Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange May 6, 1991 Orange, California 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; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the Minutes of April 15, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1903-91, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1380-91 - ORANGE COVENANT CHURCH: A request to allow the expansion of a church facility. The proposal is to construct a 2,047 square foot building to contain classrooms and offices. Subject property is located on the west side of Prospect Street between Almond Avenue and Palmyra Avenue, addressed 250 South Prospect Street. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1380-91 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Darrell Davis, 1027 Mardell Avenue, asked for approval of this C.U.P. request. They have read the staff report and conditions of approval and did not have a problem with them. The public hearing was Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1991 - Page 2 Commissioner Cathcart disagreed with it. plans be reviewed by back to the Design nicely landscaped at handling this. referred to Condition 2 because he He would like to see the landscaping Planning staff rather than having to go Review Board. The entire project is this time and staff is capable of Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1380-91 in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1903-91, with all conditions, but amending Condition 2 -- landscaping plans to be reviewed by Planning staff without further review by the Design Review Board. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1905-91, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1378-91 - CON-WAY WESTERN EXPRESS, INC.: A request to allow the expansion of an existing truck terminal located in the M-2 Industrial Zone. Subject property is located on the west side of Batavia Street between Grove Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, addressed 2102 North Batavia Street. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1378-91 has been prepared for this project. A full staff report was not presented as there was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Lance Collins, 2123 Alexander, Pleasanton, Manager of Properties for Con-Way Transportation. He felt the staff report represented the issues and asked for approval of their request. He has read the staff report and takes no exception to the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1991 - Page 3 Commissioner Cathcart asked what happened to the entrance and it's landscaping. There appears to be an irrigation system. Is it inoperable? Mr. Collins was not aware of a problem. When they took over the property, it was in poor shape. There is extensive work proposed for further improvements. They will also be returning to the Planning staff with a master plan for both of their properties. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott asked in Industrial Zones? On enclosure is not shown. required in the expansion will i t have on the parking stalls are not striped. if trash enclosures were required the site plan submitted, a trash Will additional landscaping be of the site? If so, what effect situation? The existing parking Chairman Bosch said those issues could be incorporated into the conditions of approval (i.e., grading plans and handicapped access requirements) to be on the record to assist the applicant and as reconfirmation to staff to follow up on this. Commissioner Cathcart wondered if the percentage of landscaping in the parking lot of an industrial area is the same as for parking areas at restaurants or other commercial sites? If so, it should be adhered to on this project. Ms. Wolff responded there were a couple of other options which are allowed in the Industrial Zone. Generally, lOg landscaping is required; however, there is a provision of dropping down to 5~ if the applicant does some extra enhancements of a landscaped area. Commissioner Cathcart would be willing to adhere to a 5~ landscaping requirement, with an upgrade along the entry area. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1378-91 as it has been prepared in compliance with the CEQA and that it will not have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1991 - Page 4 Commissioner Bosch suggested the Commission modify Condition 1 to read: "Prior to issuance of building permits, final landscape plans incorporating required percentage of site paved area in landscaping and upgraded street entrance landscaped areas shall be approved by the Community Services Department. " Condition 2 be modified to read: "Prior to issuance of building permits, grading, paving and striping plans, including number and size of trash enclosures to meet requirements of Department of Public Works on plans, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Amend Condition 5 to include: "Provision of handicapped parking spaces adjacent to office area and the quantity as set by Title 24 requirements." Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1905-91 with conditions 1-21, including the modifications to conditions 1, 2, and 5 previously noted. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1384-91 - NEWPORT CENTER: An environmental assessment of a 2-story 47,493 square foot retail/office commercial center located on a 2.77 acre site at 340 South Newport Boulevard. Public Input Bill Burke, 10051 Sunrise Lane, Santa Ana, was interested in developing the center as shown on the board. Commissioner Murphy was still bothered by the issue of parking structures and whether or not they fall under the guidelines of human occupancy designation. He understands the specifics of it from the standpoint of the letter of the law, but has some personal discomfort looking at putting parking structures where people will be from time to time as they enter and exit from a shopping center, in a fault area. Is it really an appropriate use of the property in that area? Commissioner Cathcart didn't have a problem with the completeness of the Negative Declaration, but he was not sure the design solution is the best solution for the site. However, that's not the Commission's task. Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1991 - Page 5 Commissioner Scott thought if this project had an environmental effect in the community, he thought it should come back to the Commission for review. The development, as presented, will have an environmental effect on the community. Chairman Bosch understood the Negative Declaration was before the Commission because of the active seismic zone and they were being asked to validate the entire Negative Declaration, which includes that element. Commissioner Scott was hesitant on the Negative Declaration because they are so many "maybes" that were not addressed. Commissioner Master thought there were too many concerns and you don't know what the end product will be and it's impact on the surrounding community. He did not feel comfortable with the package. Chairma n Bosch f elt the soils a ngineer's recommendations were very generic and they don't answer the question as to whether the proposed design to mitigate those problems will do that. He noted a portion of the parking structure (in the fault zone and to the south of it) is going to be a concrete structure whereas the portion under the restaurant building is a wood truss frame deck over the parking. He's concerned about what that means in terms of how one constructs an expansion joint, the fire and life safety for that portion of parking structure that's wood construction. He sees a parking structure that in terms of its layout on the site doesn't have any orientation or relationship to the fault zone. He was also concerned about the idea that the parking s truc ture i sn't a human occupancy building. The design of the structure would certainly have to show how to maintain human safety in the whole structure, let alone the portion in excess of 2,000 hours that lies on the fault zone itself. The two story building's northerly exit stairway is in the fault zone. The plans do not conform to the soils engineer's recommendation in providing a mitigation measure for the zone. The plan, as a mitigation measure, doesn't demonstrate even the generic means of complying with a fairly generic soils testing report. It will take some more work. This plan does not meet the basic needs described by code, the staff report or by the recommendations in the Negative Declaration. More research is needed in order to provide viable mitigation measures. Staff provided the different options available to the Commission: (1) if the Negative Declaration is found to be adequate, it can be certified and the project can be built; 2) if the plan does not incorporate the mitigation Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1991 - Page 6 measures, the Negative Declaration can be certified and the plan would need to be reviewed by staff or brought back to the Commission for examination of whether the mitigation measures can, in fact, be implemented and are in a specific site plan; (3) if the Commission finds the human occupancy issue is not adequately addressed, then it will be found that the project does have an impact on the environment and the Negative Declaration should not be certified. Other options could be explored for developing the property, but the option before the Commission should not be built the way it is proposed. The question was raised about a focused EIR being necessary to demonstrate alternatives, which would afford safety for that issue. Staff responded it could be done that way. The focused EIR would look more specifically at a site plan and mitigation measures to look at the human occupancy issue at a greater depth. Mr. Herrick said the finding would have to be that in this particular form, this Negative Declaration is not adequate, but could be made adequate by additional and more specific mitigation measures. Those measures could then be reviewed by the Commission when the Negative Declaration comes back again after having been amplified. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to not accept Negative Declaration 1384-91 as it is not adequate in addressing all the mitigation measures, including the seismic issue for the project. An appropriately completed Negative Declaration shall be brought back to the Commission for review, including revised plans demonstrating the full and intended mitigation measures in the design of the site. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-91 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1369-91 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to amend various sections of the Orange Municipal Code to add provisions regarding the keeping of miniature livestock and exotic pets on residentially zoned property. NOTE: The Planning Commission is to schedule this item for public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1991 - Page 7 The first available meeting would be June 17, 1991. Commissioner Scott suggested continuing this discussion until they receive more information. He does not feel he has enough background on the subject for a public hearing. He would like to continue this for 90-120 days. Commissioner Cathcart was not present at the study session and needs some time to read the information given to him. Commissioner Murphy suggested splitting the difference and continue the matter for 60 days. He would like to give the public the opportunity to come back and speak on this. He thought the second meeting in July would give them ample time to prepare for the hearing. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to set a public hearing date of July 15, 1991 for the proposed amendments to various sections of the Orange Municipal Code concerning Ordinance Amendment 1-91 and Negative Declaration 1369-91. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, M. NOES: None Staff informed the Commission they have of Cities and have gotten a listing ordinances. They will forward that Commission for their review. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT ester, Murphy, Scott MOTION CARRIED contacted the League of other cities with information to the Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to Thursday, May 9, 1991 at 8:00 a.m. for a joint session with City Council to discuss the zoning ordinance; then adjourn to the meeting of May 20, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room for a joint Planning Commission/City Council study session to discuss the seven year Capital Improvement Program. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. sl d