HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1996 PC Minutesc.;J"$"CeJ. (;..:;. oS c ~ ~. (~~-~MINUTES
Planning
Commission City
of Orange March
4, 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: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED MAJOR
SITE PLAN REVIEW 4-96 - RPM PROPERTIES, LTD. (RYDER TRUCK, INC.)The
applicant is proposing a truck rental facility for renting, leasing and maintaining vehicular fleet, with on-site
vehicular washing and fueling. The site is addressed 1440 Main Street.NOTE:
Negative Declaration 1492-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
of this project.
The applicant is requesting to continue this Item; staff suggests a hearing date of April 1, 1996.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Major Site Plan Review 4-
96 to the meeting of April 1, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
INRE:CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 2/21/96
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes of 2/21/96 with
a correction in spelling of the word "draft" on Page 1, last paragraph, line 4.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
INRE:CONTINUED HEARING
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).
1
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1487-95 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
of this
project.This item was continued from the February 5, 1996
hearing.)There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing
was
re-
opened.Aoolicant David Sheegog, 3242 Halladay, Santa Ana, was the architect representing Walgreen Express. They
took a look at another way of doing the project per Commissioner Pruett's suggestions at the previous
hearing. It improves the site in terms of circulation. They increased the parking from 31 to 32. The plan
works well.They took Chairman Bosch's comments to heart on compatibility regarding the architecture.
They lowered the roof pitch, changed the roofing materials and exterior materials from brick to primarily stucco with
a brick wainscot and matching concrete tile. The signage is smaller to fit
the building.Commissioner Pruett thought they should have on the east side ofthe property, where circulation is
going to the north, some kind of arrow indication on the pavement and maybe a sign that says "DO NOT
ENTER" on
that side.Mr. Sheegog thought that was covered in condition 6 - a sign of some type so that people coming off
of Chapman would keep right or would not enter so as not to be tempted to drive down the one way aisle.
An arrow on the pavement would be acceptable to the
owner.Chairman Bosch wanted to make it part of the conditions that sign approval was not part of the
CUP approval process. That goes to the Design Review Board. Although they provided an overall site
plan,including the proposed split off parcel to the south, and the parXing count and landscape coverages given
are for the entire parcel, the Commission was only looking at the proposal for the CUP for the
drive-thru pharmacy and how the site plan relates and makes it wOrX. If approval were given, it's not for
a future restaurant or parXing reductions related to thaI. That's a separate issue entirely. With the
applicant's concurrence, he wanted to add those two conditions to make sure that
is understood.The public hearing
was closed.Commissioner Smith found the project greatly improved with the re-positioning of the building.
She liked the architectural design and the fact the building is
a little smaller.Commissioner Pruett complimented the architect on taking back the Commission'
s recommendations and coming up with something that is a much improved project. It's an example of how the
Commission tries to worX with the applicant to make sure they get a project that reflects a
much improved situation.Chairman Bosch very much appreciated the applicant listening to the Commission and
working with the Commission to arrive at a better concept. He was not a fan of drive-thru
windows whatsoever. He was concemed about the particular type and level of development on the site; however,
he was cognizant of several things. Without the drive-thru a small pharmacy could be constructed on the
site with a similar site plan. So the issue becomes: Has the drive-thru been developed in such a way
that it enhances or is not detrimental to the development of the parcel? It is a difficult piece of land because
of the minor size of the site, the difficulty of access from Main and Chapman Avenue, and the reduction
in the site from its original size due to the widening of the intersection to improve traffic flow. Recognizing
that, there Isn~ the space for a landmarX use on the minor parcel of land without wOrXing in concert with
neighboring uses who seem to be happy with what they have now. This provides a good solution to
the
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration 1487-
95 in that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant impact on the environment or
wildlife resources.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit
2135-95 - Walgreen Express, with conditions 1-7 listed In the staff report and adding 3 additional
conditions:An arrow indication Is to be marXed on the pavement on the east side of the property, where circulation
is going to the north; Sign approval was not part of the CUP approval process; and approval was for the
drive-thru pharmacy - not for a future restaurant or parXing reductions.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
INRE:NEW HEARINGS
1. A REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15027; ZONE CHANGE 1180-96 - PARKRIDGE PARTNERS
The applicant proposes a modification to an approved tract map to make residential streets private, rather
than public, and to construct entry gates. Also proposed is a modification to the PC (Planned Community)
zoning text, to revise those development standards pertaining to front yard setback requirements. The
project is located on the east side of Loma Street north of Crest de Vllle and Serrano Avenue.
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R) 1204 was previously prepared and certified as
complete (S.C.H. No. 8801211).
Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
Commissioner Smith believed she needed to excuse herself on this item because of her husband's
employment with Southem Califomia Edison Company.
Mr. Mickelson stated Southem Califomia Edison no longer had an interest in this property; it has been sold. .
It's now owned by a partnership of Tracy and Standard Pacific.
It was decided Commissioner Smith could remain in the hearing and participate as Southem Califomia
Edison no longer had a financial interest in the property.
There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public
hearing was opened.
Aoolicant
Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose, represented the applicant, Standard Pacific. They requested to create a
private gated community with private streets vs. public streets. There will be no change to the design or
configuration of the tract, nor the grading plan or number of units. It's the same tract with private gates to
make it a gated community. The benefit to the City is that the streets will be owned and maintained by the
homeowners association. The second Issue is amending the front yard setback to allow a variation in the
streetscape to allow a one story element - the garage with a swing in drive - to be set back 10 feet as opposed to
the 18 feet. He passed around a few pictures of Standard Pacific homes in Newport Beach. It would be
a similar product, but not the identical one. Mr. White met with the homeowners associations of Maybury Ranch
and Crest de Vllle and they did not have a problem with this project.3
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
Commissioner Smith wanted to know why the applicant wanted to make the streets private? Does that mean
sidewalks are not required? Will the front yards become smaller?
Mr. Mickelson explained they wanted to make a gated community because they have found the marXet place
is looking for gated communities. Sheffield's project, directly across Loma, is a gated community. The
developer wants to maintain the sidewalks, as originally proposed. There is no change to the dimension of
the street or sidewalks.
Commissioner Romero wanted to know the side yard setbacks of the photos that were given to the
Commission? The photos don~ really reflect what he considered to be proper pictures. For example, you
can~ see the spacing on the right side of the garage. He thought a panorama type view would give them a
clearer picture of the setbacks.
