Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange March 4, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to delay the approval of the February 20, 1991 Minutes to the next regularly scheduled meeting. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott MOTION CARRIED Cathcart CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1890-91 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1367-91 - ORANGE COUNTY RESCUE MISSION: A request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a group home for women and children. Property is zoned R-4 (Residential Maximum Multiple Family District) . Subject property is located on the east side of Lemon Street, approximately 100 feet north of Culver Avenue. The property is located in the Old Towne District and is addressed 357-371 South Lemon Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1367-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. This item has been continued from the February 4, 1991 meeting. At the previous meeting the C.U.P. request was for an establishment of a transitional group home for women and children, and the second aspect of the request was to construct a 3-story structure that was in excess of the 2-story, 30 foot height limitation of the R-4 district and the Old Towne Guidelines. The plan before the Commission now has been revised; it is a 2-story structure and complies with the height limitations and the Design Guidelines for Old Towne. Therefore, the C. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 2 home use. One correction to the staff report was pointed out -- the size of the proposal. The staff report calls out for a 17,000 square foot building. It's actually a little bit under 15,000 square feet. Other differences between the two proposals were noted: The previous proposal was a 3-story structure, 34 foot height -- 38 feet measured to the ridge. The current proposal is 2 stories, 25 foot height and 30 feet measured to the ridge line. The number of units is the same -- one manager's unit plus 20 boarding rooms. The occupancy remains the same -- two resident managers plus a maximum of 45 residents. Parking remains the same -- 22 parking spaces on site. The functional arrangement is similar in that the manager's unit and common areas are on the first floor with the resident rooms above. Both proposals received a favorable recommendation from the Design Review Board in terms of the aesthetic, architectural and landscaping of the project. Both projects meet code setback requirements. The current project covers a greater percentage of the site than the previous project. There was approximately 2400 square feet of open space on the previous site plan. The current proposal has approximately 1,000 square feet of open space. The public hearing was opened. Commissioner Scott has read the previous Minutes and feels he is current on the submittal being presented. Applicant Les Card, Vice Chairman of the Orange County Rescue Mission, 1733 La Colina Lane, Santa Ana, stated the redesign process started the night of the continuance. They authorized their architect to begin, giving him three criteria from which to work: To be consistent with the Old Towne Guidelines, to be consistent with all zoning regulations and to maintain the 20 units. They submitted their redesign to staff on Tuesday, February 19 prior to the Design Review Board's meeting on February 20. Bill O'Keefe, 18002 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, covered some of the architectural features of the plan. A slide show was presented to show their conceptual plan. The actual square footage is 1,494 square feet. By having a 2-story building, it spread out the structure, and rather than having a 4 foot on the interior, it is now 6 feet. Mr. Card said they examined what they could do on this property given the existing zoning. Without going through a C.U.P. process, this property would allow them to build 12 apartment units (two bedrooms each). They feel it would Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 3 have a greater impact on the area than what they are proposing in terms of parking and traffic generation. The property to the south just started construction since the last meeting; it is a 4-unit condominium project. Those speaking in favor Edmund Werner, 815 South Esplanade, offered his support for the project. It's a project of charity. He referred to the Martha House on Glassell, which received opposition. In the five year span, 600 women have been helped. There is an old town phobia that exists and he has seen it. He feels it could be tamed. Charity will cause the community to grow if the people do not bow to fear. Larry Bonam, 332 South Olive, thought the need for this was very great and something should be done. Those speaking in opposition Ann Siebert, 340 South Olive, reiterated they were not against the use of the project. She attended the Design Review Board meeting when the revised plans were submitted. The D.R.B. didn't seem to want to look at the new plans because they were much in favor of the other plans. The most recent plans does meet the guidelines to the letter of the ordinance. However, there is a large, massive building that encompasses the whole site with only minimal setbacks. There is very little open space. The scale and mass of the structure in relationship to the neighboring structures is still not in context with their neighborhood and still not compatible. The applicant was surprised they were not happy with the revised plan. They once again asked the applicant if he was willing to reduce the number of units, thus making it possible to design a project that would be more in keeping with the context of the neighborhood, and reduce the mass of the structure. They were told no, the applicant could not design a project with less units because it was not economically feasible. They would prefer to see two nice homes on that lot with six or eight residents in each home. They have met with no compromise; they would like the Orange County Rescue Mission to find another site. Katherine King, 222 West Palmyra, was frustrated at this point. The new alternative that has been submitted is not really a compromise. The new design gives an appearance of even greater mass and density. This has not been changed at all. Concern was expressed over the lack of open space of the new plan, thereby eliminating the possibility for any mature landscaping to help down play the large structure in their neighborhood. Currently there are several group homes Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 4 in Old Towne functioning on a small scale residential capacity blending into their neighborhood. The Rescue Mission has expressed concern about being good neighbors, and at the same time points to cost effectiveness as the reason for maintaining the density. She suggested they reduce the density, thereby eliminating the mass and the problem. Russ Siebert, 340 South Olive, gave a sheet of information to the Commission regarding the square footage. The House of Hope is on approximately 1/2 acre -- 22,275 square feet. The new proposed structure is to utilize 16,000 square feet about 76$ of the available lot). The average unit size would be 853 square feet. What will happen to the property if the House of Hope no longer resides there and it does not meet the code? Robert Meyers, 320 South Olive, thought the revised plan looked like a fast-tracked design, thrown together in two weeks. It has a hotel look. It comes down to the massive nature of the project. He asked the Commission to deny the proposal as it now stands. Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, said it was a good project, but not in their back yards because of the density of the project. Rebuttal Mr. Card feels they have made substantial compromises. They gave up the 3-story building because the height was out of character with the neighborhood and it was inconsistent with the Guidelines. They have redesigned their project to meet both of those objectives. The House is not out of context with the neighborhood. They are using the same zoning regulations, setback requirements that other projects were constructed under. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy stated the issue before the Commission is on the use of the property. He has heard from everyone that the need for the property to be used in this manner is desirable. It's a use that is needed in the City and everyone agrees with it. He's having some trouble with the change in square footage and yet there being a loss in some of the facilities. Overall, for a use standpoint, he feels the conditions have been met. Commissioner Master said the layout wasn't the concern at the previous meeting, as much as was the height. That was Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 5 the key issue. He agrees with the Design Review Board in that as f ar as the layout (other than the elevation) the original plan was superior to this revised plan. It fit in with the Old Towne. He was optimistic that something could be done about the height yet maintain the character. Commissioner Scott reviewed the plans and found they had no dimensions. Do these rooms meet code requirements? Can the C.U.P. be conditioned to limit the intended use? Can the House of Hope be converted into apartments if they outgrew the use? Would it meet the zoning requirements for an apartment complex? Chairman Bosch took Mr. Herrick's memo to be to the land use. That this could be converted to an apartment house in terms of the zoning ordinance, bu t can the building physically meet the needs of an apartment house? He didn't believe sa. What happens when a conversion takes place? He's concerned about the policing limits. The style of the redesign is a matter of taste, but fits clearly one of the styles that are appropriate within Old Towne. The characterization of the fast-track design vs. other slow-track designs isn't necessarily a reflection on the quality of the design. It's an attractive building for what it is. The question is, is the density of the use appropriate for this site? He personally favors increased open space. The original design had much superior outdoor space, but the height of the building seemed to be the major issue at the last hearing -- not the overall bulk of the building on the site. The issue boils down to the appropriateness of the number of people in a group setting in Old Towne. He leans towards looking at the project, as proposed, as a building as one that meets the Old Towne Guidelines, that the zoning in this quadrant of Old Towne may be unfortunate but it is the existing zoning, and that the density of people proposed and limited by condition is not excessive for that type of zoning along Lemon Street. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to find that the Environmental Review Board's findings regarding Negative Declaration 1367-91 are in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Commissioner Master asked controlling future use has been if an effective means of resolved? Mr. Herrick addressed the legal land use issue in his memorandum, not the zoning code issue with respect to Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 6 whether the particular structure would be able to be converted. The C.U.P. is for a group home setting. If that use ceases, and there is a new use instituted and if that new use is legal within the existing zoning code at that time, there isn't anything the City can put in the C.U.P. that will make a legal use not legal. Commissioner Scott asked if there was a way to condition the C.U.P. for future use? He was afraid this will be converted to a boarding house. Mr. Herrick said there would be many approvals that would have to take place before a use could be converted (i.e., building permits, plan check, D.R.B. approval, etc.). He conveyed in his memo that apartment use is a legal use in that zone. If the building is there and if it can meet all of the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code, then the apartment use would be a legal use, but he wasn't saying that they could meet all those requirements. Chairman Bosch thought some reasonable, periodic reporting by the House of Hope would help to police said use. Commissioner Master thought the neighborhood would be the best reviewers of what is going on. The Old Towne Preservation Association would make it known if another use were there. Chairman Bosch suggested Condition 3 be amended, adding: Quarterly reporting of occupancy in conformance to the criteria of Condition 2 to the Department of Community Services shall be required." Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, the Commission made a finding that there is no evidence in the record indicating that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1890-91 subject to the conditions so listed, amending Condition 3 as recommended. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 7 Commissioner Master said his comment on the overall structural appearance still stands. He thought the first plan was superior to this one and would have preferred it if the elevation could have been addressed. Commissioner Murphy would have liked to see more compromise. Chairman Bosch reiterated the unfortunate R-4 zoning in the Southwest Quadrant of Old Towne. As the City moves ahead in their re-zoning efforts he hopes this will be something that is looked at. The basic R-4 zoning is a radical impact, even on those blocks in the area that are still currently single family residential. If the City wants to protect that resource, it needs to move ahead in changing the basic underlying zoning and get the rules in place for what remains of it to be developed as higher density residential. He encouraged everyone to work towards that goal. The project is a mixed blessing in a number of regards. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1133-91 - CITY OF 0 RANGE: A proposal by the City of Orange to pre-zone 4 parcels, located at 11202 and 11212 North Hewes and 18761 and 18771 East Bond within an unincorporated area of the County of Orange. Properties are currently zoned County R-1 (7200) Single-Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) and the proposal is to reclassify to the City R-1-7 District (Single Family Residential, 7,000 square foot minimum lot size). The pre-zoning is to occur in advance of annexation of the parcels to the City. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15319. There was no staff report. The public hearing was opened and closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend the City Council approve Pre-Zone Change 1133-91. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master,. Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 8 IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL #383 - REGARDING CHAPMAN COLLEGE SPECIFIC PLAN An appeal of a decision of the Community Development Director regarding approval of a site plan for the residence hall, now under construction on the northwest corner of Walnut Avenue and Grand Street. Ms. Wolff presented the full staff report. Commission has a memo from staff with a copy of the appeal form and a letter clarifying the issues to be discussed under the appeal. The basis of the appeal submitted is with regard to the number and locations of vehicular access points to the new residence hall. The appeal was filed by Councilman Steiner on behalf of M.J. Martini. In a letter dated February 4, 1991 Mr. Martini states his position that the approved residence hall site plan is not consistent with the regulations contained in the Specific Plan, specifically with the circulation plan contained in the Specific Plan. His letter states that the plan contains two driveways; that the site plan for the residence hall contains two driveways which are not authorized under the Specific Plan. To give some background on the Specific Plan and this particular project the Specific Plan is implemented through a site plan review process. The Chapman College Specific Plan empowers the Community Development Director to review and approve projects which he finds to be consistent with the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also establishes a Chapman College Specific Plan Review Committee to assist in the plan implementation process. The residence hall project was originally reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Board in May, 1990. Then, plan refinement continued through August, 1990 when the site plan was approved by the Community Development Director after review and concurrence of the Chapman College Specific Plan Review Committee. In the review process particular attention was paid by staff to the project's compliance with the Circulation Plan (a portion of the Specific Plan). The Circulation Plan is in the Chapman College Specific Plan as Exhibit 2-2 and it introduces the concept of gateways. Gateways is defined by the plan as a transition area; something that you pass through. The plan defines a secondary gateway as providing limited access to the general public and encouraging access by college users (i.e., pedestrians). The question before the Commission is one of interpretation of the Circulation Plan; specifically, the diagram contained in Exhibit 2-2 and the appeal is based on the interpretation of the term "gateway". It appears through reading the Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 9 appellant's letter in his opinion that he equates the term gateway with the term driveway. It is staff's opinion that a broader interpretation was made of the term -- the Circulation Plan diagram is more schematic than an exact diagram of the area. The existing gateways are shown symbolically on the Circulation Plan, did not correlate precisely with either the number or location of the driveways actually existing in the field at the time of plan adoption. Staff also holds the opinion that these driveways are not truly gateways and that they provide access only to residents of the dorms. The public hearing was opened. Appellant M. J. Martini, 638 East Walnut, gave a couple of definitions from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary -- interpret and interpretation -- the act of explaining or telling the meaning of. On Pages 4-2 and 4-3 of the Specific Plan state, "If there is an application proposed that would require modification or interpretation of the Specific Plan, the site plan will be referred to the Planning Commission at the earliest possible duly noticed meeting." He was told this statement did not apply in this case. Mr. Godlewski quotes the Specific Plan, Page 2-10, Section 4, "A gateway is a transition area, something you pass through..." He left out the part stating a gateway will be defined as vehicular or pedestrian entry to the campus. He also stated three existing gateways are shown on Grand Street, north of Walnut. Mr. Martini takes exception to that interpretation. Two he accepts as they are obvious. The third at the intersection of Walnut and Grand, he disagrees with. Page 2-11 of the Specific Plan states, "A secondary gateway provides limited access to the general public and encourages access by college users, especially pedestrians." He's sure the residents on the west side of the 500 block of North Grand would be upset to find that they only had limited access to their homes and students were being encouraged to walk in the street. Also in the Specific Plan, Page 2-11 states, "Future gateways will occur when streets are abandoned or when property is acquired." A future gateway at the intersection of Grand and Walnut) would be a future gateway only when streets are abandoned or property is acquired. Exhibit 5-2 shows it as a future gateway. The staff report also states four driveways in that area were utilized by Chapman College at the .time of the adoption of the Specific Plan. Two of those driveways or gateways are identified in the Specific Plan as secondary gateways. One of the other driveways belonged to Kathy Bonilla, who later sold her residence to Chapman. And the fourth was the Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 10 temporary parking lot between Grand and Center, and Chapman College blocked that driveway off some time ago. The two specific gateways that are being talked about are on the maps as A and B (A is known as Harris-Davis) ; (B is known as the Braden-Cheverton area). The C shown on the map is the future gateway. The neighbors were told by the College that the tuck under parking was to open on Center Street only. That's one of the things they are contending righ t now. He was told by the Director of Community Development that the two northern most secondary gateways (A and B) were just "blobs" on a map; that they could be moved anywhere they wanted. There are a couple of other problems that are violations of the Specific Plan. They concern traffic control gates. Page 10 of Resolution 7233, Item 67 states, Traffic control devices such as gates, shall not be installed." The tuck under parking proposes gates to control access to the street. There are currently two other Chapman parking lots that have access control gates (the one off of Palm and the one off of Orange). Parking is yet another violation. The residence halls have about 392 rooms. They have conservatively counted only two beds per rooms and they have been told that some of the rooms have three or four beds. At two to a room, there should be 392 parking spaces. At present, there are only 324 spaces. Total employees at the College is about 300. They need about 240 spaces for their employees and staff. Using the enrollment from two years ago at 1523, student parking requires 609 spaces. Adding this up, a total of off-street parking should total 1241 spaces. When he walked all the Chapman parking lots, he could only count 850 spaces. This is a deficiency of about 350 to 400 spaces. On Page 6, Resolution 7233, a traffic and parking management plan shall be prepared for the College. This should be updated periodically at a time to be determined by the City of Orange. Was this done? Resolution 7233, Page 10, any public right-of-way abandoned shall be maintained as a serviceable street with parking limited to one side only. It looks like a tight fit to get a two way street, one side parking. Resolution 7233, Page 4, Item 12, at the time of the site plan review, the College shall submit a summary of current building square footage, parking and classroom capacity up to the maximums allowed by the Specific Plan. Was this done? If it were done, how could approval be given with such an obvious deficit in parking? They are unopposed to the new dorm. Their opposition is based on the fact that the decision to put a parking access on Grand was made by the Director of Community Development, using an interpretation which by the direction of the Specific Plan, should have gone to the Planning Commission, which it was not. In September, the Design Review Board approved the design of the new dorm. They were told parking access would Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 11 be on Center. They have been working with Chapman College in a friendly, productive fashion for close to 18 months. In January they found out the driveways were being installed in different places than where they were told. On January 29 they me t with Dr. Ronig and were told they would have a decision on this by Friday, February 1. That decision could not be given as a study was being done. On February 6 there was a meeting at Ms. Walter's home with representatives of the City Council, Planning, neighbors and Chapman College. It was mentioned then that the Specific Plan would probably be open in four or five years. He's still waiting for Dr. Ronig's call to tell him what his decision would be on the driveway. It's not right nor fair. There are definite violations of the Specific Plan. Is the Specific Plan for everybody or just certain, selected few? A representative from Chapman College was not present at this meeting. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, was the contact person between the City, Chapman College and the neighborhood. She was not notified in August. Is it fair for the neighbors on Grand to have a driveway in front of their homes rather than on Center. Grand is a dangerous street. Why does Chapman have the right to change things half way through? The neighbors are against the driveway on Grand. Mr. Mitchell, 2621 Point Del Mar, Corona Del Mar, owns the residence at 520 North Grand. His mother presently resides in the home. His concern about the change of driveways is a question about the traffic load Grand can handle. What kind of mitigating measures are g oing to be taken to make sure some of the problems don't happen. He is concerned about his mom's health and welfare. Chapman College should blend in well with the neighbors. Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, spoke on behalf of Old Towne Preservation Association as the President of that organization. Now that Chapman College has a Specific Plan, OTPA will hold them to the letter of that Plan. It's a long process to develop one and it's only fair that something of that nature be adhered to. It is discouraging to see that the first structure to be built under the Specific Plan doesn't even get the foundation poured and there are already violations to the Plan. He reiterated they were specifically told ingress and egress would be off of Center Street, to which everyone was pleased. He encouraged the City to tell Chapman College to take out the expensive concrete; not to block it. Amy Zambronie, 626 North Grand, referred to Page 2-11, Item 82, secondary gateways. It specifically lists 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 12 secondary gateways and they are marked on the map. She didn't see anything schematic about that. There is a serious traffic problem on Grand and she spoke with Planning about that and asked where the gateways were. She expressed her concern to them about the traffic and the driveways. There is a fire access lane, approximately 21 feet wide. She suggested they open that up and divert part of the traffic down Center, which the College owns, and the traffic circulation problem would then be a part of the campus, not the neighbors. Why is there a Specific Plan if no one can follow it? It's pretty cut and dry. The neighbors are willing to live with it. It's difficult to take at face value anything Chapman says. There are other violations that exist. The fire access lane is not to be blocked in any way, shape or form, per Resolution 7233, Page 2, Item 4. Chapman has a chain across the fire lane. If it were open, it would reduce part of the problem on Grand Street. She asked that Chapman be forced to abide within the scope of the Specific Plan. Mrs. Frederick, 491 North Shaffer, said as soon as Chapman College abides by the rules, the neighbors will be happy. Mr. Godlewski said staff's only response related to the letter that was addressed to Chairman Bosch from Mr. Martini. Quite a large number of items came up at tonight's meeting to which there are answers; however, staff is not prepared to respond to those tonight. Some of the major items such as the traffic management plan, student counts -- there's a list of requirements prior to approval of any development plan on campus -- have been received. Two have been received on the dorms. Two traffic studies have been done in the area of Grand and the dorms. He will assemble that information and have it for the Commission's review. Commissioner Scott reviewed the site plan submittal dated August 29, 1990. He wanted to know the number of handicapped stalls that were required for a 300 unit residential building. It shows three on the site plan, but he didn't know what the dimensions were. He would like to know the dimension of the parking stalls. According to Page 5-28 of the Specific Plan, Chapman College indicates that all campus parking stalls shall be 8 1/2 x 17 1/2 in size. It shows an encroachment of landscaping or curbing about every 6th stall, which again would reduce the minimum size stall. On Page 5-28 it indicates there should be a four foot minimum walking space between stalls every 