in favor of, in the eariy stages of the process, as much review as possible either by major site plan review andlor CUP's reviewed by the Planning Commission. A body of people should look at these proposals - not a single Zoning Administrator or administrative review at the counter. Once they got their stride, perhaps it could go to an administrative review or Zoning Administrator, but in the first go round, she wanted to see a committee review it. She didn~ mind working on the Planning Commission to look at those proposals. 10 r Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 Commissioner Pruett shared many of the same issues. In the area of review, he was concemed about how they grow into this. He wants to see the CUP process or site plan review on many of these. Reauest: Allow antennas in Dublic riahts ofwav. He was supportive of this issue. This may be the most unobtrusive way given with some of the design issues you can obtain on top of existing light and signal standards. If it is done correctly, it could be very attractive. However, he agrees the design placement and safety issues need to be reviewed. Initially, that should be done by CUP. Reauest: Eliminate the reauirement that antennas be located a minimum of 100 feet from a residential zone. He was not so sure he agreed that needs to stay in place. He thought they could eliminate that requirement. But, again, he was looking at it not placing the antennas in someone's yard. He was looking at it being out on a public pole in some way where it was designed to where it was not obtrusive in the community and yet it will serve the community. He thought they were going to have to have antennas in the residential communities. The review for design, placement and safety is an issue and it should be only by CUP. Reauest: Allow around mounted antennas in residential zones in athletic fields of schools and DarKs. bY administrative site Dlan review. His understanding of ground mounted antennas is basically an antenna that is free standing on the ground. He was not so sure he supported that. He would prefer to see It woven into the design of the school, parX or athletic field. There is lighting in parXs just like there is on the streets. If there is some way it can be woven in so that it's not a free standing ground mounted antenna, but on a pole that is shared with some other benefit to the parX, school or athletic field. He doesn~ support the ground mounted antennas, but he's not opposed to the antennas being in schools, parks or athletic fields. The review of design, placement and safety issues should be subject to CUP review. Reauest: Allow around and buildina mounted antennas in residential zones on orooerties containina leaal non-confonnina commercial uses. by administrative site Dlan review. He supported the concept of antennas being in residential and commercial areas, so he didn~ think the non-conforming use was an issue because they could be sited there regardless. He would like them to be put on existing poles - not on buildings necessarily.Reauest: Allow around mounted antennas in residential zones in locations other than athletic fields and non-conformina commercial sites bv conditional use oennit. He was against this and thought it was a mistake at this point. Maybe they could come back and visit this later. He preferred to deal with the existing poles in the community. He was not talking about a power pole; he was talking about a light pole or signal standard. Something that is more attractive to the community rather than adding to the clutter that is already on a lot of power poles.Reauest: Allow antennas in Public Institution IPIJ Zones. As in residential zones, he didn~ see a big problem with that. However, there needs to be a CUP requirement with this.Reauest: Allow antennas by CUP in those circumstances where the ordinance orovisions cannot be met.If you put the antennas on a pole, a light standard, he'll buy into it if it's through the CUP process. He's basically headed in the direction where you have a conditional use permit on every request at this point.He wasn~ sure what would be served by that particular issue.Reauest: Allow buildina mounted antennas to exceed 10 feet in heiahf. and allow sUDoort eauiDment to be located outside the buildina. He was in favor of the administrative process on the building locations because they are the most acceptable. However, he was not in favor of locating the equipment outside the building without some type of review - maybe even a CUP review in that situation because he was not sure what kind of structure the equipment is going to be in, how big it is, how it is going to be housed.So the amount of review might be more significant. He was not clear on that one. If it's going to be on the building with the equipment inside, an administrative review would be appropriate.Proliferation of antennas. He was concemed about that and thought there needs to be at least from the offset, some concept of what is the appropriate density of antennas that they will have initially. He didn~ Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 know what that would be. Maybe they would need the help from the telecommunication industry to help define that. It was important to meet your initial needs, and then grow from there in terms of where they're going down the road. He was concemed about the density, especially in given areas. Heaith and Safety. He was not real concemed about that from the standpoint of the poles because of the frequency range and power. Personally, he didn~ think that would be a health and safety issue. But there are people out there who do have some concems. It's imporiant to understand when going through the CUP process that will be an issue the utilities will have to be prepared to address. Commissioner Pruett mentioned again he thought the CUP. process was an important process to go through. However, he did think that they need to set up a process where if an applicant wants to have a networX, so to speak, of antenna locations considered at one time, that process should be set up to where it could be done that way. He was not sure ifthey could do it under one permit request, but there needs to be some mechanism to where a procedure could be set up to approve the networX of site locations so they're not having to come back and handle the requests on an individual basis. It would create a burden on the applicant in terms oftrying to move their program forward. As he saw it, this is a business that is dependent upon multiple locations. Commissioner Romero had similar comments. With his initial questions with regard to mono poles, visibility, and the likelihood of numerous antennas down the road, he believed the mono poles would be the least advantageous route to go. Reauest: Allow antennas in Dublic riahts of wav. He felt that was a positive move, especially with regards to the photos they've seen with antennas on top of street lights, and the comment of Susan DeSantis regarding adding an antenna to light poles at the medical facility on Chapman. Reauest: Eliminate the reauirement that antennas be located a minimum of 100 feet from a residential zone. He was very satisfied with the presentation given to the Commission at the prior meeting regarding the health issues and antennas. He didn~ have a problem with 100 feet. That wouldn~ be much of a risk. Reauest: Allow around mounted antennas in residential zones in athletic fields of schools and Darks. by administrative site Dlan review. He did not want to see free standing mono poles in residential zones or athletic fields. If they were on an existing light pole, whether it be a field light, parXing light, whatever it may be, he felt it would be an advantageous situation for the schools to where it could be accomplished without being too obtrusive. Reauest: Allow around and build/na mounted antennas in residential zones on orooerties containina leaal non-confonnina commercial uses. by administrative site Dlan review. To allow ground and building mounted antennas in residential zones on properties containing legal non-conforming commercial uses,yes.Reauest: Allow around mounted antennas in residential zones in locations other than athletic fields and non-confonnina commercial sites. by conditional use oennit. Again, only sharing of poles, whether it be power, lights, signals, etc.Reauest: AI/ow antennas in Public Institution (PI) Zones. Again, same idea - power, lights, signals, etc.Reauest: AI/ow antennas bY CUP in those circumstances where the ordinance oroYisions cannot be met.Yes. Final approval would be very advantageous with regards to residents of the City.Reauest: AI/ow build/na mounted antennas to exceed 10 feet in heiahl. and aI/ow sUDDOrt eauiDment to be located outside the buildina That would depend upon location and visibility - whether that is a DRB or CUP process. How detrimental to the area would that cause result in.Proliferation of antennas. This was his main worry. The estimate is 20 additional antennas to the existing 8. He would take that as a minimum 28 in the next two to three years. That would be the main reason why he was not in approval of mono poles. 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 Heallh and Safety: He was satisfied with the presentation to the Commission on health and safety concerns. Chainnan Bosch shared his thoughts and concems: Reauest: Allow antennas in Dublic nohts ofwav. Considerable public funds, as well as utility funds, have been put into underground utilities and also to improve the streetscape, public infrastructure, the replacement of signal lights, landscaping, etc. particulariy at enhanced intersections to beautify the City, to increase the commercial viability of the surrounding properties and to reduce the visual clutter, which mitigates against the first two and has also caused some traffic hazards in the past. If they were to allow utilization of public rights of way, he would want to see that quite limited to areas where there is already unforiunately some proliferation of poles that cannot be eliminated because of their necessity for existence. But, not just to allow it anywhere. He thought of intersections such as Main and Chapman where it not only has substantial planning over 12-14 years gone into a Redevelopment Area and to improvement to upgrade what was then a declining commercial area, but the intersection has been enhanced with the design of a 50 foot landscaped setbacks, Palm Trees and other enhanced landscaping. To even suggest that we would allow placement of any kind of array other than maybe the omni cell installation that was talked about, a whip antenna, on those signals or light poles would be destructive to everything the community has invested. But there are other locations where it might be satisfactory. He thought they would have a problem as to how to identify what's good and what's bad in the same kind of zone or similar types of arterial or secondary road rights of way because he was sure there will be some locations where that would not be a detriment; it would be worthwhile to do. They need to look at Tustin Avenue the same way. Hopefully someday they will find some way to afford under grounding the high tension Edison lines on Tustin. He said it was a huge visual impact as well. Let's use what is there, but not go back downhill where they spent taxpayers' money to clean up streets and improve the commercial property. That's going to be a tough one for staff to balance out; he hopes the Commissioners will see and concur with the need to avoid further impact on the areas they have moved ahead on. There are other