Mr. Mickelson believed they were the standard five foot side yard setback - 10 feet between structures.Mike
White, Standard Pacific, 1565 West MacArthur Blvd., Costa Mesa, brought the photos to Illustrate the front
yard setbacks and he wasn~ focusing on the side yard setbacks since they were not making that change.
They would take in the visual impacts from one unit to the next with the tuming drives. When driving
down the street, people will not see just a row of garages lined up on the street.Public
Comment Bob
Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange ParX Acres, did not oppose the project, but had some questions.
He thought he heard by making the streets private, they would be the same width yet he noticed on
the plans the project would be constructed with streets designed according to the Hillside Standards,which
includes hillside street sections reduce the overall width of a local residential street by 16 feet. Will the streets
be narrowed by 8 to 16 feet? He was curious about "Z" Street. The plans say to put the gate on "E".That
will cause trouble for access to the parX. How will that be handled with a gate on "E"? Will you put access
to the parX on "Z" before getting to the gate? He wanted to know about the equestrian trails. Two of the
trails go through that property now.Rebuttal
Mr.
Mickelson spoke to the width of the streets. They are not going to be narrowed any more than they were on
the approved Tentative Tract. Yes, the Hillside Standards were used in the Tentative Tract. There's no change
to the previously approved street widths. Those that are narrower are the ones that have homes fronting
only on one side; the opposite side of the street would be a sloped bank going up to the next tier of homes.
Some of the frontage along the parX would be inside the gated community, but there will still be access
to the parX through the street that goes up to Crest de Ville and a small bit of frontage past that street.Plus,
there have been discussions with the Parks staff. They're wOrXing on a plan (and Standard Pacific is assisting
them) in which they plan to have a parXing lot on the parX site. It takes access from that cui de sac that
goes up to the back side of Crest de Ville. There is no change to the equestrian trails; they're exactly as they
were on the original tract map.Commissioner
Smith wondered about the advantages and disadvantages of private streets vs. public streets.Jim
Donovan, Associate Planner, responded in that it saves the City a lot of money if streets become private.The
reason why the developer wants to propose private streets is primarily to put up the gates. If the streets were
to remain public, legally they could not be restricted in access from public use. It's the City's requirement
that they become private streets if entry gates are to be erected. The streets were originally proposed
to the City's standards and remain the same.Commissioner
Smith did not catch the rationale for the 10 foot setback or how many properties were proposed
for this? She wouldn~ want to see all of the lots changed.4
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
Mr. Mickelson said the number would be in the range of 25 to 30%. They would be scattered throughout the
tract and sited in a manner to change the streetscape. The reason for wanting a 10 foot setback is so that
the garage can be tumed and there would be a swing in driveway. There would be varied setbacks and a
variation in the bulk and height of the buildings. They would worX with staff to avoid putting the short
setbacks on comer lots or on lots that might have sight distance restrictions.
Mr. White said they were not changing the footprint of the livable area; they're changing the footprint of the
garage by tuming the garage on its side. It would make the building 20 feet longer. If they designed it per
the minimum setbacks, they would be encroaching into the usable back yard area. They believe the people
want to have a more usable back yard and a functional front yard.
Commissioner Smith asked if there was a stipulation in the proposal of how many yards the setback can be
reduced? Wouldn~ it be feasible if a condition were not made, all the houses could end up with a reduced
setback?
Mr. Jones said it was not stipulated in the conditions. On Page 3 of the staff report, the two paragraphs
before the heading under Staff Review Committee, it talks about the model plans and the proposed reduction
affects approximately 20 percent of the total number of units built within the tract. The next paragraph talks
about the 10 foot setback requirement affecting approximately one-third of the total number of units. If
the Commission wishes to make it a condition, they would need to add
it.Mr. Mickelson said they would be willing to stipulate to no more than one-third of the total number of
units in the tract as a condition
of approval.It was Commissioner Smith's understanding that the parX and the parXing lot would be
determined later.When the parX was built, it would have to have adequate public parXing to compensate for not
having public
street parXing.Mr. Jones replied yes. It was safe to assume that access to the parX site would have to come off
of .Z.Street as a result of this action. It was his understanding the Community Services Department
was looking at a parXing lot that would account for the fact they may be losing some on-street parXing
on .E. Street.There are no plans for the parX yet. Staff is aware of this proposal and are not
opposed to it.The public
hearing was closed.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to the
City Council to approve the proposed revision to Tentative Tract Map 15027, with the conditions as
stated, and recommend to approve Zone Change 1180-96, adding a condition that the 10 foot setback in the front
of the buildings be allowed in no more than one-third of the total number
of
units
in
the tract.AYES:NOES:
ABSTAINED:
Commissioners Pruett, Romero, Smith
None Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman
Bosch retumed to the meeting.2. APPEAL
NO. 428 - TONY ALVES An appeal of the decision of the Staff Review Committee to approve Minor Site
Plan Review 3-95, which allows the construction and operation of an auto service facility. The site is zoned C-
1 and Is located at the southwest comer of
Pearl Street and Rancho Santiago Boulevard.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from
the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act per Section
15303
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
The appeal was filed by John Delgado, Sr. The applicant for the project is Tony Alves.
Commissioner Smith wanted clarification as to why this was being appealed.
Chris Cames, Associate Planner, gave some background on the project. The applicant was requesting to
demolish the existing residence at the southwest comer of Peari Street and Rancho Santiago Boulevard. He
was proposing to construct an auto service facility that will have five service bays, a storage room and a
small office. Access to the site will be from Rancho Santiago Boulevard. The building will face south,
towards Chapman Avenue. There will be no openings on the east, west or north sides of the building. The
proposed use is a permitted land use in the C-1 zone and it is defined as an auto minor repair facility.
