Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange September 4, 1991 Orange, California Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; Chris Carnes, Associate Planner; 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 AUGUST 19, 1991 Chairman Bosch noted one correction to the August 19, 1991 Minutes. As Commissioners Cathcart and Bosch departed the hearing with regard to Tentative Tract Map 14359, their necessary abstention from the hearing was due to the Brown Act. It was later noted upon their return that the abstention was, in fact, due to potential conflict under the Fair Political Campaign Practices Act. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of August 19, 1991 as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1851-91 - SHELL OIL COMPANY: A proposed modification to an approved Conditional Use Permit which allowed the establishment of an automotive service station with an automated self-service car wash in the C-1 (Limited Business District) zone. The applicant requests to modify the conditions of approval to allow the installation of an air blower inside the existing car wash structure. The site is located on the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Esplanade Street, addressed 4035 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1351-91 has been prepared for this project. There was no opposition; therefore, the reading of the full staff report was waived and the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1991 - Page 2 Applicant Angela Smith, 2122 South Grand, Santa Ana, represented Shell Oil Company. The project is under construction for another conditional use permit that was recently approved. They are finishing the project and have installed a new food mart and have given the station a new look. The exterior architectural remodel has gone quite well. To enhance the services provided to their customers, they have opted to install a blower at this location. They went to great lengths to make sure the noise generated by the blower would not be adverse to the adjacent residential uses and they feel their acoustical analyst has done a fine job of illustrating that the blower will be within the noise element of the City of Orange. Hiram A. DeFries, 23276 South Pointe Drive, #204, Laguna Hills, was the attorney for the applicant. In the early 60's he had the pleasure of opening this station and has seen quite a few changes over the years. Besides being an attorney, he's also a service station dealer. At two out of the four stations he owns, he has similar type tunnel car washes. The closest one to this location is at State College and Lincoln in Anaheim. He has had a blower much like this one fully enclosed, which he has continually updated. His Anaheim station abuts residential property. He has a six foot wall that is in the rear of the station. He has never had one complaint due to noise and he's been there since 1976. They are trying to minimize the number of people at the facility. One way to do this is by having a blower; it tends to minimize the number of people and trash. It makes it a more efficient kind of system. He thinks approval would be beneficial to the City. Commissioner Master asked if their sound consultant were present. No. ) Chairman Bosch said the Commission had some technical and general questions about the sound study itself. It's unfortunate he was not present since the issue is sound. Commissioner Master asked about the determination of the noise level -- how was the noise gathered, what time frames/periods were involved, is the frequency variation due to the blower significant enough that even though the sound pressure level may not be greater, but the added frequencies can be detected as some additional noise annoyance? If this request is approved, he suggested a condition be added that after the installation, there be an analysis performed and periodically thereafter to establish that we have not and are not exceeding the noise level. Mr. DeFries could live with the added condition if it were a limited period of time. He would not want to get into a position where every quarter they would need to make a study. He requested a continuance until his sound analyst were available. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1991 - Page 3 The Commission also supported a continuance of this item until the next meeting. Staff confirmed a meeting date of September 16, 1991 and the applicant concurred. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1851-91 to the meeting of September 16, 1991. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS Commissioners Cathcart and Bosch excused themselves from the meeting because of potential conflict of interest under the Fair Political Practices Act. Vice-Chairman Scott chaired the meeting. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14550, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1924-91 - WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT: A request for a tentative tract map to allow the subdivision of 18.6 acres into eight lots for the phased development of a town house project, and a conditional use permit to allow the creation of lots without direct frontage to a public street. Subject property is located within the Serrano Heights Planned Community, which is located north of Santiago Oaks Regional park, east of the Southern California Edison Serrano Substation, south of Anaheim Hills, and east of Nohl Ranch Road (more specifically described as Lot #224 of Tentative Tract Map 14359) . NOTE: The project's environmental impacts have been addressed by Environmental Impact Report 954 and 1305-90, both of which have been certified by the City Council in conjunction with approval of the Serrano Heights Project. There was no opposition. The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Frank Elf end, Elf end and Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach, presented Phase One of their project to the Commission a couple of weeks ago consisting of development areas 1, 2, 3 and 10, along with the construction of