Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-1995 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith Commissioner Walters resigned) n ,i ~. ~ T'I.. ~;i March 6, 1995 Monday - 7:00 p.m.ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Gary Johnson, City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING UPDATE OF CITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Proposed adoption of local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as required under state law. This proposal revises the City's current guidelines and is needed to respond to changes in State environmental law and city policy.NOTE: The adoption of these guidelines is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment.This item was continued from the February 6, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting.)Commissioner Smith thanked the staff for a complete follow-up on the directives and clarification of the items the Planning Commission requested at the February 6 meeting. She was still concerned about a couple of things though. The most pressing concern she had was with reference to Appendix A. In the staff report, page 2, it says "Appendix A refers to activities that can apply to cultural resources, such as building permits, demolition permits, and Design Review Board recommendations and determinations." In the very first line of the first example in Appendix A, it calls out as one of the examples of activities not subject to environmental review -demolition permits. A demolition permit would be the exact kind of project that most likely would call into effect CEQA in the event it involved a cultural resource. She felt this was a misleading placement of the item -- demolition permits. It's poor placement by putting the demolition permits on the first line that says it is an activity not subject to environmental review. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1995 Mr. Jones responded it was listed there because it is the way the City processes demolition permits, and staff was reflecting existing City direction and policy. Chairman Bosch found the inclusion of the definition a bit ambiguous (where no discretion is provided in the issuance of the permit). Not the wording, but the meaning. There are demolition permits for non-cultural related activities outside of historical areas where demolition permits are routinely issued.Barbara Gander, Associate Planner, said in regard to demolition permits generally if the project is outside of Old Towne, it's something that is issued over the counter as a ministerial action. When projects are within the Old Towne boundary, the Demolition Ordinance gives staff review power over the replacement use and then there is Design Review Board review of that. TheCity's policy is that the D.R.B. is a ministerial action. They're using the Otd Towne Design Guidelines andthey're applying them.Commissioner Smith questioned the occurrence of a demolition permit being given over the counter to anything outside of Old Towne because that ignores the fact there could be cultural resources outside of Old Towne, (i.e., the church up in Olive, the tree at Chapman and Yorba, an archeological dig out in the hills of East Orange). It wouldn't be right to issue a demolition permit over the counter to those kinds of resources without some sort of review, just because they' re outside of Old Towne.Chairman Bosch could see the point. The difficulty is unless there is another mechanism wherein specific artifacts are identified as cultural resources, there is no way to start an implementation process. How do you define where you stop on that? Who is the arbitrator for determining that cultural significance and how is the City to be aware of that? Or is an environmental impact report required on every item? How are the pieces tied togetheft Ms. Gander referred to the top of the Appendix. It notes there were exceptions to the rule. Those exceptions are discussed in the document on Page 2. There may be some unusual circumstance where a demolition permit requires environmental review.Commissioner Smith thought it was very misleading to put it as #1 in a CEQA document -- that you don't review demolitions. The criteria for CEQA for cultural resources includes them being listed on an inventory, which structures in the City are listed (even if they are outside of Old Towne). It would be more appropriate to list it under the examples of activities that may be subject to environmental review (Appendix B). Chairman Bosch suggested adding the Building Division within that (referring to Appendix B) like several other departments and divisions are listed. The words "may be" and "typically" need clarification. It was suggested to add wording to Appendix A, under Building Division, a specific listing stating that demolition permits, where there is no cultural, historic, archeological or scientific resource involved. Then, also add under Appendix B, Building Division. And, add demolition permits where there is cultural, historic, archeological or scientific resource impacted. This would clarify it better and not mislead people. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1995 Commissioner Smith asked about the change on Page 7, Item B, regarding the Staff Review Committee. The word "technical representative" was added. Does the wording actually require a technical representative be present at the meeting? Does the wording have any teeth? Or should additional wording be added such as, "technical representative, as needed, to refer recommendation and review of special projects." Chairman Bosch said the intent of adding the word "technical representative" was that the Director of Community Development, for example, may not be physically present, but he may have the person who is responsible for doing the EIR review from his department present as a member of the committee. His recollection is that the powers and duties are to determine where additional information was required, etc. With the initial documentation, staff is looking for flags and signals that say there is technical input from specialists involved; therefore, they must get that by applying one of the higher levels of environmental review. He thought it was covered both ways. The intent of the word "technical" was to represent a staff person who has technical duties on City staff, vs. administrative duties. There were no public comments; therefore, the public hearing was closed and brought back to the Commission for action. Commissioner Cathcart thought the last sentence was important on Page 2, last paragraph of the staff report - "If the Planning Commission thinks that the cumulative impacts of projects within Old Towne are not being properly evaluated, or that they need to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner, a recommendation could be made to the City Council to direct staff to investigate the alternatives available for a more adequate assessment." He felt it was appropriate the Commission did that, but separate it from the document.Chairman Bosch thought it could be put into the same motion with the recommendation to the City Council, but as a second part to it for further action to be taken.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council the adoption, by resolution, of the State CEQA Guidelines by reference, and the Environmental Review Guidelines dated March, 1995, which are in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082. And, further clarify the City'sintent by adding wording to Appendix A, under Building Division, a specific listing stating that demolition permits, where there is no cultural, historic, archeological or scientific resource involved. Then, also add under Appendix B, Building Division. And, add demolition permits where there is cultural, historic,)archeological or scientific resource involved. Also, to recommend the City Council to direct staff to investigate the alternatives available for a more adequate assessment of cumulative impacts of projects within Old Towne.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith mentioned the notion of expanding the proposal with a master environmental assessment for keeping track of cumulative impacts - a database for Old Towne. There needs to be a way of measuring cumulative impacts. The Commission looked to staff to look into this as one of the alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1995 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2100-95 -DEL TACO, INC.A proposed freeway pole sign for an existing fast food restaurant. The site is located at2607NorthTustin Street.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActperStateCEQAGuidelinesSection 15303.There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened.A licant Dwayne Contento, 318 Lonbren Circe, Brea, was with Adart Signs, Inc. Del Taco haspoorvisibilityandtheareahasgrownuparoundit. Next door, Coco's has a freeway oriented signandDelTaconeedstheexposuretohelppeoplefilterintotheirlocation. They have seen thestaffreportandhavereadtheconditionsofapproval. They will lower the other sign to the 15footheightrestrictionaspartoftheconditionsofapprovalandanopaquebackgroundwillbe used.The public hearing was closed.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve ConditionalUsePermit2100-95 with conditions 1-3 as listed in the staff report. It was notedthisprojectwascategoricallyexemptfromtheprovisionsofCEQA, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2097-95, VARIANCE 1987- 95 - I & B CORPORATION A proposal to remodel and expand an existing service station structure toaddafoodmarket,which will sell beer and wine, and an office. Also requested is awaiverofdevelopmentstandardsregardingfrontandstreetsidelandscapingarea, drive aisle widths, and parking lot landscaping area, as required by the Orange Municipal Code. The site is located atthenortheastcomerofOrange-Olive Road and Meats Avenue (2101 North Orange-Olive Road).NOTE: Negative Declaration 1467-95hasbeenpreparedto address the environmental impacts of the proposal.The full reading of the staff report was waivedbecausetherewas Planning Commission Minutes Applicant March 6, 1995 Robert Colin, 3810 East Palm, represented 188 Corporation. They were proposing a neighborhood food market, which would be a contribution to the neighborhood. They were also requesting they be allowed to sell beer and wine. Their project would enhance the commercial area by improving the aesthetics of the existing building, improving lighting and landscaping. They would also like to relocate the gas tanks and want to coordinate this together as one project. He has read the staff report and conditions of approval and thought staffs comments were reasonable. The proposal should not have any adverse effects on the neighborhood. They believe they can obtain an existing beer and wine license from somewhere in the County. Regarding the landscape variance, the streetscepe landscaping is unavoidable in that there is an existing driveway approach which is fairly large. The gas pumps, which face the west, minimize the amount of landscaping that can be appropriated on that side. Because of the driveway to the east, (back half of the building) landscaping is limited. They have tried to incorporate as much landscaping as they could. Their landscape plan was approved by the Design Review Board. He explained their reasons for the drive aisle width variance. Commissioner Cathcart did not have a problem with the conditional use permit. That part of town has far less crime and it seems to be a convenient use for the neighborhood. However, he could not find a hardship for the variance. He understands the request for the drive aisle widths, but the landscape setback and parking lot landscape area doesn't look like a hardship. The project is in a growing residential area and he would like to see the landscaping setback put back and the 10% parking area be landscaped. Or, show him that it wasn't just a matter of desire, but that it was a goal that could not be met and a distinct hardship. Commissioner Smith was not in favor of the sale of beer and wine at gas stations; however, she would overlook that if the landscaping request be fulfilled. Chairman Bosch said the expansion of the market didn't bother him. He had concern about the sale of beer and wine at gas stations as well. But there were good restrictions proposed in the conditions and City ordinance to control that. His key concem was with the variance. A variance cannot be caused by aself-imposed hardship. There may be a couple of other modifications to the parking layout. He referred to the handicapped parking space. His recollection was a person could access the building without crossing drive aisles or passing behind other cars. The proposed space requires people to traverse the main drive aisle through the site. On the drive widths and landscaping in the parking lot, it seemed to him you could place angled parking across the east side of the site, which would require about the same overall depth to the parking, but a narrower drive aisle, which would eliminate the waiver of drive aisle width and provide landscaping along the property line or against the building. That would make parking access for those spaces one way and the applicant's desire is to have better circulation. There might be some ways to work these issues out given there is quite a bit of excess area on the northeast corner of the site.Have they looked at ways to disperse the parking a bit differently in order to get parking in either direction, solve the handicapped problem and keep the landscaping in there? The Commission is aware there has been a car detailing business in effect on the site out there for quite some time,which was not in conformance with the code. The plan calls for an existing wood cover to be removed in that area. There's a delivery area that is shown there. There is a concern that maybe itisn't going to go away and it might reappear; and there is a substantial area for delivery to the market. It's great to have space set aside, butit's across the drive aisle from the market Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1995 door, which isn't too useful. It also represents quite a bit of space that could be reapportioned tosolvethedriveaislewidthandlandscapeproblems. Mr. Colin hesitated to move the driveway because of economics. There is an existing 15 foot widecatchbasinthereandalightpole. He believed with modifications and discussions with his client,the plan could be modified to come up to a higher degree or percentage of landscaping. He didn'tknowifitwouldmeettheoveralllandscapingrequirements. Commissioner Cathcart cautioned Mr. Colin not to limit himself by saying he couldn't meet therequirements. The issue of hardship must be resolved. The Commission must find there is adistincthardshipwiththesitewhichprecludestheapplicantfrommeetingtheexistingcoderequirements. Mr. Colin's reason for existing hardship would be the building location and the property line. Herequestedacontinuancetobringbackamodifiedplanforreviewandapproval. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Jones noted the next hearing date would be 4/3/95 if a continuance were approved. ThepacketswouldneedtogooutbyMarch23, 1995. Revised plans would need to be submitted byMarch16, 1995. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, with the applicant'sconcurrence, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2097-95 and Variance 1987-95 to themeetingofApril 3, 1995.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received copies of a notice from theCalifomiaPublicUtilitiesCommissionwithregardtothepossibilitythattheFCCmaypre-emptstateandlocalgovernmentsfromenforcingzoningandothersimilarregulationswithrespecttolocatingandconstructingnewtowersforwirelesscommunicationsfacilities. The primary impactwouldbeoncellularantennaelocations, but it could also apply to radio antennae or otherdevicesregulated by the FCC.Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommendtotheCityCouncilthattheyutilizeavenuesavailabletothemtocommunicatebycontactingourlocaldelegation, writing to the FCC and via the California Public UtilitiesCommissionthepositiveactionstheCityofOrangehastakeninpastyearstoreflectupontheneedforcellularandotherwirelesscommunicationstransmissionlocations. And, also the importanceofhavinglocaljurisdictiontoassureproperplacementwithinthecommunitywithregardtozoningandsiteconstraintsthatallowedthedevicestofunctionmeetingtheirneeds, but didnotnegativelyimpactcommerceandresidencesinthecommunity. And, put forth the City's ordinanceasapositiveexamplealongwithhistoryofapplicationtodemonstrateinfavorofretaining local Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1995 looking toward more widespread adoption by local ordinance and state law of reasonabledevelopmentstandards. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, SmithNOES: None MOTION CARRIED With regard to future planning activities for the City of Orange, Chairman Bosch directed staff toreportbackinthenearfutureandbringtheCommissionup-to-date on the currentstatusofplanningfortheNorthwestRedevelopmentAreawithregardtoeconomicforecasts, planning and physical planning for the City Council's direction for development of a precise plan forthatarea.Particularly with regard to on-going proposals for intensification of developmentinAnaheim, west of the Santa Ana River and the impacts that it may have positively andpotentiallynegativelyontheCity's infrastructure and economic potential for that redevelopment area. It'stimelytomoveaheadwithplanningtoquantifythosepotentialimpacts. Also, for staff to givetheCommissionanideaofagendatimeandtomoveaheadquicklyontheEastOrangeareaactivities. There has been a drop off of activity in the public process area by the Irvine Company inthatregard. But there are still activities moving ahead with regard to potential bidding andconstructionoftheEasternTransportationCorridor, a potential major land exchange with theDepartmentoftheInteriorandIrvineCompanyforFremontCanyon, north of Irvine Lake, aswellasotherdevelopmentsadjacenttotheCity's sphere of influence. It would be timely for theCitytonotnecessarilydustofftheGeneralPlanAmendment, but to gain information, participate and re-energize our strategy and format for moving ahead with planning what is mostappropriatefortheCity's future in that area. Also, with regard to the area adjacent to the city ofSantaAna, Main Place, Town & Country area, where there have been significant developmentproposalsinthepast. It's time again to refresh the Commission on status of those proposals andCityofOrangeplanningintheimmediatevicinity. And, again to assure the Cityhastheappropriate,contemporary mechanisms in place to address not only the City'sowninfrastructureanddevelopmentneeds, but to react appropriately to future plans that may come forth.Mr. Jones affirmed the staff would come back with follow-up reports onthese. He proposed to make reports on the first two items April 3, 1995; and the following meeting for the third item.Commissioner Smith acknowledged the memorandum from Mr. McGee, dated March 2, 1995,regarding public notices and thanked the staff for their quick action inrespondingtothisimportantpublicconcern. She will look forvvard to any further information that may follow.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, toadjournthemeetingat 8:00 p.m.AYES: CommissionersBosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None