The proposed site plan conforms to the Development Standards for the C-1 district in terms of
building setback,number of on-site parXing spaces, building height, and landscaped areas. The
Staff Review Committee,when they reviewed the minor site plan application, reviewed it twice. The applicant,
after the original approval, made some modifications to the site and responded to some concems and comments
by the Staff Review Committee members. The Committee approved the project since the proposal would
not have an impact on the neighborhood in terms of traffic and its design minimizes the noise impact
because the only building openings were towards the south. The recommended action for the Planning Commission
is a final determination on the appeal. It will not go to the City Council unless appealed by the
applicant or appellant.The project is being appealed because the appellants feel the proposal would create noise and
traffic that will adversely affect the residential areas just north of the site. The site is separated from the
residential area by a 60 foot wide street (Peari Street). To the east, west and south of the site are other commercial
uses - a bank parXing lot and a
mini marXet.Chairman Bosch asked the Assistant City Attomey what the role of the Planning Commission
was in identifying a basis for appeal with regard to this type of issue? What were the restraints of ordinance
or law?Mr. Soo-Hoo read from Section 17.08.050 of the Orange Municipal Code. It basically
structures the appeals process and specifically, the basis of the appeal to the Planning Commission should be
the appellant's citation of any error in the process or abuse of discretion made in the process of the minor
site plan review.He recommended the Commission focus on those two categories and perhaps the
appellant could elaborate as to why they felt there might have been an error or abuse of discretion
In the process.The public
hearing
was opened.Aooellant Jeanette Palacio, 18931 Pearl Street, felt traffic was a big Issue. They have seen
East Chapman grow tremendously over the past few years; a lot of changes have occurred in the area. Across
from the proposed site there are the OCT buses that use that as a bus stop. She presented pictures and a 4
minute video tape of the traffic at the intersection. The last traffic count was made in 1993 on Rancho Santiago Road and
it's at Level A. They talked to the office staff at the middle school about the increased number
of students and traffic. They strongly feel the traffic is more than
Level A now.Chairman Bosch said this use is allowed by right in the zone. It's a commercial zone. The
issue before the Commission is related to the site plan review, which is to look at the strict
application of Development Standards and the appropriate development of the site for a use on the site. The Commission
would like the appellant to address that issue - was there an error or abuse of discretion? Traffic has nothing to do
with the site standards, other than where is the driveway placed and is there sufficient safety in the design of
the site.Commissioner Smith asked what was currently on the site? (A home.) Did she receive public notice
of this project in the mail? (No. The site
was posted.)John Delgado, 18971 Peari Street, said this was never posted; only posted for this meeting. They
were not notified or told about the project. He talked to the East Chapman Improvement
Committee
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
agreed with the design of the plan as submitted. But Mr. Delgado and the Committee met to discuss the
project and they said they were pushed; they really didn~ understand the project. The Committee was going
to write another letter to the City asking for a continuance until they could review it further. He spoke about
the noise issue. The proposed use can do anything except body worX. They are going to have to endure the
noise of pneumatic tools, compressors, hammer guns and other loud equipment. Goodyear is down the
street and they have to listen to the noise going on there. They are going to have roof mounted equipment.
It will be loud and will disturb the neighborhood. He understood that C-2 was basically for automotive
uses,but it was changed to C-1. The use will create one heck of a problem; an automotive use is
not compatible with the residential neighborhood. He played a taped recording of the different noises made by
the power tools that will be used at the auto shop. All of these noises will echo off the wall and be louder.
He objected to the roof mounted equipment, height of the block wall, traffic
and noise.Lupe Hurtado, 18696 Vine Street #A, was the President of the EI Modena Association. The entrance
to the project is deadly; there will be a lot of wrecks. The Chapman Avenue traffic is terrible and density Is
heavy in
EI Modena.Those speaking against
the
appeal:Aoolicant Tony Alves, 25712 Le Parc #99, Lake Forest, thought the biggest issue was the traffic. They
located the driveway as far south as possible from the comer and the residences to mitigate the problems. The
tum over for automobile use is minimal compared to a bank or a restaurant. He thought their use
was fairly appropriate for an use that has this kind of traffic. The location of the driveway towards
Chapman Avenue keeps the traffic away from the comer. The new road, Crawford Canyon, just opened. That
should alleviate some of that cross traffic going from Chapman back to the Canyon. As far as noise, that's why
they oriented the building the way it is. In the original plan, they oriented the building towards Circle K. But, by
orienting it this other way was to alleviate the sound. He didn~ think the noise would be as great as what was
heard on the recording because of the wall. Their landscaping will also absorb some of the noise.
The Goodyear store is facing west; it's not facing north. As a result, there is direct sound going back to
the residences because it's open to
that side.Commissioner Smith asked if Mr. Alves would be using all the equipment heard on the
recording? (Yes.)Would they use other equipment
not mentioned?Mr. Duconenshell, 10932 Glen Robin Lane, was the owner of the proposed facility and he responded
to the question of pneumatic tools. The tools on the reCOrding were much louder than what would be
heard behind the building. He will be using the pneumatic air wrench, air ratchet and at a very minimal
air chisel wrenches. Their compressor has an intake silencer on it. It can be running and people can
have a conversation standing next to it. It will also be on the inside of the building, in its own contained
area. The compressor is not an issue. There will be noise from the tools. The worX will be done in the bays,
inside the building. They are not allowed to do worX outside the building in the parXing lot. The worX will take
place in the front pari of the building, the front one third of the building. That's where the noise will
be generated.Commissioner Pruett asked if the applicant had considered sound attenuation material inside the
building to help contain or minimize the
noise? (Yes.)Mr. Alves explained they have provided sound attenuation batts to absorb the activity of
the sound.Chairman Bosch said they mentioned the air compressor would be In a space within the building.
On the plans, he could not identify where that
might be.Mr. Duconenshell explained it would be stored in the parts storage area in its own compartment - a door
with a cabinet on it. They intend to have an insulated enclosure within the parts storage room to contain
the
noise.
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
Chairman Bosch asked about the sound attenuation balls and where they will be located?
Mr. Alves said the balls would be on the inside of the north wall approximately 8 ft. up the wall. The bottom
will be broken up by having vehicles In there.
Rebuttal bv aooellants
Mrs. Palacio said Goodyear was servicing autos out of the bays and she had pictures of that occurring. She
felt the residents would pick up the extra noise from that also.
Mr. Delgado said he recorded a compressor that was inside a building and it was loud. You cannot keep a
compressor quiet. This is not a good place to put this use. A tune up shop is a C-2 use in his
opinion.The public hearing was
closed.Chairman Bosch noted for the record the Commission received two letters from the East
Chapman Improvement Committee: one dated February 12 approving the submittal, and one dated February
29 indicating they felt since they found the neighbors had contacted them with concems that they might
have more time. And, a letter from Mrs. Palacio dated February 29 requesting more time to further investigate
the
matter.Commissioner Pruett wanted Mr. Soo-Hoo to review again what the Commission's role Is. There
is a frameworX under which the Commission operates in these issues. He wanted a clear understanding
not only for the Commission, but for the appellant
as well.Mr. Soo-Hoo explained the proposed use is allowed in the zone. He did not see any authority
in the code that would, through the appeals process, preclude the applicant from using that property for
that use. His understanding is that the code permits the use in the zone where it is being proposed. He
didn~ see where that would be an issue for an appeal. The Planning Commission, according to Chapter 17.10,
has the ability to discuss with the applicant certain design concepts and perhaps some improvements
to the proposed design to mitigate certain concems. He does not see the ability to preclude the use that
is being proposed.Mr. Jones said staff has wOrXed extensively with the applicant to develop a site plan that would
do the best job in making this a compatible use with the adjoining neighborhood - both commercial
and residential _recognizing this was a permitted use. As the applicant can attest, they continued this project a
couple of times to look at different design altematives, looked at where the access points should be, the
orientation of the building, walls, fencing, landscaping; the building is actually set back an additional 17 feet
from Peari Street. They were as sensitive as they possibly could be due to the fact it was a permitted use. There
are a variety of uses surrounding the use - both residential and commercial. and the applicant, to their credit,
has modified the plans a couple of times to meet all the recommendations staff had to make it the best
possible project. Staff included a number of conditions, including restricting the hours of operation and types of
uses that can occur. The conditions would be enforced as any other conditions if there are complaints that
the applicant is not complying with
them.Commissioner Smith thought this looked like a tall building - 25 feet - with the back wall facing the residential
properiies. Are the attenuation batts required to go the full 25 feet in height along the back face of
the building? How much batting is required?Mr.
Alves said the Staff Review Committee required that a parapet wall (3 feet high) to hide roof mounted equipment.
It physically will be as high as the equipment. The air conditioning needs are minimal, covering only
the office area and lobby. The unit is fairly small. The exhaust fans for the bays are about 3 feet tall.The
total height from the floor to the bottom of the joist structure below the plywood roof is about 20 feet;then
there are the 3 foot beams (depth) that go along each bay. Seventy to eighty percent of the wall would have
sound attenuation batts. The batts run from right under the deck down to four feet from the floor on the back
wall.8
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
Commissioner Pruett's question was about batting of the ceiling. It would keep the sound from bouncing
around. They would absorb some sound if the ceiling had the sound attenuation batts as well. Is that
something they would consider doing? (Yes, it would not be a problem.)
Chairman Bosch appreciated the concems. He sat on the Commission when the existing Goodyear place
was approved down the street, which was approved under zoning existing at that time too. There was a lot of
discussion about the sound attenuation there as well. Obviously, there is a condition of approval that no
worX be done outside the building. It sounds like business is booming there; it sounds like they are
exceeding the capacity of their site. He believed staff should investigate the site to make sure the conditions
of approval are being maintained at that location. He recollected the discussion about the air compressor at
that site because it was an issue. It was to be installed in an insulated block room at the back comer of the
bays in order to assure there would be appropriate sound attenuation. As has been mentioned, a lot of things
could go wrong with that. They need to identify what can be done to mitigate problems from occurring in the
use. One of the minor things he saw on the plan was an electrical room opening on the north side (northeast
comer) of the building, with a further door into office and storage. He appreciates that many electrical
utilities require direct access to the main service panel from the exterior of the building, but the connection
into the building itself affords an opportunity through just casualness to have open doors and noise carrying
out directly out of the north wall of the building. He would require that the access to the electrical room be
via a door on the Rancho Santiago Boulevard side, not on the Peari Street side and that there be no opening
allowed Into the remainder of the building from It. That would reduce one potential leak. The other is, yes,
sound travels in straight lines and reflects. So when one looks at the containment of the air compressors and
what open doors can do, they heard the applicant state there would be an enclosure constructed within the
parts storage room, which would further reduce the release of noise from it. They need to look for a direction
as to how to baffle that as one gains entrance to the room; insulate the door in the room to assure there is no
direct line of sound transmission from the door to the compressor enclosure properly contained via the door
of the parts storage room and out to the outside or to the bay. It's something that can be done without
damaging the capacity of the parts storage room. He appreciates the thoughts about insulation batts on the
ceiling of the space in-between the beams because he sees the majority of the noise Is going to be
bounced off the ceiling out to the pavement outside. Beyond that, it's a hard surface business; it would be hard
to control any further spread of noise. The noise will be substantially less on the back side of a block wall with
a majority of the area covered by insulation batts and it will be in front of the open bays. Given the zoning,
the north wall of the building itself could have been closer to Peari Street. Landscaping could have been
placed over against the Bank of America and the driveway further from the Bank of America, but this would
have meant even a greater imposition of the building on the neighbors. Staff's direction to relocate the
building southward at the expense of some landscaping against the south property wall helps the
neighborhood substantially by providing the extra 10 feet of landscaping or a portion thereof along the north property
line.That was a good thing to do to help solve the problem. He would much rather see an auto
maintenance business at some other location from the traffic and sound point of view, yet it is allowed in the zone.
Pearl Street has a lot of impacts because of the Albertson's center, the Bank of America; the Edison substation
is quiet but it's a big impact. If he had a choice on a conditional use permit of whether or not the use should
be allowed on the site, he would say no. But, the zoning allows
it.Commissioner Smith voted against the other automotive repair shop near this one. If she had a chance
to vote on this use, she would vote against it as well. It's not an appropriate use so close to the
residential neighborhoods. However, it is allowed in the zone. She was concemed over the public notice process. It'
s not fair to just post a property, especially on December 21 in EI Modena where a few people are
celebrating Christmas. Form of notification should be done by mail to everyone. She personally felt there shouldn~
be any City business late in December because so many times things like this are missed by the public.
Many people go out of town for the holidays. Perhaps on future projects in this neighborhood the notices could
at least be hand delivered to the adjoining properiies. It would be less costly than by mailings. She felt
more could be done on this project in terms of sound attenuation. At the very least, the air conditioning on top
of the building could be baffled for the sound. She would like to see more sound attenuation within the
building itself, whether that means coming down lower on the building or include the ceiling. She didn~ think 8
feet up off the ground was low enough. It should be lower, especially given the nature of the tools that will
be used. She agreed with Chairman Bosch on the attempts staff has
made
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
along with the applicant to put an approved use in a nice configuration the best way possible to not intrude
upon the neighbors. An effort has been made; it's just the unfortunate circumstance of C-1 across the
street from
residential.Commissioner Romero thought the block building and the building siting will reduce the amount of sound
that would be heard, but unfortunately it will not eliminate the sound entirely. He agreed with the need to
baffle the air conditioning and more sound attenuation. It's a negative situation of having a commercial use
across the street from the residential neighborhood, but he felt an effort has been made to help mitigate some of
the
problems.Commissioner Pruett said that since this was an approved use It does present a problem from the
standpoint of what the Commission's role is and what they can deal with. He thought staff has done an excellent job
of trying to deal with this Issue and trying to mitigate it to the extent they can to make the project have as
little impact as it can on the community. The additional steps of mitigating the sound through sound
attenuation on the roof and on the back wall and even on the other surfaces within the building is appropriate
to maximize the use of sound attenuation. The changing of the doorway is a good suggestion for the
electrical access. The issue of the air compressor - he knows there are air compressors that run very silent today;
there are whisper quiet type air compressors that have to meet reduced decibel levels. That could be done
as well and would help in that area. In terms of sound attenuation for the air conditioner unit on the roof, he
didn~ understand the value of that because the sound attenuation that would be from that unit is no greater
than it would be from an air conditioner unit from a residential home. He doubted if it would be more than a
2 ton unit or maybe even a one ton unit, given the space that is going to be conditioned. Then, to have it
behind a parapet wall that is 3 feet high, he can~ imagine there would be any real problem or negative
impact from the sound of that equipment operating.
Chairman Bosch summarized the Commission's thoughts. They all wished it were a CUP so they could deny
the project, but they can~ do that. Before the zoning ordinance was changed, a number of similar uses in the
zone were tumed down until the City Council saw fit to change the ordinance. Now, they must look for
mitigation measures.
Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to uphold the staff on Minor Site Plan
Review 3-95 with the conditions listed in the staff report (1-5) plus adding several conditions: 1)
Require the relocation of the electrical room door to the east elevation of the building facing Rancho
Santiago Boulevard with no entry door into the interior of the building from the electrical room. 2) Acoustical Insulation
in the form of applied batts on all interior walls of the service bay room above the height of 4 feet be
installed with the equivalency of an STC rating of 45, in addition to the rating of the masonry walls or room walls
of the building, and at the ceiling as well. 3) That similar insulation be installed in the ceiling space of
the parts room. 4) That a whisper quiet type (which is a term of art and brand on air compressors)
be required,including an intake silencer and enclosure for the air compressor, and that the air compressor
be installed within a sound insulated room with sound sealed doors within the parts storage room. And, that
Appeal #428
be
denied.
AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett,
Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch stated again the use is allowed. The traffic will not be more; it will be less than
with another use on the site. The location of the driveway is the best. The landscaping has been enhanced
towards the neighborhood to further screen the building as much as possible. The applicant has another
round through the Design Review Board per the Minor Site Plan Review with regard to the materials, colors
and actual design of the exterior of the building. He encouraged the applicant works to ensure that articulation
of the building be such that it breaks up the apparent mass of the building and that the colors also be
selected in agreement with the Design Review Board, to further minimize the building so that it blends in
with the community. The landscaping should include base landscaping along the north and east facade
of the building in addition to ground scape or ground cover and trees, as shown on the plan so that it
further breaks down the height of the wall. After many hours of looking at acoustical studies
on
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
conditioning sound attenuation, he has found the line of sight is the key to that. The units have gotten much
smaller and include intemal baffling. The parapet height itself reduces the noise.
Mr. Jones announced that action by the Planning Commission is final, but could be appealed to the City
Council. There is a 15 day appeal period with a $115 fee.
Chairman Bosch, on behalf of the appellants, requested their names and addresses be placed on staff's list
to be informed of the date for the Design Review Board meeting so that they could participate in that.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-96 - CITY OF ORANGE
The City of Orange is proposing to modify its zoning regulations pertaining to cellular antennas.
NOTE:Negative Declaration 1495-96 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts
of this
proposal.Joan Wolff, Senior Project Planner, presented the full staff report. The Planning Commission has
addressed this issue twice previously. Once, in a study session on December 4, 1995 where information was
presented primarily by the telecommunications industry representatives, and then, again as a miscellaneous item at
the February 5, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting where staff provided some information regarding the
types of regulations that could be instituted. She reviewed the comments the Commission made at the
last meeting and tried to identify areas of consensus through majority opinion. Then, she put together a
draft amendment, which would amend the City's existing cellular antenna ordinance. The approach staff
has taken is to retain the current ordinance more or less in tact and then to add provisions which would allow
for antennas to be located in additional areas of the City. Those additional provisions would be subject
to issuance of a conditional use permit. To recap the existing cellular antenna ordinance, the City now
allows cellular antennas in commercial and industrial zones only. Ground mounted antennas, which would
be mono-pole installations, are permitted uses when they are located at least 100 feet from
any residentially zoned properties and the antennas do not exceed 65 feet in height. Building mounted
antennas are permitted a maximum height of 10 feet and the maximum height of the antenna above grade can
not exceed the building height restrictions of the zone. All associated equipment must be located inside of
the building.Under the proposed amendment, antennas would also be permitted in the o-
p (Office-Professional) Districts,CoR (Commercial-Recreation) and P-I (public-Institution) zones. That is based
on what she heard at the last meeting. And, the fact the Commercial-Recreation is
a new zone which encompasses the industrial area.These antennas will be permitted in these three additional
zones, subject to the same restrictions now in effect in the Commercial-Industrial zones,
which is regarding height and proximity to residential zones.When antennas are building mounted, associated
equipment could be located outside the building, subject to Design Review approval of
adequate screening devices. The proposed amendment would also permit antennas in additional circumstances subject
to issuance of a conditional use permit. These circumstances would include ground mounted antennas that are
less than 100 feet from multiple family residential zones,which Includes R-3, R-4, M-H
or P-C zones allowing multiple family residential uses, or from any residentially zoned property that
is developed with a non-residential use. Also included would be antennas in residential zones that were in
athletic fields or parXing lots of schools, parXs, or other recreational facilities when co-
located with existing light fixtures. Also, in residential zones on properties containing legal, non-conforming commercial developments. Another
provision would be in the R.O zone, again, as above, in athletic fields or
parXing lots of schools, parXs, or other recreational facilities when co-Iocated with existing light fixtures.Many of the City's
parks and schools are zoned either R-O or R-1. There is no consistent zoning of those
throughout the City. Finally, a change to allow antennas when mounted on buildings to exceed 10 feet
in height or exceed the building height limitations of the zone. They had talked about locating antennas
in public rights-of-way. That has not been Included in the staff report because of
some reservations that were held by the Public WorXs Department regarding liability that the City would incur, potential
difficulties in coordination of dealing with change outs, repairs,
that
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
The public hearing was re-
opened.Public
Comment Ed Gala, JM consulting Group, 3760 Kilroy Airpori Way, #440, Long Beach, represented Cox CaUfomia
PCS.They are currently in the process of establishing their PCS antenna networX and marXeting territory
which extends from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, out to Las Vegas and Arizona. They have approximately
500 lAIql~r-"" IAAO rm-I.A I""\nl.iill,,,,,.nll
IAllllnriC.~-U""" v...... l........"1..... =....t...-..wl t'wt:U:-- ....,..... .................. ...-:-,., :":-., .._..,.._--~,,..- --;--OA 1116 blSllll!IlO COWWI2210U !2 1lUSI' Pili
COnlQ P6 SODeSI6Q 10 1116 C!lA II~ u::~.II\Il' 'lOU62 suuonucea IllSISClIOU
nnll""'. Il~
IQJ~ Q I~ ng) Q1hhc::l~::
1I hl::IJOO M.lrU!:II"I.., --.....;-;--..- ;- ,...-,tV,........ :....1:0...-....... -t.....- ..,-,- '1.-"""- w-.-.:-- "'''''';-''' :"'_---, ---n-- -- ,...-,. ,,...... --...