Serrano. They are at this meeting to discuss the remainder of the Phase One program development area 2) . The total Phase One program includes the construction of 807 dwelling units. The Specific Plan provided for the development of 255 attached dwellings that permitted the Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1991 - Page 4 development of either townhomes, condominiums or stacked flats. He passed out copies of the site plan to the Commissioners for their review. Their goal in developing the townhouse area of the project was to minimize grading of the site. There is a substantial amount of grading on the property. They are also committed to building a quality product. There are 179 townhome units proposed. There are a reduction of 76 that could be built under the 255 limitation, which is a reduction of approximately 30~ of the density permitted in that area. They do have a density transfer. They exceed the City's parking requirement by 59 spaces or approximately 16$. They are asking for some flexibility on some of the conditions. They met with Planning staff this afternoon to discuss the items presented and these are being addressed for clarification. Page 6, 23 A. Discusses concerns of the City Engineer as it relates to rolled curbs and cross street drainage. Since the time of the staff report, Woodcrest has met with Gary Johnson. He passed out a letter to the Commission. Based on that letter there was mutual agreement to provide crown streets throughout the project and to eliminate rolled curbs in lieu of the wedge curb. They are no longer asking for consideration on this item. Page 7, 23 C. They wanted to add into the public record some clarification in terms of setback for garages. There are certain areas of the site where in a few instances the setback is 6' (in one instance it is 7') and they have discussed this with Ms. Wolff. She indicated to them that should not be a problem. Page 7, 23 D. They would like to have some flexibility on this one item based on his earlier discussions and the fact they are trying to minimize the amount of hillside grading within the development area. This issue is unresolved. The staff report discusses concern regarding visitor access and parking as it relates to some of the courtyard roads and the turnaround capabilities. He indicated the circumstance discussed occurs in a few instances. The street width in those instances is 26 feet, which provides for a vehicle turn around capacity. These occur on short drives as opposed to any long drives. There is an over supply of parking and these areas are not proposed for visitor parking at all. They've proposed to have the areas posted with signs which indicates it is for residential use only, no thru traffic permitted nor parking permitted. As such, they would like to have Condition 32 amended to provide some flexibility as it relates to this concern. Page 8, 24. They wished to have some clarification on fencing. They're trying to avoid fences in areas where they can provide some type of protection, which would be acceptable to the Crime Prevention Bureau without some type of fence. They have Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1991 - Page 5 discussed with them the ability to use landscaping as a barrier in certain locations. For example, there may be slopes between units which are of a magnitude which would not require that type of "fence", but rather landscape in those areas. They understand that is not a problem, and wanted to clarify their intent. Page 8, 27. The location of sidewalks. This refers to condition 7. They think that condition is flexible enough to give them the ability to do so. There are a few instances where there is guest parking which interferes with the sidewalk. They are limited in nature. They met with Joan Wolff to discuss this item. She indicated staff would be flexible in the location of those sidewalks and permit those exceptions. Mr. Elf end is comfortable with the remainder of the conditions and the staff report. Commissioner Master asked about Lot A, the recreation area. Will this be completed before the units are sold? Mr. Elf end responded it will be completed at the same time as Phase One (occupancy of the first unit) . Phase One consists of approximately 30 units. Dick Ham, Woodcrest Development, 17712 Mitchum, Irvine, explained the sequence of the project to the Commission. Commissioner Murphy wanted clarification on the turn-around capabilities. He wanted those areas identified. Mr. Ham pointed out three locations on the map exhibit. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master wanted to hear staff's comments on this afternoon's meeting with Mr. Elf end. Ms. Wolff clarified they discussed the project with Mr. Elf end. Staff worded the conditions to allow some flexibility so that the problems could be solved in a way that met the issues that staff raised in the report. She did not suggest that they would waive the requirements; only that they would allow some flexibility in how they could be addressed. Commissioner Scott had concern with 23. C. - setbacks for the driveways. He thought they got involved with this in Santiago Hills. They made it a point to not allow short setbacks, but maintain a minimum of 18 or 20 feet from the garage to the back edge of the sidewalk. Ms. Wolff believed that was the case on the single family residences. There are provisions in the Santiago Hills Specific Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1991 - Page 6 Plan also for the multi-family areas where the short driveways would be allowed. This Specific Plan also allows in these multi-family areas requests for short driveways. Commissioner Scott asked if the short driveways would be an enforcement problem even though it's in the CC&R's? Ms. Wolff said it was hard to speculate. Staff felt with a 5 foot driveway, no one will try to park across it. In the situation where there is a 5 foot sidewalk and a 5 foot setback there is usually a 10 foot driveway. It's hard to say whether people will try to park in it. There could be an enforcement situation, although some associations handle these problems well on their own. The problems with Pami Circle were discussed regarding their short driveways and emergency vehicle access. Commissioner Master referred to the curb situation and asked for clarification. Mr. Johnson said there have been problems with a rolled curb situation that was not to City standards plus it created an abrupt bump at the driveway approaches. The nuisance water from a driveway that did not have a crown section has resulted in excessive erosion. Staff felt the rolled curbs and cross street drainage were not acceptable and the applicant looked for an alternative. The wedge curb concept and crown section for the street will take care of the problems. Commissioner Master asked if there will be a revised cross section showing the wedge curbs and crown streets as part of the approval process? Mr. Johnson responded the applicant did provide them with a revised site plan. The wedged curbs are shown on that plan. It was submitted to him earlier this week. The date should be 8/3 0/91. The Commissioners had also received the revised site plan, but a revision date was not reflected. Planning did not receive a copy of the revised site plan and requested one. Mr. Johnson said the conditions do not relate to the standard curbs, in response to the question of it being a condition for approval. They felt it was important enough to include in the body of the report, but from the standpoint of requiring the applicant to change to a vertical curb or some other method, staff did not originally call it out as a condition. Commissioner Master asked how to handle the dead end streets? Who gives the final approval? Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1991 - Page 7 Condition 32 was discussed and amended to read: "Each courtyard road shall have a vehicle turnaround area provided at its end as required by the City Traffic Engineer. Where turnaround areas cannot be provided on courtyard alleys, as indicated on the attached exhibit, appropriate signage shall be placed at the alley entrance." (The three areas of concern will be highlighted.) Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve tentative Tract Map 14550 and Conditional Use Permit 1924-91 with listed conditions 1-34 (condition 32 revised) and add condition 35, "The Tentative Tract Map approved is the exhibit presented by the applicant at the public hearing (indicating wedge curb and crowned streets)." Also add condition 36, "The recreation area designated as Lot A to be completed in concert with the f first phase of the project, which consisted of 30 units. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Master, Murphy, Scott Bosch, Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioners Bosch and Cathcart returned to the meeting. Commissioner Master brought up the issue of the map not being properly identified and dated and he did not feel this was acceptable. It was legal's opinion the point could be made clear to the applicant that the alternative is a denial. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS 1. The Waste Reduction Task Force undertaken by the City per the requirements of Assembly Bill 939 will have its first meeting Thursday, September 5, at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Scott will be attending as the Commission's representative. 2. Commissioners Bosch and Cathcart attended a meeting August 22 with Mr. Martinee as a representative of the community near .Chapman College with regard to concerns over specific interpretations of the Specific Plan for Chapman College, particularly toward the parking formula. After a lengthy review, they found they really didn't have a significant disagreement on the interpretation, but poor communication on the part of Chapman College to the neighbors. The next meeting will be held Thursday, September 12 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room. The key concern over the parking was how does parking for resident students, resident dorms apply? Is it excluded from the calculation of parking for the overall campus or is it doubled in the calculation? From their viewpoint, resident students tend to own fewer cars or bring fewer cars to the campus than non-resident students, and by Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1991 - Page 8 creating residents beds on campus for housing students one should have a lesser number of parking spaces if the classroom and employee count remain the same. There needs to be a clear review in the case of all applications on that campus or other specific plans that have different zones of development to assure that parking is located as approximately as possible to the intended uses and within or adjacent to the zones intended. As new phases come along, there has to be adequate parking proximately provided during the course of construction in order to assure there aren't major impacts upon the users and surrounding residents. An independent monitoring system of exactly how many students were on the campus was necessary. While the formula was in accord with what they felt was the interpretation, the numbers need to be agreed upon. 3. The landscape ordinance was received by the Commission August 23. Commissioner Cathcart would like to see this proceed as rapidly as possible and personally would like a public hearing. Commissioner Scott reviewed the ordinance briefly and wishes to have a study session before the public hearing. After discussion, the Commission agreed to meet in a study session to finalize the landscape ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to hold a study session on September 23, 1991 at 5:00 p.m.; then set a public hearing date of October 21, 1991. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC INPUT Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said this was getting ridiculous regarding the landscape ordinance. He does not understand why the Commission wants to hold another study session. He's never seen anything so studied in his entire life. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld