Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-1992 PC MinutesMinutes Planning Commission April 20, 1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 1992 AND APRIL 6, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to approve the Minutes of March 16, 1992 and April 6, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1964-92 -UNION ARGENTINA A request to allow a commercial recreational use serving beer and wine within the M-2 (Industrial) District, and to allow the joint use of parking. Subject property is located on the south side of Collins Avenue between Main Street and Eckhoff Street, addressed 1442 West Collins Avenue, Unit F. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 1 S 3 O 1. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Anvlicant Rick Giannetti, 251 Avenida Santa Catalina, La Habra, was the secretary of the Argentinean club, which is anon-political organization involved in educational and social programs. Their purpose is to preserve their heritage and membership is open to everyone. They want to keep their customs and music alive; they still miss their mother country. They support the local community and seek approval for their request. Commissioner Murphy asked if they had read the staff report and agree to the conditions of approval? (Yes they had.) The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1964-92 with conditions 1-12, noting the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1958-92 -ORANGE HILLS ASSOCIATES A request to allow a church to locate within the C-1 (Limited Business) District, and to allow a joint use of parking facilities. Subject property is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue between Hewes Street and Hamlin Street, addressed 4602-4650 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. 2 Planning Commission Minutes Avplicant April 20, 1992 Kim Thompson, 5711 Meinhardt Road, Westminster, was the property manager for Orange Hills Associates. They have read the staff report and recommendations and have no problem meeting any of the conditions. They purchased the property in the middle of 1980. There was an existing church there at that time. They are just relocating it from the street frontage to the rear area of the center to incorporate better parking in back of the center for church use. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott asked staff if the existing church had a permit? Ms. Wolff responded no, a conditional use permit has not been issued for the existing church. Commissioner Scott asked what this does to the commercial property because churches do not pay taxes? Ms. Wolff said the church is not the owner of the property. The purpose of the commercial zone is to provide a commercial tax base. Commissioner Bosch stated that since a church is allowed by a conditional use permit in a commercial zone, it's the intent of the City and the zoning laws to allow such. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1958-92 with conditions 1-7, noting the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -SANTIAGO CREEK ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 t~ proposed General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site from Low Density Residential (2-6 dwelling units/acre) and Open Space to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-15 dwelling units/acre), Open Space and Commercial; also proposed is a Zone Change from R-1-7 Single Family Residential -minimum lot size 7,000 square feet) to Planned Community (P-C) to define development standards for development of up to 240 residential units, open space and a commercial component. Additionally, consideration is requested for adoption of a Development Agreement. Subject property is a 33 acre site located west of Tustin Avenue, east of Cambridge Street and north of Fairway Drive and includes 5.2 acres commonly known as the former Rosewood tract. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an addendum to previously approved EIR 1143 has been prepared. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. There has been some discussion regarding the bond issue to be voted on June 2, 1992. The request before the Commission is not a part of the bond issue; it is a land use decision that needs to be made. There has been discussion as to the appropriateness of following through with the development plan at the same time the bond issue is taking place. The applicant has made his application for the development plan and the City is obligated to hear the request. The second issue is the development agreement. Staff is in the process of negotiating the development agreement concerning the details of the project. It is not uncommon to have development agreements come after a land use decision has been made. Staff suggests continuing the development agreement to May 4, 1992 to give everyone adequate time to review the document. There is also a change to the conditions of approval in the memorandum to the Commission. There is a traffic impact analysis that was cited in the conditions. The recommendation was that the traffic impact analysis be done before any development take place on the property. In further researching the requirements for the congestion management plan and the traffic impact analysis, it appears it is necessary the T.I.A. will have to be done prior to the land use decision being finaled by the City Council. Therefore, it is staffs recommendation that the condition be modified to allow the T.I.A. to be considered by the City Council. It was also mentioned in the memorandum that the conditions of the traffic memo are more 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 appropriate at the time a tract is submitted and staff suggested modified wording in the list of conditions that when the tracts are submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for review, staff is not precluded from adding conditions at that time. The site has been looked at a number of times before and has been reviewed in a number of ways. The current proposal indicates that the developable portion of the property is to be in the northern part, approximately 17 acres of a higher density (low-medium density) development. The details of the development are included in the planned community text. It will be attached multi-unit type housing with an enhanced open space element. There's a large portion averaging 250 feet in width of the channel section. In the planned community text and in the General Plan document there are two creek sections that are provided: one is a section that is the preferred section by the developer, which is a soft bottom creek and amore natural design; the other one is a section that has been used in Santa Ana that has solid side walls, a solid bottom and has a landscaped strip half way up the wall on one side. Staff has a good idea the Flood Control will accept that creek channel and staff suggested it as a worst case scenario. Staff would be pursuing the preferred section which is the soft bottom channel. There is also a small 2.5 acre commercial component on the site. The public hearing was opened. Annlicant Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach, representing the applicant, presented the Sycamore Crossing project. They have put together a presentation explaining the historical aspects of the project and they've considered the Urban Edges involvement, as well as their interaction with the Greenway Committee. Their presentation was of a greenway corridor as part of the General Plan Amendment request. The current request is different and has not been proposed previously; it has a 250 foot greenway and the treatment of Santiago Creek is considerably different than evaluated before. His flow chart depicted how the project transpired since 1983 and he explained the history involved from earlier proposals. There was a suggestion for public acquisition of the property and consequently a Greenway Committee was formed for the purpose of evaluating acquisition of the property and 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 working with an applicant for future entitlement considerations. The Greenway Committee retained Urban Edges, who looked at three critical parts of the property: acquisition of the property by the public; development alternatives; and treatment of Santiago Creek. The City Council denied previous applications because there was not enough open space and the treatment of Santiago Creek was not provided in a reasonable manner. Urban Edges proposals were explained during his presentation and the improvements required for them. The City accepted Urban Edges' report with the two alternatives in May, 1991. They became involved at this point and took the development plan proposed by Urban Edges from a boundary standpoint and attempted to follow that boundary, deleting development from that cross-hatched area. They needed to consolidate development in the northern portion of the site, keeping the southern portion as open space. At the end of the year, they were told there was widespread support to put this matter on the ballot. They all agreed there would be an alternative development proposal that would be prepared and submitted to the City. He described their plan because he felt it was very positive. The plan provides an open space corridor. The treatment of the creek is critical and they propose something similar. The conceptual exhibits showed the corridor with 13 acres of open space area and how flood control would be treated (Options 1 and 2). There is approximately 240 multi-family units proposed and there are two product types proposed for that location: single family type homes north of the site with a rear setback of 25 to 40 feet. On part of the property facing the creek, there would be a greenbelt channel with a minimum cross section of about 200 feet. They have met many times with the community and the Greenway Committee. They looked at the issues of site acquisition, designing the channel, and land exchange opportunities. They propose to create a more contiguous and continuous open space corridor that would be sensitive and respond to the unique environmental qualities of Santiago Creek. Commissioner Bosch asked if they had the opportunity to review staff's memorandum of April 17 with proposed modifications/conditions to the planned community district document in addition to the Traffic Divisions' April 17 memo? 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Mr. Elfend said he had and understands the need for the T.I.A. requirement and concurs with that. He commented on condition 18 regarding off site improvements. He requested the wording be amended to "may be required" subject to additional study. Commissioner Bosch was concerned that the 240 units may or may not be acceptable on the site, but there are some site conditions that may impact their ability to place 240 units. He's concerned about the difference in grades along Tustin, transitioning down to the project site. Have they looked at any further details on that potential impact and do they recognize it may have some impacts on the density? Mr. Elfend said the density was aloes-medium designation of 6-15 dwelling units per acre. They recognized that without bringing into the City a site plan or specific tentative map that the ultimate decision making process will be dependent upon a precise plan that is submitted. They accept the limitation that goes with the G.P.A. request of 6-15 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Bosch was concerned about the eventual flood control creek design. There may be authorities greater than the City that may have impacts on the creek design. Has there been recent contact with the Corps. of Engineers or E.M.A. that leads to any greater level or further assurance relative to assuring that there will be reasonable open space or that the two options will be maintained? Mr. Elfend said the Engineering Department is involved in proposing the flood control program. He has had additional discussions with the County as well. This is not an area the Corps. has identified as an area they will participate in. The one plan which is an 80 foot channel and provides for open space on each side of it has been reviewed more thoroughly by the County. There is a letter on file for conditional approval pending they provide very detailed engineering studies, which will come during the final map process. That would be the worst case scenario. They believe the County will approve some type of greenbelt channel and they realize it must be approved before development can move forward. 7 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor April 20, 1992 Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, spoke in favor of open space for this project. It's time to do something with this piece of ground. He wants to see the development agreement and wants a better understanding of what the Corps. of Engineers and County have in mind. He supports the concept of the plan, but there are unanswered questions. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, wants to avoid higher tax bills. She finds the plan interesting because of plans for increased density with a 250 foot greenway for everyone to enjoy without the general obligation bonds. Dorothy Hudechek, 3196 North Hearthside, found this curious to be on the Agenda since the residents are going to vote on it one way or the other in June. Why is this being brought up now? Why couldn't it wait until after everyone voted? Those speaking in opposition Howard DeCruyenaere, 1825 East Albany Avenue, Santa Ana, president and founder of the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance and one of the members of the Greenway Committee, spoke on the significance of the Santiago Creek as a natural resource. There is a need to preserve this area for future generations. Issues still need to be addressed. He understands the Council would like to see this site become a model project for creek development for the City of Orange. The average width of 250 feet -- does that include the area towards Cambridge and the County property? Or, where is that located? They would like more input on the