l...I'r"\IIA\.1IAf"'1::' ).IlAIl::'lA.nlAlJ:lA I L-AO - ,.... I .1_ (,,\L nLl\ollA(:lIC 04,.bc-btJ ..^ .,...ov--..;\,.'O..,~--
te -gqqLOtloCo .ft<'\
ao-"<;lIIgn!~~"r-f"-'O'U"""f~--U\.--VlUJ.~' VlVU"HI\Ql (JIi:l'\.oIO'l.O't!\Ib
Ill!2 OLOOO2SI'pu lLlI~""lI IICI~ annlQ~ --;---;1" r-- _ T.... _~'jU~&lUUl.I_'_~e-
LY('
1.'_~ 'pl-,:~'--.L ~euJUOI'_ bl~~P'II(tU'I "ie. I./,
Ul .,'cu I
L'i"hnu' _ '.lIp. L'
lfUlIU tfl Q.bw;)rl:Oc;;-!OVn.....vt!gO'"'....O"I.O-~-Q~C(~VG.lV'")U~dt~1:vUUcq!"u..Pf;:l.fl'Cuo(;,. ..-- L.___..___ I:.VI-'UIQlIJ\ C ..o~
DIO"'U!U~-v II'6.<:VWW!~{" "'!' .CO~,:,,!""!!,D .W"';l"~"I lI.I" I"'" _n.,__ -Ql, ~E1.ql!,ll!l!O,l!,~Jl!!ll f<
lnJg ~_lU"Iyn{"q",?1.IOO"--u..-:L.
p-v.~-c,...cvuu,.,.qvQ.....u"'--- -- ...- .--- C'Wtll"''''iWVUJIn....!""... lhu"
I"'I ~t;UOU'i- tf'v-\;;o~tnl"" l;;l'"~!'Uo-c..""1JT-1U'l. ""4.......~
MtJ!"-lI MUIlI"l1I11UM lUL - fSIC6Ula fO
L6fS!U nJ6 cnU6UI
OLq!U5UL'ti WUUi UL ltic:-c:= !UI;:!I~ tlu"lHJ'I;iUIU""'ltI4"1Ul.U^!
i:!UO'i016C1 10 RurllUUR2
to
De 10Cllrlla IU saarrlousl SLeS2 01 1U6 ellA' 1 U026 Saarr!OUSI DLOAI210U2Moma De 2nl'?:"U7~~ nl a 1'On1ll'l,..,,1nIIGI n~ ~IIIIII: In lo~h 'IIC.
c;''l(I~nll''-~VOU:11 qll[CIIlIIilI nlnIllQIJ~I_(lIiR ~lrll1nM GllnAA'r"UlJV.,.!Vl;O-"on;tq wQr-~"
a.\a...-~..WO,-~~ ~~.."...:.ri"V\,o""...'lb..:!N~."-"""I'W9uq-...."""Ucn.luU'"~~a...--. ....--.- -- ~"'Ug"'l ""I:i!u.... VI. .. U \titlil tlu\.l fl.";
Wl:
fA.!WIIW .,t:
J!u.,. U\ we. 'QIu+tJUUQI "t^'''V ULC'''(
tlI ""OJ'" uVI VA\".,.,,""I ... ... 06LW!U6q S wl:IJl!WnW..,1 U6' '0'11 S220C1SI6Q ean!OW6UI
Wn21 P6
10CllI6Q !U2!Q6 0111.16 pnUQ!Ua' lUll DnllOlull U61l1UILe21UClIOU2 Ol 11.16 SO A tw:uullnAn III flIQ n-L.. JnuICA-.....LOlA"lnulll) nl?.lu~' .. .. ~lln~1 ,~IQ.hll\bn~OI'I
GIIJCJIQlIIC:IU' .SIIIfQjIlIQl, Mnnln RI?n 1 S2rUCiiOu2'UOM""IU .....,. ..,."".... ell "~~..'ft...r. IIIC~jQ RIUCIIIIQ~ MIII-nA~ hAiiiii;;Aa lii"'OIA-~A
rLii'AR''siaairiou~' :to-uG2'''innlGCl'}olUQ29Wg""rL LI--:-- ~_. ':_"'-"".&>.&>'_~'-'-{'I.I\. .eqUJ.JHClJ-"'....._UJ"3I!'l1?fUI!lL, ~""'''.J.o~' ...~"". J~~ Lr".JlQ'-<,luA~ 1Io1flur: .
JII'IJ"I. ~
hI,qvulur:l .~~_
j..q~''''OII''1!I1 ~n,u V\."l:If'"~~.;(llrb"""T."fCoo-g~R ._~~-"""""l1'
u;,II1"""'G<n;-...e.. ---..--- -- IJUi"UUttc::!Utt"'l"'l!HUUI:III ...!....,I.....,COotgU"'Q'~ Gnfl!8....--tv-!"~nlll LUW _ W,nlltOII> l"WJl~ ,"'''.!~~.UI!''I ~UU"" "T'-~ ,--..')~.Q.IJJVYCl!!Q!l 9!-l!
I!U_q !:!l~nlJ[~ "'''I!'UU.'''' "'''I..''~ 1"""..lI.l"U .~.Oo-Jo;~,
l c.1:
01"ful".!..,..-.__.'_._' --..--. ~
UU""'IUl.Uuv...n ....i:I. !~ "I'Q'I\'Q'I""l1b"l-n11....-
g--..JVW-,;c,"'f'fCAlff"l'.c;~- 'V1""'.~""
1Cl"l .,
RtT.