types of public rights of way. Cal Trans doesn~ like anyone using theirs. The Commission might look at other types of easements that are in addition to streets, where they may exist for access to public facilities. But, again, it's fairly limited. It's a great idea, but can be very damaging.ReQuest: Eliminate the reQuirement that antennas be located a minimum of 100 feet from a residential lQlli1. This was a difficult one for him. Their first duty is to protect the sanctity of residential zones,particularly single family residential zones, in terms of visual intrusion. On the other hand, a carte blanche statement, "All antennas within 100 feet" flies in the face of the merging technologies where there may be existing light poles on adjacent commercial or professional sites that aren~ tall, that are placed 60 feet or one parXing bay away from the property line, where the addition of an omni cell or a smaller array would not have any intrusion upon the residential properties. Therefore, it would limit its impact. Those must be looked at on a case-by-case basis. At the moment he was leaning with staying with the 100 foot requirement from a residential zone - specifically from single family and R- 2 zones, as well as lower density residential zones. It's a gray area of only protecting single family residences and not residences of all classes.ReQuest: Allow Qround mounted antennas in residential zones in athletic fields of schools and DarKs. bv administrative site Dlan review. No. He concurred at best if they look at incorporation into other existing poles - he didn~ look to suddenly benefactors showing up to place parX lighting in parks that are intended for passive, low level neighborhood use, and tum them all into the broad daylight of lighted ball fields. They need to be careful and there needs to be a limitation there as well. This might be appropriate in an existing lighted athletic fields, subject to the other conditions in terms of distance from adjacent housing occupied residential zones and incorporation into existing lights.ReQuest: Allow around and buildinQ mounted antennas in residential zones on orooerfies containina leaal non-confonnina commercial uses. bv administrative site Dlan review. He thought they could look at that with a CUP process and see how those might occur.ReQuest: Allow around mounted antennas in residential zones in locations other than athletic fields and non-confonninQ commercial sites. bv conditional use oennit. No. He was not in favor of that Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 ReQuest: Allow antennas in Public Institution (PI) Zones. He thought that was a fine idea. Again, lOOking at snarea utilization or placement on buildings or tanks or existing antenna sites that occur within those zones. Reouest: Allow antennas bv CUP in those circumstances where the ordinance orovisions cannot be met. He wouldn~ want to touch that one yet. He wanted to say no at this time because it essentially says, Forget any other restrictions you put down; let's look at putting them anywhere." Let's see first how this worXs out. In part of the City, west of the 55 Freeway, he concurred with Pacific Bell's consultant that you could probably find a variety of sites, certainly enough to take care of a number of vendors that would frt into non-residential zones or non-conforming uses in residential zones that currently exist, or public institution zones and existing commercial and manufacturing zones without imposing on anything else. It's when they get into East Orange and particular1y into the hill country where there are more planned communities with very specific input in the planning process from neighbors concemed about visual intrusion of any kind and there will be more difficulty.ReQuest: Allow buildina mounted antennas to exceed 10 feet in heioht. and allow SUDoort eQuioment to be located outside the buildina He concurred the support equipment outside the building should not be allowed, unless it is incorporated into the approved architectural design of the building. They require screening of roof top mechanical equipment and the electrical appurtenances that go with it. At least to a cladding that appears to be appropriate to the design context of the remainder of the building. He thought this fell into the same thing with regard to the equipment. The equipment bays associated with this type of hardware are relatively small, but still if placed in the wrong spot on a building, could be really negative. If they're small enough, there should be some good design flexibility and light enough in weight that there should be some good placement options on most buildings.Relative to heights exceeding 10 feet, he thought the interpretation of that is if the building is more than 10 feet shorter than the allowed height in a zone, currently you are allowed 10 feet height of antennas as long as you don~ exceed the maximum height of the zone. But what this would say if allowed, If you had a 30 foot building in a zone allowing 100 feet, that you could have potentially up to a 70 foot antenna.Even with the CUP process, he would hate to dangle that carrot out and he didn~ think the vendors wanted to do that. His first goal would be, and recognizing there aren~ many buildings in certain key locations where their height allows simple placement on the building facade or penthouse facade, to put that as the highest priority. Second, he would not change the maximum height of 10 feet. He didn~ like them the more he sees them. He even sees the CUP process even to exceed the top of an approved building. He thought they went through a fair1y intensive design review process that is not terribly limiting on the design prerogative of architects, except in the Redevelopment Areas and in planned communities and the historical district in Old Towne. And, yet to allow without review the placement of antennas along the parapet or facade of the building without incorporation of the building design would be very detrimental to that whole process. Far more so with poles mounted on the building, even only 10 feet in height. At best, a CUP and design review, if it's an existing building to assure they are not violating the previous design standards.Proliferation of antennas. He thought the proliferation they would see is probably 9 times 7, with four more carriers coming. So, 63, maybe more, depending upon all the constraints they've heard. Maybe they'll be looking at 100 in the City when it builds out. That could be handled if they're careful with the rest of this. Without being over1y restrictive, they could do things that are most caring for the values of the community and most protective for the residents, and for the users of recreational property now.Where there are conditions and circumstances that cause a hardship where coverage can~ be allowed,there is a variance process. He would look to that rather than a carte blanche now.On Page 8, Item A, #4 - the RO, SG, OP or A1 zones were not discussed. He felt the OP would be appropriate subject to the other restrictions that are being discussed. The RO, SG and A1 - no. There would be a visual intrusiveness into areas that were meant for very low scale, low key use. Chairman Bosch concurred with everyone else - a conditional use permit review in every regard for every site. But, it would be good to find a way, anhough you talk about multi-site simultaneous application processing, he felt they had to be separate CUP's. There may be a few sites that come up 14 r Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 under the CUP process that just won~ worX and the vendors need to have some altematives where they can find them, including the horror of horrors - actually sharing sites together as much as possible.He didn~ want to address the economic issue at all. The role of the Planning Commission is to look at how to set standards that allows the technology, recognizing they might error in terms of caution in some areas, and being too liberal in others and require adjustment as they see through the CUP process of what is occurring. And, the specific findings under the CUP process will help them in the excess side.On the conservative side, they have the options that come forward from staff and specific applications to make adjustments.He noted there were still areas that were vague and in some areas, there was a lack of consensus from the Commission.Ms. Wolff saw their were some differences of opinion. She would like to take the input received at this meeting and draft something that reflects the majority's opinion and present it to the Commission for review and comment in a month. An environmental review will also be needed. She heard their comments about concurrent processing and the need to get the netwarX up by January, 1997. She could see them being inundated as soon as the ordinance amendment is adopted by every company with every site. Staff could not physically handle that burden. She asked the Commission to think about how staff could actually process the applications. They will not be able to process 4 to 5 companies worth of networXs in one meeting.Commissioner Pruett asked what kind of lead time were they looking at? Do they need six months after approval? Ms. DeSantis replied they would like to have approval by May and that would provide them enough lead time for what they need to do. They have discussed with staff the poSSibility of some of the applications basically pending concurrent with looking at the ordinance and how the provisions might evolve. They're willing to do that, which would allow them to perhaps have a review of those applications at the time the Commission is approving the ordinance.Chairman Bosch thanked everyone for their patience and input on this item. This process will be gone over again once the ordinance comes back to the Commission.15 I Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1996 INRE:OTHER ITEMS 1. Commissioner Pruett said when the Commission approves conditional use permits and they put in a one year period to evaluate the excessive calls, he looks at that and wonders about what will happen in four years or five years? These things change hands and there are other people and circumstances that change the way that the CUP is operating vs. the original intent. Is the Commission limited to the one year? Or can they stipulate 5 years? Mr. Soo-Hoo believed the one year was established because of the Police Department's concem regarding the processing of alcoholic beverage permits. What the one year does is that it triggers the Police Department and Community Development Department to get together to evaluate how it isdoing.If there is a problem, the procedure is that they will refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration of revocation, or a new hearing regarding new conditions. That does not preclude the Commission or the City from instigating revocation proceedings regarding any application if aproblemcomesup. Obviously, there is a tremendous burden before the City in order to establish a case for revocation. But, that's not to say it can~ be done. The City is in a position to review any application that it approves for poSSible revocation.2. Chairman Bosch believed the Commissioners received information with regard to thePlanningCommissionersConferenceinlateMarch, as put on by the league of Cities. It is highly recommended to attend this conference; all Commissioners will benefit from it. The conference is in long Beach this year.INRE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjoum at 9:30 p. m. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld