Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange July 7, 1993 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Joan Wolff, Senior Planner; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; and Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE New Commissioner Ben Pruett was introduced and welcomed to the Planning Commission. IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith,. to approve the Minutes of June 21, 1993, with a correction to Page 15, last sentence, third word from the end, the word should be "tough". AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1932-91 AND MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14593 -PACIFIC RIDGE PARTNERS A request to modify the site plan approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 and to revise the conditions of approval for both Tentative Tract Map 14593 and Conditional Use Permit 1932-91. The current proposal is to redesign the westerly 21.6 acres of a 36 acre site as a Planned Unit Development, to provide single family detached housing on individual lots a minimum of 3,600 square feet in size, and a common recreation facility. This proposal retains the condominium and apartment development originally approved on the easterly portion of the site plan. Subject property is a portion of the Southridge Planned Community, located east of Meats Avenue, north of Cerro Villa Drive, south of the City of Anaheim, and west of the proposed connection of Loma Street/Imperial Highway. The area of the development subject to this request is on the south side of the planned extension of Via Escola, easterly of its current terminus. NOTE: The environmental impacts of this project have been evaluated under previously certified Environmental Impact Report #854. This item was continued from the June 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.) Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Commissioner Cathcart excused himself from the meeting due to a possible potential conflict of interest. The public hearing was re-opened because of revised conditions. No one was in opposition to the item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. Applicant Scott Stowell, 1565 West MacArthur Blvd., Costa Mesa, represented the managing partner of Pacific Ridge Partners. They were present to reconsider some items that were requested by the Commission at the last meeting, they needed to gather some information and a couple of issues needed to be resolved, which they have done. They met with staff and Mr. Bennyhoff and felt they have resolved all those items. He asked Bob Mickelson, who previously worked on the project, to review the intent and goals of the planned community. Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, handed the Commissioners a packet which contained exhibits and data relating to the project; he explained the planned community development and related zoning. What is being proposed is a revision to the conditional use permit for portions C and D; it's still an overall planned development. There was also a concern expressed that because there are units being dropped from C and D (the density is being lowered), would there be an attempt to push all those units over to A and B? That will not be done. The density that has been approved for A and B will not change. Mr. Stowell included information on the variety of housing opportunities and listed what is currently selling in the area and what is being proposed. They calculated the averages and ranges of the lot sizes for the proposed lots. Even though the planned community has changed several times, they thought it was still meeting the intent of the planned community; they're providing housing in more attainable price ranges. He discussed their proposal and why it is a better plan. He listed four reasons -- reduces density, increases open space, there is an improved circulation and the development standards for building setbacks is better. Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, still does not like small lots, but supports this project. He's going to have to adjust his thinking. He complimented Mr. Stowell for being reasonable. He thought the benefits would outweigh the difficulties of the extension of Via Escola. He suggested for future consideration of the zoning code update, that garages should be included as part of the footprint. He would also like to see in the update if the developer wishes to take advantage of the smaller lots, he should pay a price for that. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith thanked Mr. Stowell for addressing her questions. She thought they were seeing history being made with Mr. Bennyhoff's comments and she appreciated that. She thought this was a good plan in that they fit in with the overall planned community. She has met with Mr. Stowell twice over this project and has a complete understanding of the developer's intention for the overall plan. 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Commissioner Walters' only concern was setting a precedent in the hills of East Orange. In looking at the project though after the last hearing and adding up the total square footage of the lots in question and the common areas, he found that comes to an average square foot of over 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit on the gross as far as land use is concerned. That being the case, he didn't see it as being a dangerous precedent for East Orange. Commissioner Bosch also met with the developer, Mr. Mickelson and Mr. Bennyhoff about the concerns of the project. He also shared the concern about setting a precedent, but he thought they now have a true meaning of what a planned community was. With the presentation given, he saw this as two key parts that demonstrate the specific applicability to the planned community zone in the project and the avoidance of the intent to setting a precedent where none was intended. He appreciated, in the conditions, the protection provided for future property owners by limiting how much building addition, location and transparency of patio structures that might be added in rear yards. The Commission noted no environmental action was required since the previously certified environmental documents have been maintained in effect. Commissioner Pruett mentioned for the record he intended to abstain from this issue. There has been extensive work and discussion by the Commission over the past several months and under the circumstances, he felt it would be appropriate to abstain. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve the modifications to the approved site plan and conditions associated with Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 and Tentative Tract Map 14593 with the comments, stipulations and other observations presented. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Cathcart returned to the meeting. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING VARIANCE 1951-93 -HOME DEPOT A request to remodel and expand the gardening area of an existing home improvement center. The request is to allow the expansion without providing for the total number of code required parking spaces. Subject property is addressed 321 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1430-93 has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This item was continued from the June 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.) The public hearing was re-opened for further information. 3 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant July 7, 1993 Susan Quon, 911 Studebaker Road, Long Beach, was with MPR Architects representing Home Depot. They met with staff and Home Depot following the June 21 hearing to discuss a number of conceptual alternatives to mitigate the concerns of the Planning Commission, particularly with regard to ingress/egress and to also keep in mind they don't want to impact the parking already being compromised with the proposal for expansion. They pursued a revision to the site plan whereby they straightened out some planters and introduced a continuous planter to mitigate cross traffic driving. This seemed to be the scheme that would impact the parking count the least. Other alternatives might have been more straight forward with regard to the circulation, but they did impact the site adversely as they would be losing from 15 to 26 cars at a time. The other item of information is the fixture plan that indicates those areas that are indicated for retail type of merchandise as opposed to wholesale. It shows that a relatively small portion of the store is set up for strictly retail sales. The majority of the store is set up for bulk items and the employees stock by fork lift in those areas. Commissioner Walters' concern when they looked to reduce the parking below the standards set by the City, part of that is the reflection that Home Depot was not a full retail firm, but part warehouse and part functional retail. He has not seen the parking lot that filled with common use. One of the issues raised at the last hearing had to do with the issue of ease by which the car flow moved through the parking lot. One must do a lot of twists and turns. Part of the problem has to do with the way in which the long parking rows have been designed on the lot. He wasn't hoping for continuous planters as a solution. He doesn't see any modification for someone coming into the driveway has any relief in terms of circulation in the parking lot itself. There has to be simplicity and ease of flow of people in the parking lot. That has not been addressed at all. Planters are not the issue or solution, nor is a concrete barrier down the center of the long rows. Ms. Quon met with Chuck Lau and Chuck Glass to discuss their concepts. They had a couple of studies whereby they could straighten out and shorten some of the parking rows, but in doing so introduced drive aisles that take up additional area. Unfortunately, that's where they had a net loss from 14 to 26 more cars. Home Depot also concurs and is concerned about the comments Commissioner Smith had to make with regard to future uses and a threshold of car parking provided. With the input from Home Depot and City staff, this plan seemed to be the most sensible. Commissioner Walters referred to the plans submitted this date. The long row of parking stalls that exist down the center of the parking lot area creates a barrier dead center across the parking lot. He said you do not solve it by putting flower pots at the end, or a permanent barrier in the middle of the adjacent line of parking slots. What is needed is to take the southern third of that long parking line and have a driveway that goes through it -- not impede it. By his calculation, they would lose at most 4 to 6 parking spots, some of which could be picked up by eliminating the planned planters (he didn't see any value in them). This would still leave the parking spaces as they are now shown as an island more by itself in the southerly most part of the parking lot. It's true, no one is going to park in those spots unless the lot is full. The key is for ease of flow; of cars getting across the long line of parking stalls in the center of the parking lot. 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Ms. Quon had her conceptual studies if the Commission would consider overlaying them on top of the print/exhibit. She would like to demonstrate they have looked at that alternative. The Planning Commission and staff viewed the overlays and discussed the parking situation. Their intent was not to design the parking lot for the applicant, but the key concern is the offset of that cross aisle and the major danger in viewing the lot. Mr. Godlewski explained the effort of staff was to try and come up with a plan that would minimize the loss of parking spaces and that was direction they were going because it seemed to be a parking issue. Agreeably, circulation wise, the other plans work better. Commissioner Walters said that was the basic issue at hand. They're looking for smooth, easy access and circulation in the lot. To accept the request for a reduction in parking, he didn't have a problem with that. To give up another 6 to 9 spots to have good circulation capability is a small price to pay. Commissioner Smith was pressed to find in the staff report what hardship Home Depot had in meeting the variance for the expansion. One of the provisions for obtaining the variance was that there would be some hardship. What is the hardship that is requiring this attention? Ms. Quon responded they were addressing Home Depot's method of merchandising. They are not exactly a retail store in the strict sense of how they are laid out. If you were to consider Home Depot as a warehouse, which it more closely resembles, then the parking requirements would not be consistent with retail sales. The other aspects of the restraint from their perspective is that this building is already in place and built up with certain constraints with regard to how much land area they have available to develop. They would like the Commission to consider that as one of their constraints, as well as to remove some of the parking would be a hardship at this point in time. Commissioner Cathcart added if in trying to make the parking lot more smoothly accessible by reducing 9 or 10 parking spaces as one solution, he would think that hardship would result in his feeling favorable about the variance, only because they are asking for a reduction in parking places which in essence would be a hardship. But he had a problem in finding other hardships. Commissioner Bosch followed up by stating the burden of demonstration of hardship lies primarily with the applicant. Their concern is that under the law they must identify hardships based upon the land, application of ordinances relatively equally among all properties -- you can't have aself-imposed hardship. The building was designed and constructed for Home Depot and processed under the ordinances at that time. Has there been a change in the ordinance that caused the hardship in parking? Can the applicant demonstrate more closely or provide statistics to demonstrate how Home Depot utilizes a different ratio of floor area of merchandise stacking, which really does demonstrate that this is more of a warehouse than retail use. The parking lot and use say it is retail. They must have a finding of hardship under state law. With the floor fixture layout it does show much wider aisles than normally found in competing hardware stores and non-warehouse buildings. That's a start to get on the right track, but they still need to be able to pin something down in terms of definitions or statistics to arrive at that. He's aware that the original site layout was difficult because of the need for traffic safety reasons to align driveways on either side of Katella Avenue; thus, that 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 threw the "S "curve into the access drive. Yet, at that time all the ordinances were met for parking so it didn't seem to create a hardship. This cannot be aself-imposed hardship. Ms. Quon thought it would be a good idea to ask for a continuance. It's something that Home Depot needs to be a part of for their review and approval before going any further. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to continue Variance 1951-93 to the meeting of August 2, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2017-93 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY A request to allow the continued existence of two modular buildings housing the University's Study Health Center at their present location in the R-4 (RCD) zone Residential Maximum Multiple Family Residential Combining District). Subject property is located on the northwest corner of Orange and Sycamore, addressed 404 North Orange. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1433-93 has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Commissioner Cathcart excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. M. J. Martini, 638 E. Walnut Avenue, said the main thrust of the application on the part of Chapman College was based on the fact that the Specific Plan was amended on March 31 behind closed doors in secret and no one was notified of that until last Wednesday. The provision for the amendment was written and signed by the Community Development Director pursuant to the terms of Section 4.0 D. He talked to the Mayor, City Manager and City Attorney on Thursday and none of them knew that an amendment had been made to facilitate this application for the conditional use permit. He is appealing the amendment as mentioned in the Specific Plan. He had a copy of the Mayor's letter, but there was no mention about an amendment being made to the Specific Plan. Ms. Wolff referred to the last page, last paragraph of the memo entitled "Application of the Chapman College Specific Plan". There is a sentence that reads, "The opportunity to appeal this decision amending the Specific Plan will terminate simultaneously with the appeal period applicable for action taken on the resulting conditional use permit application." The appeal period is still open. If a decision is made at this hearing, there will be another 15 days in which an appeal can also be made. Commissioner Bosch explained the public hearing process and stated Mr. Martini had a right of appeal and a desire to make that appeal. 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Mr. Martini had a feeling the application before the Commission was based very strongly on the amendment that was made. He felt an appeal to the fact that the amendment was made should be taken care of before arguments are heard. If the appeal is upheld, then the approach to the conditional use permit application would be an entirely different matter based on entirely different facts. The Chair would like to do two things in fairness to the request before the Commission. One, to inquire of the City Attorney of the proper process and procedure in this case and dependent upon that, look to the Commission for their desire. Mr. Soo-Hoo didn't think there was an established procedure as far as combining issues such as this. He thought the Commission and City Council had a normal policy as far as development projects were concerned to consolidate the discussion in order to more efficiently handle issues. Quite often, the Commission and Council review development projects where various aspects of the approval are dependent upon other aspects and they are handled all at once. As long as the issues are in common, he didn't think that it was improper about combining issues. It was up to the Commission in how they felt about handling this issue. Commissioner Bosch said it was certainly within the boundaries and rules for the Director of Community Services, under the approved ordinance for the Specific Plan, to make rulings such as this, subject to appeal. With regard to process, the process was followed; however, the problem appears to be Mr. Martini felt he was not informed as a community liaison in due time to allow an appeal prior to the application. (Mr. Martini knew he was not informed.) What is the Commission's desire in this matter? The Commission felt they should proceed with the hearing; the appeal can still go forward. Commissioner Smith acknowledged the fact the amendments should be publicized to the community so there are no surprises. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, found this matter unusual and asked for clarification on the specific language and legality of that kind of procedure? Ms. Wolff referenced Section 4.0 D "General Administration" and read the section verbatim. "The Chapman College Specific Plan shall be administered and enforced by the City of Orange Community Development Department in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange zoning code. Certain changes to explicit provisions in the Specific Plan may be made administratively by the Community Development Director, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council, including A, B, and C as follows: A) The addition of new information to the Specific Plan, maps or text does not change the effect of any regulations or guidelines; B) Changes to the community infrastructure such as drainage, water and sewer systems, which do not have the effective increasing or decreasing development capacity in the Specific Plan area, nor change the concepts of the plan; and C) The determination that a use be allowed which is not specifically listed as permitted, but which may be determined to be similar in nature to those uses explicitly listed as permitted." Commissioner Bosch said A was the primary problem with regard to an apparent change of the intent of the plan. 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Mr. Soo-Hoo said that language is contained in the Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council and delegated to the Director of Community Development. In conversation with the Community Development Director, his intention was to interpret the plan so as to allow the request to be aired in public, rather than to administratively preclude the request of Chapman to be applied for. Mr. Bennyhoff could not understand how something was done March 31, subject to public appeal and the public does not find out about it until three months later -- there is something wrong here. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out the action was taken in March, but bear in mind the appeal process remains open until the conditional use permit is considered and acted upon by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. It isn't a final decision by any means. Commissioner Pruett questioned when an administrative change is made to the Specific Plan, any change that is made, would it require a public hearing from the standpoint of a conditional use permit or some other action on the part of the Commission? Commissioner Bosch's understanding was there may be conditions where it would allow buying a building permit only. Some projects do go ahead that in other aspects meet the requirements of the Specific Plan and don't require a C.U.P. without a public hearing unless there were some method of sound public notification which would allow an appeal period. At some point a previously issued C.U.P. for the majority of the project - not the entirety of it -expired. Without the issue having been brought back to the Planning Commission for review of potential extension of the C.U.P. (much longer than 3 months ago), upon discovery by staff with the assistance of Mr. Martini and the community of this problem, Chapman University addressed by what method they could undertake to mitigate the problem that had arisen. The request by Chapman University for an interpretation of that and their grounds with the assistance of their counsel that they should be allowed to have an extension of the C.U.P. were delivered to the City around September 1, 1992. Because of the ambiguity of the document, the difficulty of ascertaining what the basis for legal interpretation of the document should be, and the general procedures of the City, it took until the end of March, 1993 for the City to come forth and indicate they had seen a method by which it seemed prudent and fair to allow Chapman University a public forum to submit an application to identify through the public hearing process whether or not the use should be allowed. The key issue is the public information process in terms of granting after March 31 the opportunity for an appeal of an administrative decision. Mr. Martini read a section from the Specific Plan. On Page 4-5, F. "Amendment Procedures" -- "In accordance with the California Government Code, Section 65453 - 65454, the Specific Plan shall be prepared, adopted and amended in the same manner as General Plans except that Specific Plans may be adopted by Resolution or Ordinance." He checked Government Code Section 65453 and it said the Specific Plan adopted by Resolution or Ordinance may be amended as often as is deemed necessary by the legislative body. There is a little conflict. Commissioner Bosch stated the ordinance also (though it does with the approval of the legislative body) delegates certain rights of interpretation to staff members appointed by the legislative body. 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Mr. Soo-Hoo said that was the key issue. The delegation was made in the Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council. With the concurrence of the Commission, they proceeded with the hearing. Ms. Wolff made the staff presentation as there was opposition. On October 12, 1987, the Planning Commission approved C.U.P. 1617, allowing Chapman College to establish a student health center (also known as the "Wellness Center") at this location. The permit allowed Chapman College to locate a college use in the R-4 (RCD) zone, and to move one modular structure onto the property in accordance with the approved site plan. As a condition of approval, the C.U.P. was valid for a maximum period of two years from the date of approval. Extensions could be granted only after a new public hearing. The approval expired in October, 1989. The University did not make a request to extend the C.U.P. at any point prior to submittal of this application. In March, 1989, prior to the expiration of C.U.P. 1617, the City Council adopted the Chapman College Specific Plan. In adopting the plan, the Council added a provision stating that no College uses would be permitted on the 400 block of North Orange Street (west side) until the entire block was acquired by the College. Because the Council did not make specific mention of the Wellness Center, it is unclear as to how the provision was intended to apply to that existing use. For this reason, the University has been allowed to apply for a new C.U.P., allowing for a full hearing with public testimony. The request is specifically for the following: To permit the University Health Center in the R-4 (RCD) zone. To permit the continued use of the previously permitted 36' x 60' modular building on the easterly portion of the site. To permit the location of a second modular building on the property, 14' x 30' in size, which is now existing on the property, but which was placed without benefit of a C.U.P. That second building contains offices for the health center and is basically an expansion of the originally approved health center use. The application is a request to allow the structures to remain as the Wellness Center for an unlimited period of time. The health center is open Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and is closed on weekends. The building facing Orange Street is the Health Center, and the smaller building to the rear houses the auxiliary offices. No additional parking is required for these uses. As with any C.U.P., the considerations to be made should address the potential impact of the project on adjacent land uses, and its compatibility with its surroundings. Because the site is located within Old Towne, such consideration will include its potential impact on the Historic District. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Dick Cheshire, Vice President of Relations at Chapman University ,333 North Glassell, thanked the Commission for giving them the opportunity to present their case for the conditional use permit. He introduced staff members and asked his colleague, AI McQuilken to make a presentation. AI McQuilken, Director of Facilities Management for Chapman University, 333 North Glassell, passed out some information to the Commission and went over several points 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 of the handout. He gave a brief chronology of the Wellness Center. The University's position is that the Specific Plan recognized and allowed the continuance of the Wellness Center. Their belief was that they were in compliance as a result of the Specific Plan and felt no action was required for the Wellness Center. He also described the function of the Wellness Center, which services students exclusively. Activity is limited to minor medical care and counseling. There is no hazardous materials stored or generated at the site. The second modular unit was relocated to the Wellness Center from the stadium parking lot. At the time of relocation, Chapman University obtained a building permit to add a handicapped ramp. It was determined upon inspection by the City since the trailer was existing and since the Specific Plan permitted the use of temporary structures, that no additional use was being added. The University believed appropriate steps were taken; they were not trying to hide anything. In the six years of operation they've had no complaints and to the best of their knowledge no one has been negatively impacted by its presence. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if the Wellness Center was available to the students' families? (No, it does not extend to family health care.) Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, did not want to oppose the use, but no one has answered his question yet. Why did it take three months to respond to this? Mr. Godlewski responded the way the situation arose there was no opportunity for Chapman College to even apply for a conditional use permit unless the Director made the decision he did. Once he made that decision, then it gave Chapman College the right to make an application. The normal processing time to bring it to public hearing and in order for the applicant to prepare their application is about two months. The other month was preparing their application to bring it forward. Staff is on a two month time lag from the deadline time to the date of the public hearing. Those speaking in opposition M. J. Martini, 638 East Walnut Avenue, was very much interested in what Mr. McQuilken had to say in regards to the building permit for the handicapped ramp. It was partly true. For the record, the matter of the expired C.U.P. was first brought to Chapman College's attention in May, 1992 (longer than 3 1/2 months). City staff is making interpretations of the actions of the City Council without consulting the Council members who actually voted on the matter in question. He believes the City Council knew exactly what they wanted to do and that was no general College use on the west side of the 400 block of North Orange Street until all the properties along that block were owned by Chapman College. Chapman College did not apply for a renewal C.U.P. at the end of the two years, which their Specific Plan advised them they had to do that if they wanted to continue the Wellness Center. When it expired, that made it non conforming. He felt Chapman College should be out in front showing by personal example that they too are required and intend to abide by the ordinances of the City. Rebuttal Dr. Cheshire thanked Mr. Martini for his kind remarks. The College feels the City is a great asset for them and they are pleased and privileged to be in Orange. They cherish 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 their church relationship and are not one of those institutions that is related to its mother church in name only. They are particularly proud of their high standard of ethics they apply in all matters as best they can. Their interpretation of this complex issue is a matter subject to discussion and different interpretations. They hold theirs is one that can be defended; not only on technical grounds, but on the grounds of that which is not only best for their students, but best for the community as well. Mr. McQuilken responded to a couple of items. He did not intend to give a false impression, but only to state the facts as he knew them. He didn't believe the Specific Plan addressed the issue of the C.U.P. for the Wellness Center (the original C.U.P. which was granted in October, 1987). He has read the Specific Plan in some detail, but did not have the benefit of a lot of time at Chapman to know some of the history. He's basing everything on the information he can gather by reading and talking to involved individuals. Commissioner Bosch said a question on procedure was raised as to why it took the amount of time it did. Could the applicant shed some light on that perspective? Mr. McQuilken said he started with Chapman on May 17 and they were in recruitment for his position. No one was there who could deal with this type of issue. He inherited a position where the record was in some disarray. Once the issue was finally resolved on March 31, he thought the University acted promptly to prepare the paperwork and submit their application. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters lives adjacent to Rancho Santiago College in East Orange so he has somewhat of a practical view of the situation. In looking at the specific request before the Commission and acknowledging what seems to be a lot of glitches and problems from the historical past, he really didn't see a problem with seeing this permit reissued for the existing building and issued for the first time on the second building, and allowing its use under the permit afforded by the City. Commissioner Pruett didn't see a problem. It appears there are some misunderstandings and this is to clarify and straighten out those misunderstandings. He didn't have a problem moving forward with this request. Commissioner Smith was present for the entire process of the Specific Plan hearings on the other side of the fence. She made a statement, addressed to Chapman: "I can understand how this misunderstanding could have occurred. It appears to me that the leadership at Chapman University is better than ever. But, there is a history at Chapman College, which Mr. McQuilken may not be aware of. There is a history of missed C.U.P. permits, unsought licenses, missing demo permits, unpaid fees and lack of request for variances. There is a long history of this. This is a history of disorganization at this part of the University business and it has created a feeling in the community that Chapman College either doesn't think it needs to come for those permits or they are beyond it or it is so disorganized, that it doesn't know what it is doing. She feels the leadership, since Dr. Doti has been there, has improved greatly and that the staff continues to build and grow in a very efficient, effective way. The fact you have taken a position of Facilities Management is definitely a position that is needed and something that hopefully will improve relationships with the City. She believes that this inconsistency occurred in an era when these issues were perhaps not 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 as important to the City of Orange either. But all of us now are called to a greater responsibility and accountability for our actions. Our relationships between government, the private sector and the neighborhood community is under scrutiny by all of society with recent improprieties in this County concerning government officials and their relationship with funding sources, etc. All of us have a responsibility to be accountable for the trust people have given us in the investment that people have made with us. Her parents went to Orange High School in the buildings that are Chapman University now. That is a beloved site to them. It doesn't give the University any special privilege in this community, but she wants to be tolerant of inconsistencies and she knows how misunderstandings occur and how these things can fall through the cracks. But for her position on the Commission, she would like to say she will no longer accept these kind of excuses that it simply fell through the cracks. Those may be strong words, but she comes from a history of dealing with many, many issues in conflict with Chapman University." There is a section in the Specific Plan that refers to the uses of properties on the west side of Orange Street which Commissioner Bosch pointed out to her and he will address those. She does remember the Wellness Center being there and functioning at the time the Specific Plan was written and she can see how it could have been interpreted that it was just accepted in with the whole plan. She was concerned about a building just appearing there without a permit. She thought Chapman College should have known the permit process by that time and should have come forward and requested it. As a clinical social worker herself, she was definitely in favor of the services provided at the Wellness Center, especially the counseling center. It's a good use and enhances the student life of the University students. It's another opportunity Chapman has taken to provide a service without providing adequate parking. She wanted to recognize that for the record that it is noted that there is another use there and a second building without parking corresponding to that building. Parking and Chapman and the City of Orange -- all those three need to come together in a much better way. Even though the facility has been there for six years and it does serve a good purpose, it does not have its own parking. That is something which needs to be addressed. Commissioner Bosch concurs with the positive direction of a new person/position trying to clean up the loose ends and continue to learn the City's processes. He's confident other loose ends will be found. He trusts in that for the future. It's taken some years, but the City has seen a definite improvement and strong leadership at Chapman University. He sees four things: 1) Communication did occur, regardless of the length of time. When he received the letter and document, he didn't have any ambiguity about it. It said the interpretation was here and it indicated in the Mayor's letter on that basis, the C.U.P. was the appropriate method. It's unfortunate the wording was not clear enough to avoid ambiguity and confusion of the communication to the public. 2) It doesn't do any good for the information to be there if there isn't appropriate public notice. He shared a deep concern for that; not just with regard to this issue. It's a citywide issue relative to specific plans. He thought they needed to communicate with the City Council through the Community Development department to suggest discussion and ways to improve public notice of administrative amendments or interpretations regardless of what specific plan or other ordinance the City is related to. He realizes funding resources are limited, but he hoped they could find a way to make that communication known to better inform everybody: 3) The correctness of the provision 15 interpretation amendment that Mr. Martini will appeal. He looked at two of the provisions. Yes, the Planning Commission did recommend to the City Council adoption of the Specific Plan and a C.U.P. to implement that with a series of conditions. But the ordinance is the City Council's ordinance. The City Council's provision and conditions 12 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 are those that make the ordinance regardless of what the Planning Commission does. That's the law of the City. The provisions of the City Council's ordinance include (1) limitation of temporary structures to six on each portion of campus, academic and residential (recreation). In lieu of no maximum and approval of the structures by the Community Development Director in lieu of Planning Commission. He could understand Chapman University's interpretation that this was a temporary structure, there is a Specific Plan, it's existing so it must be allowed. Whether or not that interpretation is correct, remains to be seen in the Council's consideration of what it intended by that. There is also provision 15, which he read again. The Specific Plan boundary on the west side of Orange Street remains as proposed.,, However, no PI zoning or College uses be allowed until the full block facing Orange Street is acquired. All uses as entitled by the R-4 (RCD) zone shall be allowed on parcels within the Plan which are located on the west side of Orange Street." That's a conflict. Those two sentences say entirely opposite things. The City Council needs to interpret what it's intent was. The City needs to highlight the ambiguities and look for resolution in them. And need to learn from the big holes relative to communication and public notice and the threshold of interpretation authority granted to Departments to avoid the Council dealing with picking paper clips and staples, but at the same time keeping with them the authority for major public health, safety and land use issues. There is a line some place that is going to be gray in any dispute to improve the situation. He felt very clearly that the Wellness Center with its C.U.P. was an existing use. It was a temporary structure and there was no intent ever mentioned to make it go away. He thought it was appropriate for the Commission to act on and send up their interpretation of the fourth issue, which is -- Is it appropriate to re-validate or to allow both the previously existing use and as yet unpermitted use on the site with regard to the ordinances of the City and the findings that are needed to approve the C.U.P.? There have been no complaints about the impacts of this use on the surrounding properties. The only problem he had with the request in the staff report is one that is mute if in fact the site is seen as part of the Specific Plan and the Council's interpretation of item 15. Therefore, the allowance of temporary structures without limitation. If that is not the interpretation, but another interpretation occurs which still allows the use to continue, then it would be appropriate to see a limitation on the time as the Commission does with all temporary uses. He believed two years is pretty short in terms of the normal time for reacting and processing perm its. Commissioner Walters made a brief comment about the issue of notice. Since there is the free public access on cable t.v., he asked staff to investigate the feasibility and ease by which that could be done on a weekly update basis. Commissioner Bosch concurred and also pointed out notices are posted in public places even if vast quantities of notices are not mailed out. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to accept Negative Declaration 1433-93 in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. And, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2017-93. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 13 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Commissioner Smith thanked Mr. Martini for his efforts and his liaison with Chapman College. She empathized with his concerns given the history and relationship he has had through the whole process. She applauded his diligence and encouraged his continued concern for Chapman College. She also suggested to Chapman College to check any other C.U.P.s they may have for renewal dates to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future. She use to be involved with Chapman College on a regular basis where Chapman did meet with the neighbors regularly to discuss concerns, go over new plans, etc. She didn't know what was going on with that, but this event showed them there was a glitch in the communication since Mr. Martini did not know about the March 31 action. She encouraged Chapman College to continue their efforts to be in touch with the community. Commissioner Cathcart returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2018-93 - AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY A request to allow the establishment of University classes within an existing professional office complex located in an industrial district and to allow the joint use of parking facilities within the office complex. Subject property is addressed 1915 West Orangewood Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines. There was no opposition and the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Robert Engen, Lee & Associates, 701 South Parker, represented Azusa Pacific University as their real estate representative. He thanked staff for their efforts and staff report. Representatives from the University and owner were present to answer questions. He read the conditions of approval and did not have a problem with them. Those speaking in favor Kay Martini, 638 East Walnut Avenue, spoke in favor of the application. A little competition might be good for the City of Orange. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart commended staff for coming up with some creative approaches to jointly solving another potential parking conflict. Having known the property for some time, it's nice to see a use other than a church being creatively put into other commercial buildings that have been long vacant. Commissioner Smith asked how student parking spaces would be marked or determined at the site? 14 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Mr. Godlewski said there was no condition or requirement to designate what areas students would be allowed to park in. It was staff's opinion there was enough overlap between major users that any parking spaces that were available at the time the students arrived at the campus would be available for the rest of the evening and there would be no conflict. Commissioner Smith suggested Azusa Pacific University be sensitive to the needs of students to have security when classes are over in the evening. Maybe a buddy system could be established to make sure everyone gets to their car safely. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2018-93, including conditions 1-4, with the stipulation this project is exempt from CEQA's environmental review. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2020-93 - ROBERTSONS AND ASSOCIATES A request to develop a "ready mix" concrete batch plant in the M-2 (Industrial) district. Subject property is a vacant parcel located on the west side of Main Street, between Trenton Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad, addressed 1440 North Main Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1432-93 has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Godlewski stated the Commission may recall that an almost identical type of request had come before them a couple of months ago. This is the same applicant. He's looking at a couple of pieces of property and this property became available after approval of the previous conditional use permit. It does offer some advantages. It is a larger site and there is rail service available for the delivery of the raw materials. There is an interesting condition (condition 15) worded that the applicant has agreed to either develop this site or the previously approved site, but not both. And development of one will preclude development of the other. In response to Commissioner Cathcart's inquiry about condition 15, Mr. Soo-Hoo suggested the applicant and property owner provide written confirmation of their willingness to rescind the previous conditional use permit before they exercise their rights to this one. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Rich Robertson, 477 South Orange Street, is moving one lot north. They approached Southern Pacific Railroad about six months ago and its taken them this long to convince them it was time to start looking into railing material into the Los Angeles and Orange County areas. They decided to purchase the property just north of them. There are no changes from the previous request. It's a wet concrete batch plant and it also has a dry facility. The dry facility does 5% of the concrete and the wet plant does about 95% of 15 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 the concrete. The concrete is mixed in a sealed drum, it's dumped in the truck wet; it does away with the dust and the driver having to stop and adding water to his load. When the concrete goes into the truck, it is mixed to the exact slump which is the way you measure concrete. With the wet plant the trucks get loaded and pull out of the gate. There will be an 8 foot berm with a 10 foot wall. He questioned condition 2 as they would like to make an exposed aggregate wall rather than block. Rail material will be cheaper than if hauled in and it will take approximately 100 trucks off of the road each night. The rail deal is working out real good for them. They will be railing their material in from the Lancaster area. They plan to get 40 cars a night of material. There will be times they will be trucking the material in when it is not being railed. As far as AQMD with the wet plant, the plan was approved in approximately 6 weeks. They have 4 credits to run the wet plant, which they have. He referred to condition 10 to dedicate and construct required improvements on Main Street per City standards. They requested to add the wording, "when the time comes". Condition 8 -light sources must be controlled - he felt this didn't apply to their operation anymore. Condition 4 -all stock piles and unimproved areas will be treated with a soil binder - he requested stock piles be deleted because all of their stock piles are hosed down. They still need to do a soils test; but if it turns out good, they want to stay with this property. As far as issuing the permit with relinquishing the other conditional use permit, he wondered if that could be worded differently. If something comes up and they do have problems with the property, could it be worded some time before a building permit is issued. It would be a little premature to do it the other way. Commissioner Cathcart had a question about the applicant's concern on condition 4. Will the applicant have stock piles and unimproved areas? (Yes.) What he was asking for was instead of being treated with a soil binder or Weslig-120 or equivalent, the applicant would like the stock piles be treated with water instead. (Yes.) He asked why condition 8 does not affect the applicant? Mr. Robertson responded they are not next to the drive-in theater. That was done because previously they were going to be next to the theaters. Being one property north, they felt they shouldn't have to do that. But if it is a problem, they will do that. Commissioner Cathcart believed if it's not a problem, then the condition could be left in. Commissioner Pruett had one question for staff regarding condition 10 -delay the construction and improvement of the street until such time it was warranted. Would that require the posting of a bond? Mr. Johnson responded this was a standard condition that would be required to bring the street up to its condition required by present day ordinances. To his knowledge the curb is at the ultimate and the only thing that would be required of Main Street improvements is the proper drive approach and to make sure there is no drainage problems. He didn't believe any additional widening would be required. This property is subject to a drainage assessment fee which is a standard condition even if the City didn't call it out as a condition. The fee would be implemented at the time the building permit were taken out. Commissioner Cathcart asked if condition 10 was in the last conditional use permit on the property to the south? (Mr. Johnson believed it was the same condition.) There would be no reason to change it. 16 Planning Commission Minutes Those speakinciin favor July 7, 1993 Craig Phillips, 4480 7th Street, Riverside, represented Robertsons as their engineer. He wanted to make a comment about the street dedication. The problem they have on this property as well as on the previous property is that the ultimate build out is only proposed at this time. They did not know what the full width was going to be. Commissioner Bosch explained they were use to seeing the ultimate right-of-ways are established and adopted along with the adoption of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In which case, when properties are developed, the applicant is involved in a similar arrangement with regard to dedications and improvement construction. Mr. Johnson stated that was correct. Closing comments Mr. Robertson's only concern was how the C.U.P. was getting signed off. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart wanted to go through the conditions. He believed at the last hearing they did change the concrete block wall (condition 2) to concrete walls with an exposed aggregate finish and he felt that was appropriate. Condition 4 - he personally did not have a problem with it being treated with water spray and the applicant will still prepare and submit a dust control plan. He thought condition 8 should remain as is and condition 10 should also remain the same. He believed condition 15 should be changed that the applicant and land owner must agree to the withdrawal of the conditional use permit, and this should be done prior to the issuance of a building permit. He personally hoped this site is ultimately used. This is less of an intrusion on the other land uses and he liked the idea of cutting down on the truck traffic and using the rail for materials. That's a step in the right direction. Commissioner Bosch voted against the project the last time. He thought this was a superior site both because of the rail access reducing truck traffic and it's further removal from the more heavily commercialized and multi-use properties along Katella. He still felt, given the nature of this portion of the industrial area with professional industrial support, office uses adjacent in addition to some warehouses that the area is in transition. He feels better about it, but will it fit in or potentially cause problems to the adjacent areas. He's afraid he still concurs with that. If approved, he's hopeful the applicant will also be looking into receiving cement shipments by rail car. Commissioner Walters supports the application. It's gotten rid of the one problem of being adjacent to a drive-in theater, which would be a conflicting use (especially with the night time operation). He didn't see a problem with it and thought it was m the interest of Orange to have some basic manufacturer of this nature going on so that the cost of construction would be less than it is now. 17 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters to accept Negative Declaration 1432-93. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environmental wildlife, resources or air quality. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2020-93 with the appropriate amendments to conditions 2, 4 and 15 previously iterated. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-93 - DENNIS MUTH Referral to Planning Commission from City Council to review site plan and circulation. This item was before the Commission some time ago. It was denied by the Planning Commission and appealed to the City Council. At the City Council level, a revised plan was submitted. The plans were on the wall and he understands the Commission has looked at the revised elevations. City Council referred this item back to the Commission for a recommendation on the concerns the Commission had in regards to building height, elevations and on-site circulation. Those issues have been addressed in the revised plan to some degree and the Council is looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is not necessarily a public hearing item and it is at the Commission's discretion as to what is forwarded to the Council. The Commission wanted to hear from the applicant about how he feels he addressed the problems seen before. Applicant Dennis Muth, 373 North Center, said the previous concerns were site circulation, mass of the building as well as the square footage. To address the site circulation, there was a parking space in the way of the vehicle turn arounds. They moved that up next to the garage, allowing all cars to back up and drive head out of the driveway. They reduced the height from two story to one and a half story, which brings it down to match that of the front residence. One of the square footages was 1131. It's now reduced to 933. One was 1112, which is now down to 946 (about 200 square feet each). Also previously they presented three letters from their adjacent neighbors stating they had no objection to the proposed plans. He submitted an additional letter from their neighbor across the street, Chapman College. Commissioner Walters noted on the original plan accommodations for trash. Where is the trash can on the revised plan? Mr. Muth said it was in the southeast corner. 18 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Commissioner Smith wanted to know the reduction in height? Mr. Muth said before it was approximately 24 feet on the average. Now there is one peak, which is 24 feet. The rest being 22 feet. Their house is 22'-6" in height. Commissioner Smith said her math shows that one unit was reduced by 198 feet (which is about 200); the other unit is reduced down by 166 square feet which is rather just over 150 (closer to 150 than 200). Where did you take out the square footage? Mr. Muth stated originally there were 2 bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths; now there are 2 bedrooms, 2 baths. Overall, the rooms got smaller. Commissioner Pruett referred to the circulation and parking arrangements. Were there plans to utilize garage door openers? (Yes.) People don't tend to put their cars in the garage unless the doors open for them. Commissioner Cathcart would like to make it a condition that the garage doors be sectional roll up automatic doors. That would help the site circulation as well. Public Input Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, spoke in favor of this project. She stated the applicant was doing a good job trying to address the Commission's concerns. What he is proposing will improve the neighborhood. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve the revised plan and Conditional Use Permit 2000-93, adding a condition requiring all garages to have sectional automatic roll up doors. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith appreciated the improvement of the architectural detail rather than the flat facade. She also appreciated the fact the height was reduced, but still felt it was too much building for the piece of property. There was not enough useful open space to accommodate three families. The open space is primarily cement. She hoped it didn't set a precedent for the block. She suggested the applicant's sensitivity to that if they rent to families. The driveway area could be dangerous if children were running around. The applicant might consider fencing the front lawn or provide some sort of play area for kids to have a place to run around rather than the cement. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS CHAPMAN COLLEGE SPECIFIC PLAN Review of proposal for lighting athletic field to determine whether light standards of 80 feet are consistent with intent of specific plan height limit of 55 feet for structures. Commissioner Cathcart excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. 19 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Mr. Godlewski explained the issue before the Commission was based on Page 4-2 and 4-3 of the Specific Plan where it says, "If there is an application proposed that would require modification or interpretation of the Specific Ptan, the site plan will be referred to the Planning Commission at the earliest possible duly noticed meeting." This issue has been in the Building Division for some time; it came up as an issue for consistency with the Specific Plan only a matter of weeks ago and this was the quickest staff could get it to the Commission. The question involves two things. One, the proposal is to replace existing light standards that are at the College with new light standards that are of a modern design and a high intensity design that focus on the athletic field. At 80 feet the photometrics that have been supplied to the Planning Commission, indicate that the 80 foot standards actually project a more narrow beam of light with less spillage into the adjacent areas. At 55 feet there is also a proposal with photometrics and it indicates that there is more light spillage at 55 feet and it is less controlled at the lower standard. Chapman University came to the staff and asked them whether lights were allowed and whether the use was allowed at the University? Scouring the Specific Plan again for something that was not addressed, staff referred to the height limit, which really only refers to building height. It says, "Building height limits for the Specific Plan will be in accordance with the height contour map." It indicates the maximum heights are established of 62 feet within the area along Glassell Street and 55 feet for the remainder of the campus. The heights increase from the College owned property line gradually higher towards the interior of the campus. At this portion of the campus, it indicates the height limit is 55 feet for buildings. There is no discussion in the Specific Plan about other types of things other than buildings and whether they can penetrate that 55 foot height limit. Therefore, staff is asking for an interpretation of that from the Planning Commission. The use is an allowed use. On Page 3-15 of the Specific Plan it says that athletic fields and facilities are an allowed use. "Grandstands and stadium are an allowed use for this portion of the plan." There is also a section that talks about lighting, but he didn't think the lighting section ever anticipated stadium lighting or field lighting. The lighting section, however, states "light quality must be geared to the specific use of the area. The College community requires a warm, simple lighting geared to its distinctive character. Each light must also be attractive to look at during the day when the full base and light add another dimension to the urban scene. The lamp elements should not become an important sculptural element on the landscape. Fixtures should be uniform and unobtrusive. Plastic styles are discouraged." Because this required such a broad interpretation of what staff had to work with in the Specific Plan, they felt it was necessary to bring it before the Planning Commission to make the determination as to whether the lights could proceed and could be permitted at 55 feet or 80 feet, as is proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Walters asked what the original height of the light fixtures were? Mr. Godlewski was not sure of their exact height, but they were over 60 - 75 feet. Applicant AI McQuilken, Chapman University, 333 North Glassell, concurs with Mr. Godlewski's presentation. They thanked him for his efforts in trying to resolve this issue. They have existing lights on the stadium which are approximately 80 feet in height.. They also felt the intent of the Specific Plan was to limit building height only. These lights were designed to provide the maximum amount of lighting on the field with a minimum amount of light spillage off the field. They greatly improve the existing situation of light off the field. By having six light standards rather than eight, which would be required at 20 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 55 feet to get the coverage, they could control those lights in three distinct zones and therefore limit the amount of lighting during practice. Commissioner Pruett said he heard the applicant say the existing lights were approximately 80 feet. Mr. McQuilken said the existing light poles that provide lighting to the field are approximately 50 to 60 feet. They do have 3 light standards that are attached to the stadium which are 80 feet in height. They are not proposing to do anything with those. The lighting on the stadium provides light strictly for the stadium; it does not provide lighting for the field. The new lights will provide lighting for the field. Commissioner Smith asked what they were doing to the field? It was ripped up the last time she went by. Mr. McQuilken responded they were renovating the field. It had a track and the existing light poles were in the playing surface. They wanted to expand the field, eliminate the track, take the field all the way to the existing perimeter, which would give them more flexibility in being able to use the field. They can play across the field instead of having to play along the field. They can have more than one activity going on at the same time and it would also give them the ability to use the lighting more efficiently. Commissioner Smith asked if Chapman were anticipating playing NCWA Football, Division 3? How soon will that start? Mr. McQuilken responded yes. It will start in the Fall of 1994. Commissioner Smith asked how often the lights would be turned on? Mr. McQuilken understood they use the lights almost every evening and that would probably continue to some extent, but they would not be using the same amount of lighting; they would be using 1/4 of the lighting since they would be replaang eight poles with six poles. Public Input M. J. Martini, 638 East Walnut, had three questions. 1) Were the neighbors noticed on this item? 2) What provisions has Chapman made for parking impacts caused by the impending NCWA Division 3 Football starting in the Fall, 1994? 3) How does one interpret 55 into 80? Mr. Godlewski stated this item was not noticed in the typical manner of conditional use permits of a 300 foot radius of the property. It was not noticed other than to put it on as a Miscellaneous Item on the Agenda, meeting the requirements of the ability of the Planning Commission to make decisions on miscellaneous items. It was brought forward as specified in the Specific Plan to the first available public hearing for the Planning Commission. Parking has been addressed in terms of the relation to what the field is being used for now and in relation to what the proposed football impacts will be in the packets given to the Commissioners. It discusses that the University anticipates only six stadium type games at the facility during the course of the year in relation to the Division 3 Football. They also indicated they are cancelling games that currently take place (8 games with a professional soccer association) which will no longer be 21 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 impacting the stadium to the tune of about 500 parking stalls 8 times during the year. He discussed the 55 foot limit as it related to building construction or whether lights were considered something other than buildings and therefore, not necessarily to be kept at the 55 foot limit. Commissioner Pruett asked if the University were to proceed with lighting at 55 feet, would that require a hearing before the Commission? Mr. Godlewski said they could do that under the current Specific Plan. They're basically replacing lights that they currently have with new lights that are more efficient and they would be staying below a 55 foot height limit for buildings; therefore, there would be no question. Commissioner Pruett understood the situation to be one of going outside an allowable use, but the benefit to the neighbors then is the reduction of light spillage. It would be less obtrusive to the public, but the height of the poles might be obtrusive. His second question related to the parking issue. The University could proceed under the Specific Plan with their plans for NCWA Football and the 55 foot lighting without coming to seek additional parking requirements? (Mr. Godlewski believed that to be correct, as long as they were in conformance.) Mr. Martini was surprised about a packet as he was not notified except for a call from Commissioner Bosch Friday morning. He didn't recall any provisions for parking in the Specific Plan so he would like to know what provisions were being made for the parking impact. If this is a successful football program, there is going to be a parking impact. Neighbors should know what to expect. Commissioner Bosch responded since he did call Mr. Martini, he did receive that notification. Mrs. Martini noted the present lights shine in their backyard. They live at the corner of Walnut and Harwood. She would be in favor of 80 foot lights if they only light up the football field and not shine in her yard. She pointed out this item was not noticed, it's being considered during the summer months and she was sure many people would oppose this item. Mr. Zehner, 630 East Culver, confirmed the higher the light pole, the better they can control the lighting. As far as people not being notified, all they need to do is open their eyes and see that Chapman is renovating the field and putting up new lights. Mr. McQuilken responded to the issue of lighting. It would have been easier for them to design a 55 foot light pole that would have fit within the existing height limitation even though they felt the height limitation was not intended to limit the height of lighting. They want to make sure the new lighting is going to effective and have as little impact on the neighborhood as possible. The 80 foot height lighting is a requirement; they could not live with anything but that. Summer is the logical time for Chapman to do this work because the facilities are not being used. They've worked with the City, they're going through the permit process and they are doing everything in a responsible manner. Commissioner Pruett asked if any consideration were given to maybe look for some way to light the grandstands and remove the other poles that are there? Instead of having 9 or 10 poles, they would end up with six. 22 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Mr. McQuilken said that was not considered and he didn't know why. The three existing poles had one single fixture on each pole and it's very low level light. He could only assume there were times when they would only want the stands lit when using a partial amount of lighting on the field. Therefore, that scenario would not work. Commissioner Pruett thought it might be a wiring or switching issue and they might want to explore that. He liked the idea of the 80 foot lighting because it would reduce the light spillage and it would be a benefit to the community in doing that. But at the same time when looking at the impact it has on the community, the visual impact will be all those towers sticking up. If they were reduced to six towers, a major part of the problem will be solved. Their lighting engineer may be able to help design something to deal with that issue. Mr. McQuilken will consider those comments, but explained their project and how they planned to blend in the poles with the existing surroundings. Commissioner Bosch pointed out the Commission had concern over how the existing City ordinance and Specific Plan allows notification of the community. It appears this was handled appropriately under the existing ordinance adopted by the Council with regard to bringing it to the earliest possible duly noticed meeting of the Planning Commission. How do they get something that's more responsive there to inform everybody? He's concerned about the parking impact, but not in regard to the interpretation of the 55 vs. 80 feet and is it a building or not? That's a separate issue and has to conform to the Specific Plan relative to permitting and control of activities. He personally felt the 80 foot lights had greater efficiency and reduced light spillage. He thought it would be a great benefit to the community from the new lights. With regard to the interpretation, in the specific instance of light standards for athletic/recreation facilities that those light standards are not buildings. They are some other type of accessory use that was not intended to be limited, and should not be limited, by a building height limitation. He wanted to speak to being very specific about that with regard to a particular use that relates to its function. Everyone knows there is a stadium there. It has tall light fixtures. Stadiums have those things; it's part of the environment. Those lights were there when his mother went to that school. Commissioner Smith didn't have a problem with the 80 foot light standards. She didn't think they were buildings. It shows another thing that was not addressed properly in the Specific Plan and there is now a list of three things that need to be addressed, and possible amendments to the Plan. It's not that old and it is being challenged as Chapman starts their building process. She pointed out that three schools had lighting issues and conflicts with their neighbors only because there was no communication. She wanted to emphasize that Chapman needs to consider itself part of the neighborhood. Even though the City did not send out the notices, (the City should have) Chapman should have made sure the neighbors were informed and gotten their opinion. It's always much easier to work with informed people than it is to have angry people confront you later. She thought it was great that NCWA Football was coming to Orange at a higher level. She personally liked lights in the neighborhood; she lives three blocks from Chapman College and she considers it to be good security. Crime does not happen in well lit places. She cautioned adequate notice needs to be given to the neighbors; maybe tickets to Chapman's opening events or free popcorn or something for the folks who are tolerating the changes, construction and adverse impacts that go along with that. 23 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, that the Planning Commission's interpretation of light standards for the stadium are not restricted by the height indicated in the Specific Plan of 55 feet and that such light standards, as high as 80 feet, would be consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett encouraged Chapman University to look at the number of light poles and try to reduce them to six towers. That would be an indication to the neighbors that Chapman is trying to be responsive to their interests as well. Commissioner Bosch said the whole purpose of the Specific Plan was to bring things before the Commission and there needs to be a way of informing the citizens. What is not known is how many items have not ended up at the City. He was sure that progress has been made, but improvement was still needed. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is August 2, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Pruett, Smith Walters MOTION CARRIED sld 24