I'f"p"'.'^'I~~UO\;.,SOU62 U'SI MSLS !U SIIJ'ISUC \!Glqi:' OL U1:tLfC!UU IUJe' Ul G'\.
l'UUIG' u~Lfta UL U\lJtliL
Ltli\;-..1:;a-HUUa-1 la-LolIK!tliC'" mlJtliU LoV- -InCllrll" MUU llXI21IUll IIl1ur uxrnLe2' '0'120' IUl621a6UIISI SOU62 OU Dl0D6U!62 COUIS!U!UO 160SI' UOU-COUI0WJ!Ua 1I..
q''''
11!I1 n.oA.q,lnh"'loll'~' \.Illn(lloOJ..hlnfLl~"'11 MQflIt1 nAJ11 nl~ LL..n ~nIICl' RRQIII' R? Rnnl\':;' III RnlIRn~ IIRln~ nl ..~__ _.~..JfU''''''''_'''-~~''"W''U.lfIII,..I.~'U<
ev''
r-'''!r.qot.t.JV'"-TV''lV'Jro'''_'''f/~ ~V..-'l"y.Jll ..A.... .n.....".,..... .t...v........v..t
t...~ t."'!f.....--.~:..,...,n..-....~oil 11.1" ~uu" .1.1.I"n 1.11:11"'1 .1:1111'-""4 I:II...,UII. IU...I:IIHUU au.
ouuac; ,..,---- - IJtj!UIJI UL tliXLo"titjq I~ JJll!14!UU J.ltrJ\ll.li I!WJI~HUUC ,lU P6Cl1n26 0120W6 l62G~SI!OU2 II.
ISI M6ll> bnOIlC UlIUI2-0l-MSA' I
USI
US2
UOI
066U !UClna6Q !U 1116 2ISU l6D<Ir.:nl' hnrRlIrIQInllllcnlCl~2IU .. 1,191n nl'l1~ lr.(1nll~ Jl.llnlll? ~""allll"l~IIC Ic.A~:
unIIlR
IIQnlllrl rII!:1r rIIA I"lrl Mnnln Il 1 ___._..._~._.. ___....SlII &&u.. _.......J:lI... ............1 ....."'_.._, ....... ......... ..... .......R ......... ..,........,..... ...... ...,. .............'
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
eaming potential and deny them the opportunity when they are so close. They would have all the effects of a
cellular antenna with no revenue. At least, if the antenna were on their property, they might have some input
so that it would not be in a line of sight from the front windows or rear windows. Why not give R-3
property bounded as they are the opportunity to have an antenna subject to the conditional use permit if the
antenna could be placed so that it will not be offensive to
others?The public hearing was
closed.Commissioner Romero, at the last meeting, had asked with regards to the 100 foot requirement - was it 100
feet to the residence or 100 feet to the property line?
Ms. Wolff responded it was 100 feet to the property line of residentially zoned properties.
Chairman Bosch said they had a request for clarification of the relationship to the various R-
zones.Ms. Wolff explained the way the ordinance is written now, a conditional use permit could be applied for
within the commercial and industrial zones when an antenna would be located less than 100 feet only from R-
3, R-4, M-H or P-C zones. It would not allow a conditional use permit to place an antenna less
than 100 feet from the R-1 and R-2 zones. That's based on her understanding of what
she heard
at the last Planning Commission meeting.Commissioner Pruett said to address the concem of being in a
residential zone, that is excluded. (Yes.)Chairman Bosch said there was a request for consideration of levels
of staff review of mountings or equipment vs. Design Review Board. Staff has considered a threshold
that Is evident in the proposed ordinance before the Commission. At what point is it determined
that a proposed
antenna installation doesn~require DRB review?Ms. Wolff said the way it is written now, building mounted antennas
would not require DRB review. That would be reviewed by staff. However, if the equipment were to be located on the roof,
such as a large box, it would need to be screened and then DRB would look at the screening to
make sure
it was compatible with the building.Chairman Bosch said the screening is based upon if the proposed location of
equipment is such that it could be seen from beyond the building - for example, if the equipment were
concealed behind an existing roof screen or parapet, that is
something staff review would handle.Correct. Ms. Wolff replied if it were behind a parapet, there wouldn~ need to
be additional screening and it would not go to the DRB
for review in that case.Commissioner Pruett said one of the issues for him was
changing cellular antennas to wireless communication antennas. The ordinance deals with both wireless
communication antennas and satellite dish antennas. Is there a definition in the code as to what wireless is vs. satellite dish,
and is there a difference?Ms. Wolff would need to look at the code to see if there was a definition of
the satellite dish antenna. Staff has not provided a definition for wireless communication antennas. The reason
for the change from cellular antennas to wireless communication is because there is now a wider range
of these type of communication services. The cellular antennas would service just cellular phones, whereas
PCS includes all kinds of different things - two way
paging, voice mail, etc.Commissioner Pruett's concem is that the wireless communication is also a satellite dish. He was just trying to avoid confusion because later on in some of the material they talk
about wireless communication antennas and satellite dish antennas. The question is going to come up - is it all inclusive or is it
different? They need to make sure they have
clarified
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
Ms. Wolff said it would be a good idea to add some definitions to the code.
Chairman Bosch was concemed about looking at the proposed revision 17.12.020 - the new subparagraph 1.
b., talking about antenna elements may be placed on building facades or mounted on rooftops. And when located
on top of buildings, antennas shall not exceed 10 feet in height and the combined height of the building
and antenna shall not exceed the height limitations of the underlying zone or building approval. He was
concemed of going back to basic building design. He felt they needed a better or a more clear definition.
There may be a building that has been designed and approved that is substantially less than the height
limitations of the zone, and the Imposition of an antenna on top of that even within the 10 foot limit of antenna
height and under the maximum height may be a very visually damaging element for the building and
the neighborhood. Although economic gain is a factor in this, what Is ugly in the neighbo~s yard may be beautiful
in anothe~s yard if money is being made. That has to be a concem, especially with commercial and
institutional buildings. He would like to see a better definition there as well. He wants to make sure the antennas
themselves be contextual with the design of the building - not change the apparent mass or key features of
the approved building design (without assuring that it Is blended in). Perhaps that's where the DRB comes
in. He wanted to be sure they were tight enough not to give it away, but at the same time not make everyone
go through the DRB if they have an element that clearly fits within the context of the building. Also,
with regard to extemally located equipment. If the equipment andlor antenna mounting are concealed by
permanent approved building design components, then it is not an issue. It goes away as a problem. That
can be reflected In the ordinance to make it clear where the threshold is between staff approval of
such designs and those which in fact change the basic design of the building. He was delighted to see
the proposal that antennas shall conform to all building setback requirements. With regard to specific sites such
as where there are other antennas or tanks, etc. in the zone, he would be hopeful that careful consideration of
the individual site could provide locations that meet the site requirements for reception and broadcast, but
at the same time don~ interfere with the neighbors property rights or with the function of the underiying property.
The comment about building mounted antennas carries onto 2.d. - 17.12.020 as well as to the height
and it carries on through. On Page 6 of the staff report, Section 17.24.045 . Conditional Use Regulations - the intent
is that the Planning Commission shall have the authority to review the applications and approve such permits
with appropriate conditions. He preferred to see wording that states something more like that.Commissioner
Smith had a
question on Page 2, Item b. (1) - in athletic fields or parXing lots of schools, parks or other recreation facilities, when
antennas can be located on the same poles with existing lighting fixtures.It wouldn~ be allowed in
places unless, at the time of the proposal, there were existing light fixtures there?Correct.) Would it be possible
if it looked like there could be an addition of light fixtures and allow the antenna with it, that a
new light fixture could be added?Ms. Wolff said the way
it was written if the light were not there, an antenna could not be located there.Where there is lighting in
a parX, it is very active. It could be there may be other areas in the parX that are more remote (maybe closer to
the freeway) out of the traffic pattem that may be more appropriate for an antenna.Commissioner Pruett thought it
might
be more appropriate to say standing rather than existing. It was important to try and be
inclusive because it may be there would be a parX that doesn~ have lighting and the proposal is (on the part
of the applicant) to install lighting in conjunction with the antenna. There would be a benefit derived from it as
well for the community.Chairman Bosch said it would
depend on the type of parX. If it were a passive parX, the lighting would be very low on the pole.
Commissioner Smith spoke to Mr.
Blodget's question about the R-3 zone. If someone wanted to put an antenna in a R-
3 zone, couldn~ they apply for a CUP to do that? (No.) Is there any provision in the existing ordinance where an
antenna could be in a R-3 zone? (No, there are no provisions.)14
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
Ms. Wolff explained the only way a person could apply for the CUP is if the ordinance specifically says this
use is permitted subject to issuance of a CUP.
Commissioner Pruett wanted to speak to the issue of the R-3 zone. He appreciated the interest in being
able to place an antenna in a location on this particular piece of property that was mentioned ear1ier, but it
was important the public understands that when you provide for that provision for one unique situation, it opens
it up to all R-3 type properties. He struggled with how to deal with that issue; he didn~ know how
you would provide for that unique situation without creating a real problem in many other areas
ofthe City.Chairman Bosch had a real problem with the concept of allowing antennas in parks or schools
or other recreation areas. It is now in the public open space where there ought to be some rights
and the environment maintained, but he was willing to consider them under the conditions of the CUP. He
saw the potential impact of the equipment, small as it is, as the tougher site solution for the applicants to
solve. It can be wOrXed out if the ordinance is tight enough that it doesn~ open the door. It's very
limiting to communications, public safety and general issues and not strictly to commercial gain. It's an
utility related thing. Antennas would not wOrX in the
R-3 zones.The Commission was pretty close. Some points were brought up that required some
modification to the ordinance to clarify the intent with regard to building mounted antennas and the
approval process, and relationship to approved building designs or heights. A very critical one, with regard to the
definition of the various wireless communication antennas and what the Intent is in order to regulate the
size, volume or location. Are there different types of wireless communication antennas? Does it make sense
to make a clear definition in terms of what is meant by wireless? Is there a need to provide
a differentiation and definition in terms of the different technologies? If so, does that allow them to maybe do
some things in terms of allowing the antennas in areas of one type; then not allow another type? Is there a need
to set a community value as to what is intrusive and what isn~, and state to the industry at some
point that given what they see in technology, there is a limit and they're not willing
to go further?Mr. Jones thought staff could take a look at that and research it further to clarify
the differences, inclUding private
access vs. commercial.Chairman Bosch recommended this be continued to have the items addressed and be
incorporated into the proposed amendment, including more wOrX on the definitions and clarification on some
of
the language points.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue
Ordinance Amendment 1-96 - City of Orange, Cellular Antennas to the meeting of April
1,
1996.
AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett,
Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Jones understood the applicant may still be present regarding the Consent Calendar item - Major
Site Plan Review 4-96. He was not aware he was present when the Commission took action and he may
wish to address
the Commission.Mr. Soo-Hoo said this was unusual. After an item has been discussed and acted upon, it wasn~
proper to re-evaluate the item. In this case, he understood it was imperative that the applicant wanted
to make a statement into the record. He cautioned the Commission not to make any decisions based on
the applicant's statement since an action has already been taken
on the item.MarX Mattias, JR Miller & Associates, 3020 Satum Street #100, Brea, apologized for
missing the opporiunity eariier to speak to this item. It was his understanding when staff came to him and asked him
to continue this item, they could be scheduled for the next meeting. He has a
meeting
Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1996
tomorrow moming to resolve the last issue and with staff's help, he strongly urged a hearing at the next
meeting. The applicant, Ryder Truck, had some issues involving the escrow closing dates and wanted to be
heard before that closing date arrived. They were advised they needed to retain a traffic consultant about a
week and a half ago. They have done that and are prepared to present their findings to staff to resolve the
last issue.
Chairman Bosch explained this item had appeared under the Consent Calendar rather than a public hearing
and he didn~ know if that made a difference in terms of staff's potential for setting the agenda.
Mr. Soo-Hoo said staff had a certain amount of discretion as to how they want to handle the scheduling
of this matter since it was not a public hearing. There was a little more flexibility than normal. He
again cautioned the Commission not to take action. He advised the gentleman to speak to Mr. Jones
regarding any scheduling flexibility he might
have.INRE:ORAL
PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange ParX Acres, said he and his neighbor decided to get a
small satellite dish. Does he have to worry about this when he installs the dish on his house? Will he need
a
permit?Chairman Bosch thought there were other places in the ordinance that address that. Mr. Bennyhoff
would need to talk to the County since he lives In the County. He suggested he talk to staff and obtain parts of
the ordinance that addresses satellite
dishes.Mr. Jones said staff has a definition of satellite dishes in the ordinance, although he was not sure how
that related to other defined receiving communication
facilities.INRE:
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjoum to a joint study session
with City Council on March 5, 1996 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Room C. The meeting adjoumed
at 10:25 p.
m.
AYES:
NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero,
Smith None MOTION
CARRIED
Isld