project because they feel 250 feet is inadequate for the natural creek and greenway. A width of 350 feet would be much more acceptable. MaryAnne Skorpanich, 292 Cambridge, is a member of the Board of Directors of Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance. The Alliance expressed several concerns regarding the proposed development: Flood control; liability and maintenance of the open space; density bonus entitlements; creek alignment; housing density; Urban Edges plan; acquisition alternative; and notification of hearing. They are opposed to discretionary permit approvals based on a creek design 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 that has not yet been approved. They believe that solid assurances of a full implementation of the plan should be secured before approvals are given. Density bonuses for the project are not warranted. Further study on the alignment and design of the creek are appropriate. David Clements, 1 S 21 East Fairway Drive, is a member of the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association. He reiterated it is inappropriate to pass on this matter at this time until Proposition Y is resolved. Robert Seibert, 1308 Fairway Drive, said the amendment to the E.I.R. says nothing about a development of 240 units emptying onto Tustin. It says nothing about the impact to the creek. William Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, is opposed to apartments being mixed in with single family residences; it is highly irregular for the environment. Commissioner Scott read a letter from Carole Walters asking to deny the zone change on the golf course issue. The issue will be on the ballot in June. Any zone change could raise the value of the property; thus taxes will raise on everyone's properties. Why not leave it as it is until the people get a chance to vote on it? Chairman Cathcart said they also received a letter from the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association, signed by Ralph Masek, which will be entered into the record. Commissioner Master thought it would be appropriate for staff to explain why the project is before the Commission. Mr. McGee explained there was an item before the City Council in January, 1992. At that time the Council determined that Proposition Y would be on the June 2 ballot to determine the acquisition and improvement of the open space area. Concurrent with that action, the Council determined that the applicant would also be able to process a development plan. It was the intent of the Council at that time that an ultimate solution be determined between now and June 2; that it be made well aware to the community what all of the alternatives would be, whether the ballot issue were passed or not. 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Staff has had discussion with the landowner's representative regarding the acquisition value of the property were the bond issue to pass. Staff has in writing that any value established would not include any enhanced value as a result of any application currently in process. The value would be established based on land use and entitlement rights before the process starts. An appraisal was made in April, 1991, which was paid for by the City. The existing General Plan designation for low density residential development was the basis for the appraisal. That appraisal will be a maj or part of negotiations. The General Plan designation did not include a commercial designation on the property. Rebuttal Mr. Elfend handed the Commission two items; one the staff report regarding a development proposal that would come back to the City before a decision was made regarding the bond measure. That was agreed to by the applicant and the Greenway Committee. He also submitted a letter of his assurance regarding the acquisition value of the property (it would not be used as a basis of negotiating the sale of the property) if the bond measure were successful. Their proposed greenway will include bike trails and trees. The final design needs to be evaluated by the City. He felt this is an extremely unique project and may be the best creek design the City will obtain. The width of the creek as it approaches Cambridge is about 500 feet the widest area proposed). There is no reason why one of the alternatives can't have a naturalistic creek with riparian vegetation. There is a letter on file from the County regarding the creek. They have been working with the Corps. of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game, who would like to see the Agencies make a policy decision or at least approve the project before they will approve them in total. Approval will be provided at a later date. In terms of liability and maintenance, that's something they are currently working with the City on. It will be resolved during the subsequent process. As far as density bonus for entitlement, that area has been cross-hatched. Approximately 1/3 of the site has been removed because development is no longer permitted in that area. The development that is proposed is not a density bonus. There is a substantial amount of open space that is being provided and they believe that is a reasonable trade off. There have been studies on the creek alignment both by the County and F.E.M.A, as well as by 10 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 City staff. The most important part of the project was to provide an open space corridor for the property. They consolidated the area down to 17 acres. That area could be larger. Notification was made appropriately. Commissioner Murphy thought Mr. Elfend would like to comment on the proposed apartments? Mr. Elfend stated there are no apartments currently proposed. They realized there had to be a special treatment of product that would interface with the homes north and west of the site. The proposal is for town homes, as shown in the elevation. Commissioner Murphy asked about the 250 foot average greenway did that include County land? (No.) Commissioner Bosch asked what would occur to the creek immediately east and west of Tustin? Mr. Elfend said the creek is highly channelized as it comes into the site and there has to be a special interface in that area. Philip Lowe, Simons, Lee & Associates, 3 63 6 Birch Street, Newport Beach, was the engineer on the project. There will need to be some sort of transition from the Tustin Street bridge down into the greenway channel. They will probably be changing the elevation of the bed at that location in order to properly design the channel for a drop structure. But, they haven't finalized any designs as to what that would look like. There might not need to be any treatment upstream of Tustin at all. Commissioner Bosch asked what will occur on the County parcel and at Cambridge? Mr. Lowe said that would be designed to meet the flood plain under existing conditions in the same manner as it now enters the area. It will occur on site within the greenbelt area. Commissioner Scott asked if they have the right of entry onto private property to modify the channel? 11 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Mr. Lowe responded the drop structure will be downstream of Tustin and within the developed area. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Godlewski clarified some of the questions/concerns raised by the public. Notification was made to residences within 300 feet of the project, which is required by state law. It became apparent to staff there was another mailing list available that was generated from discussions with Urban Edges. However, it was too late to advertise to those people as well. They will be including the expanded notification for the Council meeting. The minimum width of the greenway is just over 200 feet. Regarding housing density for 500 square foot lots, it will probably be developed similar to condominium development with a one lot subdivision. The number of units on the property is more than would be on 5,000 square foot lots, but they're going to be an attached type of housing so actual lot size does not enter into it. In analyzing the project, staff looked at it originally as the existing density would allow single family development on 7,000 square foot lots. By providing a large open space component to the plan, staff considered the clustering of units, which would allow somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 or more single family units on the whole site to be consolidated on the 17 acres proposed for development. Because the open space is not proposed to be private open space and because it would be accessible to the public, it raises a lot of details about the liability of the homeowners association maintaining it, which wouldn't work in the case of a public access type facility. Therefore, staff assumed the clustering would be ok, but there needed to be some increase in density to offset the dedication of the open space. They looked at extensive analysis on the difference between value of a single family home and the value generated by attached housing. Negotiations still need to be resolved, but it's not out of the comparable picture between single family homes and that density. It's a clustering of units rather than a density bonus. Commissioner Bosch had questions about the maintenance and liability issues. Staff is working on those issues. It will take place at the time of subsequent tract approval (when the actual open space would be offered for dedication to the City). Staff would then need to determine how the maintenance takes place. It is staffs desire 12 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 that the creek section or that which is used for flood control be developed to a manner that would be acceptable to Orange County Flood Control or to the County of Orange and for them to maintain that section of the creek. The idea of a homeowners assessment does not seem to be appropriate because it would be accessible to the public. Staff is working out various details and scenarios at this point to accommodate the remainder of the maintenance, including everything from a possible endowment from the developer to cover maintenance of those common open spaces. Chairman Cathcart stated staff has asked for a continuance of the development agreement to the May 4, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Scott had questions on the G.P.A. regarding the 13.5 acres of open space corridor. The exhibits show some of the units facing Greengrove and Chalyn as being open space. Is that part of the 13.5 acres? It looks to be more private rather than open space. Mr. Godlewski responded the lines shown on the exhibit would need to coincide with the property lines on the plan. If they appear to run over, that's an error. The 13.5 acres is strictly the area as being green and R.O. The designation around the edge is in the planned community text, which is calling out an interface area. That's not the actual greenway designation, but is within the planned community text and it will be interfaced area to show a lower profile and a less intense look to those neighbors. Commissioner Scott questioned the word "linking" regarding the greenway corridor on Page l as there is nothing to link it to. Rewording was suggested. Mr. Godlewski said the word "linking" means there is an opportunity to link something, whereas in previous plans it would preclude such linkage. Commissioner Scott continued: Page 2 - he has never seen the Urban Edges study. Page 3 -commented the Greenway Committee was critical because plans have progressed without their concurrence. 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Pie 3 -makes reference to the history of the project -- the 470 units were never submitted to the Commission or Council and was dropped. The G.P.A. should be amended to indicate that. Page 4 -the first paragraph conflicts with units on Page 3; and was not heard by the Commission or Council. Exhibit 2 - 471 units are really 408 and did not proceed to public hearing. Page 5 -top paragraph -should then develop it as a presently zoned R-1-7 (after reading the context of the paragraph). The footnote about the goodwill gesture of removing the sinking homes; they also relieve themselves of a tremendous liability since they became the owners. Pa e 6 -the greenway design construction - it is his understanding City staff does not want the dedication of the greenway. Who will accept the liability of the greenway? Page 7 -Option 1 -according to the memo from Jack Brotherton April 7, 1992, the City did not approve the creek channel design. Pale 7 -further down in the same paragraph -the Orange County Flood Control District has not assumed maintenance and responsibility per their letter dated April 9, 1992. Pale 7, same paragraph -the County has not detailed to date if they will accept maintenance. The Public Works Department will not accept unless they can transfer the channel improvement to the Flood Control. Pale 8 -says the City would assume this responsibility. The City has not indicated they will accept maintenance and liability. Page 8 - Greenway Committee Meetings -when did the City officially accept Urban Edges report? 14 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Page 10. A.1. -the development areas has been limited to approximately 17 acres, which would pencil out to about 14 units an acre. This is considered as far as gross area because of the open space area for the creek. Page 10. A.4. - a repeat as far as linking is concerned. It could be reworded in such a way for it to be potentially linked. Page 11 -Project Description -increased density is not compatible for properties north and northwest of the existing development. The 300 residential dwellings -- how was this described? The G.P.A. should be limited to 240 dwellings -- the wording should be changed. The channel alignment going east from LaVeta. Exhibit S - proposal never submitted; should not be included in the G.P.A. Pa eg_12 -Tentative Tract Map 14473 -first paragraph -when was this reviewed and found to be consistent with the general plan? Page 12, second paragraph -City and County staff have not accepted the design of the channel. Page 12, last paragraph -denial of single family development consisting of 160 homes -- it should read 110 homes. This was turned down by the Commission because of the 5,000 square foot lots. Page 13 -the applicant intends to resume the processing of the tentative tract map in the event this G.P.A. request is not effectuated: no G.P.A. would eliminate commercial development on Tustin. Page 14 -second paragraph, last line -with regard to what? Refer to Mr. Brotherton's memo. Page 16 -General Plan Goals and Policies - an extensive open space greenway will provide a harmonious interface with between existing residences and the proposed development -- how does this affect the northerly property line? 15 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Page 17 -Circulation Element - he has been informed by staff that the traffic requires updating and data consolidation for the traffic study. Refer to the memo dated April 7, 1992 from Traffic. Page 18 -the bike trails do not connect to anything. What does the City get in return for the G.P.A. regarding increased density? The open space area? Page 18 -Open Space -how much of the green area is the actual Santiago Creek area? There is a possibility the County might fence the flood area to reduce their liability. Page 20 -there is no continuity. Something is missing -- it doesn't say anything. Page 22 -first paragraph -the intent is not clear. Page 22 -Commercial -other proposals have had trouble with grading in this area. High retaining walls against the trailer park would be required to bring the road in. It could be as high as 15 to 20 feet. Page 23 -repeat about linking -there is none at this time. How much space will be green area vs. the creek (especially if it is fenced)? Pa e 23, second bubble - to make available a range of housing types at each stage of project development -- what is the proposed range? He was informed by Traffic the applicant needs a congestion management program/traffic impact analysis. See memo from Traffic. Page 25 -another bubble should be added that a bus turn out is needed on Tustin. Exhibit 15 -the elevation on Rosewood is not shown -- where is it located? 16 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Exhibit 15 -interchange of Tustin and LaVeta - is not consistent with Exhibits 4, 10 and 11. Emergency Access, exhibit 4, is inconsistent with this exhibit. Page 26 -the bonding and improvements for Tustin should be in the first phase of development. Amend the last sentence to issuance or final maps approved. Page 27 - an additional condition should be stated that the Water Department indicates they need a well site on the property, location to be approved by the Water Department. Page 28 -Sanitary Sewer System - 6" to 8" sewers -- 8" is the minimum. Page 29 - it should be included that all previous proposals submitted on the site have indicated that off site sewer improvements will be needed, to which that has not been addressed. Pale 29 -Storm Drain System -Add wording "and approved by the City Engineer." Page 31 - To date, conversation with staff has not indicated they want dedication to the open space corridor. Page 32 - To date, the Orange County Flood Control District has not indicated they will accept maintenance of the proposed flood control. Page 32 -Capacities -makes reference to the City of Orange Public Utilities Department -- there is no Public Utilities Department. Page 3 3 -Building Pad -this provisions needs to indicate both vertical and horizontal distances in describing slopes. Page 34 -Development Agreement -change the wording from entire 240 unit project to not to exceed. Page 34/35 -Driveway -all interior vehicle passage ways are considered driveways rather than streets. 17 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Page 36 -Livable Floor Area -it's not clear whether the definition refers to all interior floor area or whether it excludes areas such as closets, hallways, etc. Page 36 -Project -definition of 240 units needs to be reworded. Page 39 -Item 10 -why should some units not be included in the homeowner's association regarding the maintenance? Why should some be excluded? Page 40 -Implementation - there are additional submittal requirements for vesting tentative maps which are contained in Chapter 16 of the Orange Municipal Code. Page 41 - as far as Planning Commission review and approval, A. and B. have always been the responsibility of the Design Review Board. It is out of the realm of the Planning Commission. Page 42 - B., last sentence - if an appeal period of an administrative decision is going to be allowed, then some vehicle is needed to allow the public to know that a decision has been made. Pale 43 -Residential Regulations, 1. -maximum height allowed for R-1; it requires a conditional use permit for over one story. Pale 43, 2. a. and b. -there should be clear cut drawings showing the minimum distance between buildings. Exhibits 18 and 19 -there is no reference made to the exhibits. Page 44 -Project Entry Signs - it states within public rights-of--way. Private signs are not permitted in public rights-of-way. Page 44, under B.l.b. -does this meet the Sign Ordinance, which they are proposing? Page 45 -first paragraph -should read nor a total area of more than 75 square feet instead of not. Page 45 • C. -how do the temporary signs differ from other temporary signs regulated on Page 44? Are both permitted? 18 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Chairman Cathcart thought it would have been nice if this had been heard at the study session. Commissioner Bosch thought Commissioner Scott has added valuable additional information. Most of these are contained in information the Commission has received in different memos. It would be good to look to the applicant for a response in terms of stipulation to the ones of which he is aware before proceeding. Commissioner Scott's intention was to have all questions answered before moving ahead. Commissioner Bosch thought many of them were corrections. If the corrections are made, he agreed with all the corrections that were referenced to the Commission by the staff reports and the corrections made by Commissioner Scott. The only one he was confused on was to the reference of the 10 to 1 S foot retaining wall separating the LaVeta access adjacent to the commercial from the trailer park. The trailer park is at the northeast corner of the site; the commercial to the southeast. The majority of these are not questions, but as being corrections that would have to be made to the document. Commissioner Master was having trouble with the wording referencing the April 17 staff report, #11. regarding the 240 units. The words have changed from "will consist of 240 units" to "the development shall be limited to a maximum of 240 units" subject to what? Tentative map? Roadway access? Elevation? How will be tied together to be subject to all that? At what point is that decision of the number of units made? Mr. Godlewski responded it is anticipated that at this time, staff is not looking at the actual development, but only looking at the bubbles in which development can