Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission March 15, 1993 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of February 17, 1993 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-93 -DOUG MANISTA A request to allow an automotive retail accessory and service facility in the C-1 (Limited Business) zone. Subject property is located at 4935 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1423-93 has been prepared for this project. There was some question raised about the proper notification for the California Environmental Quality Act of 21 days. Because that 21 day notice has not been achieved as of this meeting, the applicant has agreed to a continuance in order to meet that 21 day notice. A letter had been received regarding this project from Mr. Gary Jones, and two letters from Mr. and Mrs. Gray, who wish to have public testimony heard at this meeting. Mr. Herrick explained the 21 day review period had not properly been noticed and completed prior to the meeting and the applicant had been informed of-that by staff. He submitted a letter indicating he would not be present. It would place in jeopardy the applicant's due process rights to take public testimony at the hearing. The hearing should be continued to a date after the review period has properly been taken care of. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart to continueConditionalUsePermit2004-93 and Negative Declaration 1423-93 to the next regularmeetingonApril5, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1158-93 -ANTHONY H. OSTERKAMP, JR. A request to reclassify property from R-1-6 (Residential -Single Family District) zone toC-1 (Limited Business District) zone. Subject property is located at 1049 North GlassellStreet. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),Negative Declaration 1421-93 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the February 17 and March 1, 1993 Planning Commission Meetings. A staff report was presented by Mr. Godlewski. The property is a rectangular shapedparcel, approximately 1.16 acres in size. It is located on the east side of Glassell,between Collins and Katella Avenue. The adjacent property to the north is developedwitha33unitseniorcitizenapartmentcomplexandiszonedC-1. The properties to thesouthandeastaredevelopedwithsinglefamilyresidencesandarezonedR-1. The property across the street to the west is a mobile home park, zoned mobile homedistrict. The property's General Plan land use designation, however, is commercial. SothereisaninconsistencybetweentheexistingGeneralPlanandtheexistingzoning.The proposed C-1 zoning wilt allow for limited commercial uses that serve the demandofthesurroundingneighborhoods. Furthermore, single and multi-family residential uses are also permitted in the C-1 zones, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit.Any use on the property is likely to be more than what is currently on the property. The current uses on the property are non-conforming to both the R-1 zone and the C-1 zone as requested. It is anticipated these uses will come into conformity with the development of the property. The applicant has suggested the possibility of developingahighdensityseniorprojectsimilartotheonetothenorth; however, no plans have been submitted at this time. Any use permitted by the C-1 zone could occur on the property if the zone change is approved as requested. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Paul Zumberge, 1902 32nd Street, San Diego, was the attorney representing Mr. Osterkamp. He believed the application sets forth their position clearly. The GeneralPlandoesdesignatethepropertyasgeneralcommercial. The present use is inconsistent with the designation in the General Plan and the zone change will bring it into conformance. There is no adverse impact on the traffic in the area and the C-1 zone would be appropriate for the parcel. 2 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in opposition March 15, 1993 Marilynn Peter, 207 East Monroe, was not sure she was against the C-1 zoning, butwhatwouldbeputinontheC-1 parcel. Senior housing would be fine, but she's concerned it would be a commercial business where there would be a lot of traffic. Commissioner Bosch asked if there were any problems with the senior citizen development? Mrs. Peter said there were absolutely no problems. She would be delighted if another senior citizen complex were built. Pauline Ballinger, 203 East Monroe, would be happy to have senior citizen units built,but is concerned if it is built for commercial use. She would like to know what is going to be put in there. She was also concerned about the gas tanks that were removed years ago. Were they removed correctly? The neighborhood did not want a shopping center or restaurant. Rebuttal Mr. Zumberge appreciated the citizens concerns; however, they are premature. No building application will be issued unless all items have been addressed by the properchannels. A C-1 designation does not guarantee any one type of development will be built. Anthony Osterkamp, Jr., 2222 Leanne Lane, Santa Ana, does not intend to build a stripmall. Their intent is to develop the same type of senior citizens complex that currentlyexistsnexttothem. Commissioner Bosch asked why they wanted a reclassification at this time? You mightsellthepropertyandconditionsmightchange. The building permit process which might occur with a development that merely meets the zoning standards does not assure a quality development in terms of the type of use that might be built even though it is commercially licensed in the City. There could be problems with the specific site that could be permitted under existing zoning. Mr. Osterkamp has been approached by two or three developers who have a desire to put in the same type of development as the senior's complex. Developers would prefer having the zone change up front because nothing is certain. He thought it might be better to move ahead on his own and get the C-1 approval. Then, when the timing is right, he could negotiate with the developers. A strip center would not fit in with the neighborhood. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch asked legal counsel about timing and necessity of a zone changeforparcelsnotinconformancewiththeGeneralPlan. The Commission cannot condition a zone change, but what is the leeway with regard to timing for such an application? Mr. Herrick responded the City's obligation under the State Planning Act is, when inconsistencies come to the City's attention, to act in a reasonable and prudent manner 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1993 to conform zoning and the General Plan. There is no prohibition against changing the General Plan designation to conform to the zoning either. There is no set time period, it's merely a determination as to whether or not the City has acted reasonably and prudently. Commissioner Smith wondered what the appropriate zoning was for senior citizen housing. Mr. Godlewski said senior citizen housing would require a conditional use permit in either the R-3 or R-4 zones, or the commercial zone. It's appropriate in either of those zones. Senior housing requires special considerations for reduced parking requirements, size of units and other things that are unique to seniors. Senior housing is not allowed in the R-1 zone. Commissioner Bosch did not have a problem with senior housing for the site; it's an appropriate use. He was concerned about a couple of factors. Something could happen here with the re-zoning without a specific development in hand that could change the impacts on the property. He's uncomfortable without a project in process on the site because the entire section of Glassell is of such mixed utilization and the spot zoning that has occurred. He's not sure if C-1 is appropriate, but a zone that allows senior citizen housing is. He's a little reluctant with regard to multi-family zoning on the site. He believes in conformance with the General Plan, but perhaps the General Plan is wrong. He would feel much more comfortable with a development proposal and a C.U.P. request in front of it. Commissioner Cathcart said in the applicant's proposal there was a slight stretch of making this property much more closely aligned to Katella than it really is. If this were much closer to Katella, he thought he would have less of a problem with the C-1 zone change, but it is down the block and in between many other uses. He was uncomfortable with the request. Chairman Murphy pointed out the property would continue to be legally non-conforming. Commissioner Cathcart said the C-1 zone allows for a more intensive use than what is there now and might be detrimental to the area. Commissioner Bosch prefers to wait until a specific application is made for the site. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to find that Negative Declaration 1421-93 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to deny without prejudice Zone Change 1158-93. The purpose being to indicate that the C-1 zoning, currently indicated on the General Plan for the site, if developed to the full extent of the use of the lot under the current zoning ordinance, could cause significant deterioration and detrimental impacts to adjacent properties; however, a correct application of a conditional use in the C-1 zone such as senior housing or other non-retail/commercial enterprises could fit within the context of the neighborhood. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-93, VARIANCE 1948-93 -JACK IN THE BOX A request to allow a restaurant with drive-through service within an integrated commercial development zoned M-2 (Industrial), and to allow a waiver in sign code requirements. Subject property is a vacant development pad within the Home Depot site located on the north side of Katella between Glassell and Batavia Streets; addressed 431 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1422-93 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the March 1, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Robert Tucci, 3628 Harwich Drive, Carlsbad, represented Jack in the Box. He felt it would be a good and appropriate use for the site. Jack in the Box has a more creative approach for many of their fast food items. Their fast food restaurant is needed for people who shop in the area. The site is currently empty. He has read the staff report and does not have a problem with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Cathcart noted the discussion in the applicant's proposal about not providing separate drive-through windows; the applicant indicated a single drive-through window is a corporate preference. He asked the applicant if he would object to a double window? Mr. Tucci responded there was no room for a double window the way their building is designed. He discussed the window issue and explained a double window has not proven to be any quicker for those people waiting for their food. It only appears to be faster. Commissioner Smith asked why they were requesting a variance for their sign? Mr. Tucci said Jack in the Box has a standard square logo which they would like to keep. They request to go beyond the sign code's height of two feet. 5 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor March 15, 1993 Ed Cancilla, 149 Calle Alta, was pleased this development was taking place; it will be an improvement to the community. The proposed use will provide sales tax and income to the City. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1422-93 in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have significant adverse impacts on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2003-93 with conditions 1-7, amending condition 6 by deleting the word "trees" and replacing it with the word "shrubs"; and requiring all trees be double staked. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Variance 1948-93, noting per the staff report, Page 6, Item 15, the City has previously approved similar variance requests recognizing that the current code dictates that all wall signs should be of a lineal arrangement, restricting unique sign designs and, multiple lines of business identification logos. And, there have been two very recent requests to include similar justification for signage arrangements. The application does not propose to exceed the basic intent of the ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Cathcart referred to the Design Review Board Minutes of February 10, 1993 (Page 3) -- Chapman Avenue should be replaced with Katella. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2005-93 - ROBERTSONS AND ASSOCIATES A request fora "ready mix" concrete batch plant proposed on site with mechanical structures to exceed a typical industrial zone height limitation of 45 feet. Subject property is a 3-acre parcel situated on the west side of Main Street, between Trenton and Katella Avenues, addressed 1432 North Main Street. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1424-93 has been prepared for this project. 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1993 Mr. Godlewski addressed the specific issues in the staff report. The applicant requested condition 2, concrete block walls, be poured walls. Staff is not opposed to that and could modify the condition. Condition 5 requires the plant operator to clean all paved areas at the end of each business day. The applicant wishes it be changed to being cleaned on an "as needed" basis. Condition 7 -The applicant will observe, implement or comply with, Best Available Controls Technology (BACT). The applicant wishes this be clarified. Staff was making reference to air pollution and to add that would be correct. In Condition 10 the applicant was concerned that he had the ability to work out agreements with the City Engineer in order to comply with the condition to dedicate and construct the required improvement and asked to add something that said "Per City Engineer, plans have been developed" From staff's standpoint, it was not necessary. The condition allows the applicant the opportunity to meet with the City Engineer and comply with the condition by a separate agreement. Chairman Murphy mentioned a 3-page letter was received from the law offices of Leonard and Cortland of Beverly Hills. It will be added to the public record. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Rich Robertson, 477 South Orange, was proud to bring this project to the City. It's going to be their model plant. It's not a conventional batch plant -- it's a wet batch plant. They propose a nice eight foot berm with trees in the front. They're also going to put in a 10 foot concrete exposed aggregate wall rather than block. He explained their state of the art wet batch plant and the materials used for the process. Ninety-eight percent of the traffic will be "right turn only" into and out of the plant. Estimated sales and revenues were discussed fora 10 year period of time. Commissioner Bosch said the key issue before the Commission was the appropriate land use for the site. Traffic circulation was discussed somewhat. He asked the applicant if he could eliminate the left turn lane into the site? Mr. Robertson responded the biggest percentage of their traffic is freeway traffic. Left turns will be made by local traffic. He would like the left turn lane to remain because of very little traffic. It would hurt them if the lane were eliminated. Commissioner Bosch asked about the wet batch alley and dry batch alley. What is the intent of that? Mr. Robertson explained the wet plant would be used for all of their product. The only time they would use the dry plant is if the wet plant were down for maintenance. The loading times for the wet batch is 1 1/2 minutes vs. 2 1/2 to 3 minutes for the dry batch. The wet plant can be used much more efficiently. Both plants would operate simultaneously maybe 5-10% of the time. Commissioner Bosch asked what an environmentally sensitive color is, noting a paint color on the elevations. Mr. Robertson said they planted all of their plants a light gray. (Smog gray.) 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1993 Commissioner Cathcart referred to condition 5 and felt uncomfortable changing that to an "as needed" time. He wanted to lean towards a fixed time. Mr. Robertson did not have a problem with that. He commented on the letter the Commission received. Apparently the person did not read the application or understand the staff report. There is no dust at all with a wet plant; very little dust with a dry plant. He explained some of the AQMD standards and credits received for a clean plant. AQMD standards are set very high and they must be met. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart recommended the Design Review Board review the landscape plans for planting arrangements. Whatever is chosen for a ground cover, that it be planted 8 to 12 inches on center. He also asked that all the trees be double staked on Main Street. Commissioner Bosch concurs that the block wall does not make sense and condition 2 should be amended to require an exposed aggregate or textured concrete wall. He concurs with Commissioner Cathcart regarding condition 5. Insert the word "shall" in that the plant operator shall clean all paved areas at the end of each business day...Add with regard to air pollution" for condition 7. On Page 7, second item of the code requirements, it should be made clear the six feet shall not be required to be a greater height unless by a specific review and approval. He was concerned about the applicant meeting condition 12, to which the applicant had no problems. He's concerned about the impact to neighbors; there's a lot of transitional uses in the area. If the project were approved, it would have a fairly heavy industrial operation in the zone. Commissioner Smith supported the recommendation on condition 5 for daily clean up. She commented without a left hand turn lane, traffic could be backed up. Chairman Murphy asked if the previous conditional use permit and tentative tract map approved February 11, 1992 would have bearing on their action for this C.U.P.? Mr. Godlewski said it could be possible to have two conditional use permits in force at the same time. If a conflict existed, staff would recommend the Commission cancel or withdraw the first C.U.P.; however, it appears the first one is dead. Commissioner Cathcart commented AQMD is very strict with regard to air pollution and offers the City some assurance as to the mitigation of pollutants. Craig Phillips, 4480 7th Street, Riverside, addressed the air quality and dust control issues. When they make application and are given a permit for the plant, there are very specific conditions for hours of operation and they are limited to the calculations stated on the permit. They are limited to a certain amount of fugitive dust (20 pounds per day) and definite standards must be met. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept Negative Declaration 1424-93 in that it has no significant adverse impacts on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2005-93 with the conditions as modified: Condition 2 -exposed aggregate or textured wall; condition 5 -delete street sweeper on the premises and that the plant operator "shall" clean all paved areas at the end of each business day; and condition 7 -add with regard to air pollution before Best Available Controls Technology. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch was very concerned about whether this was an appropriate use for the site. IN RE: NEW HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1157-93 FOR ANNEXATION NO. 396 -CITY OF ORANGE A request to pre-zone the 30 acre annexation from the County of Orange E-4 (Estate Residential) to the City of Orange R-1-40 (Residential; one acre minimum). Subject property is located south of Santiago Canyon Road westerly of Orange Park Boulevard. NOTE: The annexation of the area was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The public hearing was opened and closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1157-93, noting the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith commented for the record there should be some type of equity attached to what is being done in zoning and land use. She wished all parcels in Orange had the luxury of an acre for the single family home. She's not suggesting that high density should be included in this particular area though. Commissioner Bosch responded to Commissioner Smith's comments. The terrain and topography are factors and it is sometimes difficult to generate a higher density on these types of lots. Then there is the pre-existing houses which mitigates in favor of continuing development that is in conformance with the Neighborhood Plan. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of April 5, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. sld 9