15 spaces adjacent to sidewalks. It does not show this on the site plan. He would like staff to verify the number of stalls provided. Staff is also to indicate the stalls and size in the subterranial parking. There should be 83 stalls at Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 13 the basement level. The Commission's charge was to approve the site plan and the access to the residential hall. He was hung up between the definition of gateways and driveways. He has read the Specific Plan, has heard the presentation by staff and it's still not clear. On the site plan submittal, it shows driveways but not gateways. Were the mitigating measures for increased traffic on Grand really addressed in the Specific Plan? If not, maybe it should be re-investigated. If increased driveways were granted on Grand, maybe the Specific Plan would have to be revised to introduce the mitigating measures for increased traffic. Monument signs being greater than 42" in height conflicts with the required height of 48" in the Specific Plan. That could become a traffic hazard as far as ingress and egress. Commissioner Master questioned the situation regarding access on Center rather than Grand. Is staff aware of these so-called statements by the College? Mr. Godlewski said the plans staff reviewed concerning the dorms at the corner of Grand and Walnut had driveways on Grand. Although they knew Chapman had talked at one time about proposals of bringing them into Center Street, the only ones submitted for staff's review had access onto Grand. Those were the plans shown to neighbors who came to the counter. Chairman Bosch asked if those were the same plans reviewed by the Specific Plan Review Committee showing driveways on Grand? (Yes. ) Chairman Bosch said this brings them back to the definition of what is a gateway vs. a driveway. How can the process be maintained? He's not interested in throwing ou t the Specific Plan and starting over, reducing this to a renewed battle over every inch of curb and tree that exists. He is interested in that everyone has an understanding and how they, in good f aith, can move ahead. It is essential that there be improved communication relative to what Chapman College does to offset any potential for a view that there might be some misapplied influence in the review of plans with regard to this process. One question raised by Mr. Martini is interesting of how can you claim an existing, let alone future gateway without controlling all sides of an intersection, yet we have not just this one shown on the Specific Plan, but a number of them: Center and Palm, the existing one to be abandoned some time at Sycamore and Center, Orange and Walnut, the primary one at Glassell and Sycamore. There must be phasing -- which comes first? Is it possible to have a gateway that doesn't control the whole Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 14 intersection? We've seen that happen on a variety of campuses. He believes you can have a gateway that's partially on an intersection and not have the whole intersection controlled. It does require special work to design it so it doesn't have impacts in the interim upon part of the property that isn't controlled at the time. Gateways also represent clearly pedestrian gateways. There is a building design that everyone seems to love other than the driveway locations that has it's principal pedestrian gateway, if you will, in the middle of the block between Grand and Center, facing Walnut Avenue. He worries about the impacts of that pedestrian traffic. The Specific Plan does not have secondary gateways called out at all and only driveway locations. We must be careful where they actually occur when precise planning occurs with development projects are in locations that don't impose impacts or loads not anticipated by this. We must look in some detail that the precise planning that comes forward to see what the impacts are. Also, look at where precise planning shows, if that is the case, some physical conditions that can be overcome or better knowledge or the actual results of studying a traffic management plan, requiring some adjustments within the intent. That there are some off setting changes to take care of that. If additional driveways are opened, are they in safe locations? Are other driveways closed so that the loads won't increase, but hopefully would decrease or be maintained even with the new driveways so there wouldn't be worse traffic conditions in the area. Are there interim locations? There are gray areas in this. Gray areas are only solved through the plan approval process. That's one that needs to be more carefully communicated. He would defer to the Traffic Engineer to determine whether the driveways were safe. More information is needed before a decision can be made. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Appeal #383 for thirty days to the meeting of April 1, 1991. The Commission requested staff to formally invite a representative from Chapman College to be present at the April 1 meeting in order to respond to their questions and concerns. Those concerns are: 1. To provide the notes from the meeting of the City and Chapman College Specific Plan Review Committee. Plans showing the driveway locations were discussed at that meeting. (Minutes were not taken. ) 2. Traffic Management Plan - by whom was it done, under what conditions, timing and loads, parameters placed upon it as to the actual conditions. There was concern over the physical characteristics of the design. There may have been a change in driveway location because of grade problems or keeping the building under the Master Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 15 Plan height limit. The Commission would like to see some evidence of the physical possibility that driveways continue to occur on Center Street. 3. Opinion from the Traffic Engineer relative to the safety of driveway locations and the throat lengths and ramps and such proximity to both the street and intersection, whether on Center or Grand. How much flat area is there, site line clearances as well as distances to the corner for people turning left out of the intersection. 4. The question raised regarding the management and adequacy of existing and proposed fire lanes within the body of the residential zone of the campus. 5. A potential for closing other driveways regardless of the final location of driveways in this location to off set vehicular impacts which appear to be greater than anticipated. 6. What controls can exist other than mid-block crossing? What was intended to control pedestrian flow from a pedestrian gateway into the dorms? And how that impacts traffic and safety. 7. The Commission wants a comfortable interpretation from staff of what is a significant change vs. one that is minor or insignificant. And what that means in terms of documentation in the Specific Plan so that everyone knows the rules. 8. What is the status of construction? AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Mr. Boice asked if there was concern that the project continue construction during the time of review? Chairman Bosch stated that was the other issue. What are the legal ground rules, remedies, impacts as the process continues? Or recovery if they find that the impacts which lead to the interpretation are based upon erroneous information. Mr. Herrick said the most obvious remedy would be in some form of a stop work order. There are instances where the Public Works Director, Building Official, or other administrative officials are empowered to issue stop work Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 16 orders. There are also other circumstances under which the City Council can do so. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Commission to express their opinion on that issue and direct staff and the City Attorney's office to pursue that. Commissioner Scott suggested since the site plan has been appealed to the Commission for approval and since it cannot be approved, to direct the Legal Department to take the necessary steps within their jurisdiction to do whatever is necessary. Chairman Bosch said the action is on the table before the Commission. If the Commission takes no action, there is an approved site plan. If they deny it, then they do not have an approved site plan and action can be taken. He felt they should be reporting to the Council in the interim since a Councilman seconded the appeal to inform them what steps are being taken and what information is being asked. There are many questions that do not have answers. What exactly is the plan before them? What are the full options available? How can they be enacted? The Commission discussed the 30-day continuance. They want to make sure that input comes from all sources so that an accurate decision can be made. Staff made verbal contact with Chapman College regarding tonight's meeting, but no formal written notice was mailed. Mr. Herrick suggested since this matter is continued, a 10-day written notice be given to the property owner for an opportunity for them to be heard. The Commission concurred. IN RE: Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, didn't understand what is happening. The Specific Plan was approved nine months ago. When was approval given to start construction? Mr. Johnson said a grading permit was taken out six months ago. He didn't know whether a building permit has been issued yet. Commission's response to Mr. Bennyhoff's questions is that they did not feel it had adequate information to act in a prudent manner on this issue. There are ramifications, both ways, on that legally to the City and to Chapman College. Carole Walters said they got their permit January 15. She questioned the stop order for the driveways. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1991 - Page 17 The Commission did not have the authority to issue a stop order. They have the authority to approve or deny an appeal, but they don't have the information available to them to make a decision. Robert Boice sensed an uncomfortable feeling on the part of the Commission, but if he understood the attorney correctly, a citizen could at any time go to the City Council and request a stop order. Mr. Herrick was alluding to the fact that there are certain circumstances under which the Council has the authority, such as in the case of the revocation of a conditional use permit after a hearing. But he's not certain if that would apply in this case. There is a site plan approval that is an administrative action. The Commission asked the City Attorney's Office to look into this as well as reporting to the Council on the status of what is being done. Mr. Mitchell said we live in a real world and the truth is it is already built in terms of where those entries are. He's not sure if they could be changed. The reality is the traffic problem. The City needs to understand the legal ramifications of the danger they may be putting people in. Ms. Zambronie's question is, "Who is going to define gateway?" The Commission will make their interpretation on what a gateway is with the information they receive at the next hearing. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to the regularly scheduled meeting on March 18, 1991. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. sl d