take place. Once that is defined, then the applicant would come back in with a tentative tract map. Staff is trying to make sure the planned community text is not worded in such a way that there is a guarantee to a developer of a specific number of units (such as 240 units), but rather a maximum 240 units, subject to all the development standards that are in the planned community text. It's possible that after meeting all the requirements in the planned community text, you can't get 240 units on the property in any configuration. In that case, when the 19 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Planning Commission reviews the tentative tract map, it would be reviewed as any tentative tract map for reasonableness of development and it's compliance with the zoning standards. Commissioner Master would like to see that statement added to the document to make it clear to all parties involved. Commissioner Bosch still thought it important to have the applicant's agent respond to the Commission's corrections. Mr. Elfend thought 90% of the comments raised by Commissioner Scott were raised by the staff. In some of those instances, there may have been a lack of communication between staff members. They will make all the corrections that were noted. Some of them are editorial. They will provide some dates that are not in there. There was information that was not reviewed by the Commission, but it was still submitted to the City. Those types of clarifications will be made. They understand they need to come back with more detailed plans on that interface area. They can respond to the technical comments and make the changes. Most of them are included in the staff report as conditions of approval. There are some answers they don't have at this time. Chairman Cathcart stressed clarification is important. The numbers should be correct. Perhaps the opportunity of linking future recreational aspects should be in the appropriate areas. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to find that Addendum 3 of Environmental Impact Report 1143 is in compliance, subject to the inclusion of the corrections and additions as indicated in the staff report, staff conditions memorandum dated April 17, 1992, staff memorandum of April 9, 1992 from Joan Wolff to John Godlewski, April 7 memorandum from Jack Brotherton to John Godlewski, April 7 memorandum from Bernie Dennis and Chuck Glass to John Godlewski, Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator, to John Godlewski on April 8, 1992, and from Howard Morris to Chuck Lau April 24, 1992, including information from the April 8 communication from Orange County Flood Control, and documentation received from Flood Control in response, also the April 17 memorandum from Chuck Glass 20 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 to John Godlewski, and recommend acceptance of Addendum 3 of E.I.R. 1143. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the General Plan Amendment for Sycamore Crossing subject to all the staff reports and the additional corrections noted by Commissioner Scott. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy NOES: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott voted "no" because he would like to see the corrections before voting on the General Plan Amendment. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1152-92 subject to those corrections and additions appropriate for inclusion in the planned community district document, based upon state laws, city ordinances, statutes and policies governing tentative tract map applications. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy NOES: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott voted "no" for the same reason. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, at the request of staff, to continue the consideration of the proposed Sycamore Crossing development agreement to the regular meeting of May 4, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that staff bring back to the Planning Commission the corrected text for the addendum to the E.I.R. and for the planned community 21 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 district book for validation of the inclusion of all corrections noted in the previous motions. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14673, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1956-92, ZONE CHANGE 1149-92 AND NEGATIVE DELCARATION 1404-92 - CARL RENEZEDER A proposed Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of a 3.1 acre parcel of land into four residential lots and two lettered lots and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a private street, and creation of lots without direct frontage on a public street. Also requested is a Zone Change to change the site's existing A-1 Agricultural) zoning to R-1-7 (Residential Single Family -minimum lot size 7,000 square feet). Subject property is located on the north side of Canyon View Avenue between Outrider Street and Oak Tree Road. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1404-92 has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. Until 1989, this 3.1 acre parcel was under County jurisdiction. It was part of Tract 9606, originally subdivided by the Baldwin Company in 1977. Due to its location on the opposite side of Canyon View Avenue from the majority of Tract 9606, this parcel was left as a remainder parcel. Because no development was proposed, the Baldwin Company was not made responsible for the completion of its Canyon View frontage, and in 1989 the City annexed this property to complete Canyon View in accordance with City standards. At this time this property has no access rights to Canyon View. The County prohibited such access as a condition of approval of Tract 9606, because the original subdivider was not required to improve Canyon View, and because County policy permits access to arterials only at street intersections. When the City annexed this property in 1989, it was with an Agricultural A-1) zoning classification. Such zoning would allow one residence on 22 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 the site. In approving the pre-zone application, the Council indicated that they would grant access to the property from Canyon View, subject to review of a site plan and development proposal. Therefore, part of this application is a request for access rights. This proposal is fora 61ot tract, including 4 residential lots, and two non buildable lots: one for a private street, and one to contain a slope area up to 40 feet in height. The residential lots range in size from approximately 13,000 square feet to 32,000 square feet, exceeding the area requirements for the proposed R-1-7 District. The road will have a 44 foot right of way width, in accordance with City private street standards. The tract map as proposed meets all the technical requirements and development standards of the City, except for lot frontage, which may be authorized by an administrative adjustment permit. The project is also consistent with the General Plan land use designation of low density residential. Development of the site as proposed will necessitate the import of approximately 30,000 yards of fill material. This will have related effects including truck traffic, dust, noise and site compaction. The hauling activities are expected to take approximately 40 days. Because the volume of fill is so close to the 30,000 cubic yard threshold listed in the grading ordinance, it is requiring City Council review and approval. Staff recommends one additional clarification of a condition to require Council review of the haul route. A number of letters have been received in opposition to this project. Letters include those from Cowan Hills Homeowner's Association Board, Kimberly Lee Edwards, Brad Hagen, Ho Joon Choi, Greg and Linda Blackburn and Brandon and Darlene Brosenvitch. Commissioner Scott asked if the 10 hours of work per day a s mentioned in the staff report conflicted with the grading ordinance as far as haul? Mr. Johnson said the hours of operation are governed by traffic conditions and sound requirements. In the past, where there has been an impact on the streets and there has been a need to haul during those peak hours, they've limited the haul hours to 6 or 7 hours. But that is not a hard and fast rule; those hours can be adjusted. It depends on the haul routes involved. The public hearing was opened. 23 Planning Commission Minutes Annlicant April 20, 1992 Carl Renezeder, 28542 Big Springs Road, Trabuco Canyon, proposes to subdivide the 3.1 acre parcel of land. Previous zoning was agricultural, which allows him to build one residential unit. The way the land is situated, it is not economically feasible to do that; it would still require about 20,000 yards of fill. He believes R-1-7 is concurrent with the surrounding area. The actual buildable pad will be 10,000 square feet. He's very interested in working with everyone. The landscaping will be very nice and he will work with the neighbors to address some issues and concerns. Commissioner Murphy asked if he had an opportunity to review the staff report and the conditions as proposed? Mr. Renezeder has read the staff report and concurs with the conditions. Those speaking in opposition Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, spoke on behalf of the Orange Park Association. Traffic issues are a concern. He requested restricting the hours of haul to no earlier than 9:00 or 9:30 a.m., and no later than 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. There also needs to be a stringent safety inspection of all the trucks before hauling begins because of the steep grades. Steve Elliott, 7424 East Blackberry Cove, said the property is a deep ravine called a hole. It needs to be filled up with dirt. It will not be an area for desirable lots; there would be no view. He's opposed to having nearly 30,000 square yards for 80 days hauling up and down Canyon View, blowing dust and dirt everywhere. The tract will create an unsafe traffic situation. Gary Blackburn, 7310 East White Oak Ridge, bought into his tract because he was told the agricultural preserve would not be developed. They thought East Orange was a planned community. He asked the Commission to take a look at the proposed project and see the large hole that requires tons of fill dirt. His concern is the problem of slope failure because the homes would be built on fill. He's also concerned about some type of retaining wall. 24 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 The Commission explained they make it a habit to visit project sites prior to their meetings. Brandon Rosenvitch, 7112 LaCumbre Drive, was also told nothing would be built on the property. He wondered why four homes were needed when half of the homes west of the area on Canyon View are still unsold after 3 or 4 years of completion. He questioned the association of four people. There is the potential for things to be neglected or not taken care of. He was concerned about the compaction process that takes place. Who would be responsible if there is damage to his home? Terry Sargent, 13 7 North Cobblestone, wanted clarification as to who the applicant was? The record owner is still Baldwin Builders. It was her understanding the parcel could not be developed as a condition was placed on the map in 1977. Why can this parcel be considered for development now that it is annexed into the City? Are the standards that much different in terms of safety? Canyon View is a speed way and grades are extremely steep. The City will have a liability problem if the project were approved. She's opposed to the vegetation/habitat being removed and destroyed. Gary Cooper, 7342 White Oak Ridge, spoke in opposition to the project. He was concerned about the issue of safety and concerned about the potential damage to his home, yard and pool. David Rolander, 7316 East White Oak Ridge, believes in property rights. The development will infringe upon his property. After talking to the applicant, he knows it is his intention to work with the homeowners in the area. He would encourage specific details before approving the project as to how it will be mitigated and how it will be done. Mike French, 712 8 LaCumbre, was led to believe that the area would never be developed. The issues he has are similar to those already voiced. No one has addressed the issues of the views. They will lose their views if the proposed project were developed. He was concerned about the horse/hiking trail below his house. Will this be horse property? Will a sound wall or landscaping be provided along Canyon View? 25 Planning Commission Minutes Rebuttal April 20, 1992 Mr. Renezeder said the site was set aside for a potential land trade or sale to adjacent properties for inclusion of future subdivisions. Once the property was annexed to the City in 1989, the City Council stated their intent to grant access to Canyon View at the time o f development. He understands a lot of the issues; he hopes to speak to everyone about their concerns. He's willing to work with the neighbors and is interested in having a good reputation. He hopes to purchase one of these lots for himself because he would like to live there; it's going to be a beautiful site. As the property stands now, it's a fire hazard. The views will not be impaired. They made sure when they designed the project that would not happen. They will build the project according to the City's specifications and will be going by their soils report for proper compaction testing. They will not be using any type of vibrating equipment or rollers. Their intent is to get compaction by the wheel rolling process. There will be a water truck on the site at all times. The dirt should have sufficient water content so that there will be no dust. They will also follow the City standards for dust control. Commissioner Murphy said there was one other question raised concerning whether or not the applicant was representing himself as owner of the parcel, or whether he was in conjunction with another company. Mr. Renezeder responded Jim Baldwin, owner of the Baldwin Company, was his father in-law. The piece of property, when developed, will be in his name. Commissioner Scott asked if this were going to be horse property? Mr. Renezeder did not believe so. Ms. Wolff said R-1-7 properties do not permit horses. Commissioner Bosch said there was also a question about sound walls and walls separating the private street from adjacent properties, with landscaping along Canyon View. 26 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Mr. Renezeder said they have not looked into sound walls; they haven't addressed that issue. The wall between the private road and existing houses is still being negotiated with the neighbors. They don't have a landscape plan, but he described their initial plans for the 20 foot easement. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Cathcart was concerned about safety with regard to the hauling of dirt and the steep grade of Canyon View. There is a nuisance factor in which they must apply so many conditions to restricting the hours, protecting the property rights of others, the views, and the continuation of the landscaping, etc. To him, the site tells him not to do anything with it. Commissioner Murphy echoed some of the concerns as well as the liability issues, as well as the challenge as far as a buildable area with the fill. He thought the restricted access was put in there for a specific purpose from the standpoint of what the ideal situation would be. The views would be a third challenge. Commissioner Master addressed the safety issue of ingress and egress. Commissioner Bosch shared all concerns. Given the radical amount of grading that must occur on the site, the impacts of the private street, there's too many houses being built. He felt the R-1-7 zoning was inappropriate. The tract map does not mitigate the negative impacts of the development. Do the findings of the negative declaration really mitigate the impacts seen? He was concerned the negative declaration was not really the appropriate vehicle to assure there will be adequate mitigation to take care of those problems regardless of what development occurs on the site. Ms. Wolff responded if the Commission felt that the mitigation measures contained in the negative declaration were inadequate or that the impacts cannot be mitigated, then staff will prepare an environmental impact report to which the Commission can adopt a statement of overriding considerations. There cannot be impacts remaining in the eyes of the decision makers with a negative declaration. 27 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to find Negative Declaration 1404-92 inadequately provides measures to mitigate all of the demonstrated environmental impacts of the proposed project during construction and in the final version, and that an environmental impact report is necessary to demonstrate full methods of mitigation. A statement of overriding considerations may be necessary and doesn't exist in documentation before the Commission. Therefore, the declaration is unacceptable. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to deny Tentative Tract Map 14673, Conditional Use Permit 1956-92, Administrative Adjustment 92-13 and Zone Change 1149-92 in that the conditions necessary for finding approval of the Conditional Use Permit as developed in the tract map before the Commission show that the project, as proposed, may cause significant deterioration of bordering land uses and will create special problems for the area in which it is located, and has a negative impact because of its relationship to the adjacent community and neighborhood plans. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1959-92 - VALERE A. AND HELEN M. TARDIF A request to build a 2-story structure in the Residential Combining District. Orange Municipal Code Sections 17.26.110 and 17.68.030 require that the applicant's plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Subject property is located on a residential parcel on the north side of the street, 110 feet east of Shaffer Street, addressed 5 21 East Washington Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. 28 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Ms. Wolff noted for the record that one letter has been received in opposition to the project from Mr. Pitsenberger. The staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Annlicant Valere Tardif, 521 East Washington, (lives at 548 East Washington) said this would be their home. They have owned several properties in Orange and it is consistent with the construction in the area. Those speaking in favor Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, was at the D.R.B. meeting when this item was heard; they did follow the Board's suggestions and instructions, changing their proposal quite a bit. Everyone is pleased with the way it looks now. Those speaking in opposition Verle Pitsenberger, 524 East Almond, wrote a letter in regards to the window. He's not opposed to building the unit; they have done a fantastic job in the design. He's opposed to the window which overlooks his back yard completely. He spoke to one of the Assistant Planners, who spoke with the architect regarding a few suggestions about the window. He suggested raising the window or at least change the glass to an opaque type of glass for now and in the future. Rebuttal Mr. Tardif said the window was their bedroom window. He was sorry, but that was the way it was. Ms. Wolff added in response to the neighbor's comments, staff contacted the architect and learned that the window meets exiting requirements according to the building code. She's not certain if modifications could be made to the size or height of the window. The public hearing was closed. 29 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1992 Commissioner Bosch said the building code addresses the height of the sill above the floor and minimum window size. This is a problem which he doesn't know how to solve. At the moment it is an infringement upon privacy. He also had a concern relative to the encroachment on the typically required setback of the alley to allow for adequate circulation in and out of the garage. He would not like to see a relaxation down to the 22 foot 6 inches requested; he's against the Administrative Adjustment. The applicant's architect has done a wonderful job other than those two things. The lot is large enough that still meeting the development standards for setbacks between units, that a couple of feet could be picked up on the alley way. Commissioner Scott stated most two story homes have windows over looking back yards. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny Administrative Adjustment 92-12 because of the reduced area. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The Commission asked the applicant if he were willing to mitigate the concern of the second story window with his architect? After considerable discussion, the applicant concurred to a continuance to May 4, 1992. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1959-92 to the meeting of May 4, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADTOi;fF~JMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 30