Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-1995 PC Minuteso~.CT,~1•l MIN ES Planning Commission City of Orange September 6, 1995 Wednesday - 7:00p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Prueri, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary,Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Johnson, City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 21 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue the Minutes of August 21, 1995 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEIN HEARINGS 1 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2121-95 AND VARIANCE 1998-75 -ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF OLIVE,INC.Proposed addition of a new sanctuary and preschool on property with an existing church and elementary school, and a request to allow for the reduction in the width of the required front yard landscape set back.The property is located at 2830 North Glassell Street.NOTE: Negative Declaration1474-95 f~as been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.The full presentation of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition.Mr. Jones stated the Commission was provided with additional proposed conditions for this project. They have been presented to the applicant as well. It was also noted by Chairman Bosch, the Commission received the Minutes from the Design Review Board meeting for July 5, 1995, which includedtheD.R.B.'s recommendation of approval for the project design.The public hearing was opened.Applicant Joe Colombo, 1100 North Tustin Avenue, #G, Santa Ana, was the architect for the project. The Church concurred with the staff report, with a few minor exceptions. It had to do with the tact that the Church builds in phases with a space of time between each phase. During that space of Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 1995 change and staff changes. As the design goes on, changes from what is being seen today may occur over a period of time. Also, the majority of the money used to finance the project is voluntary from the Church members. The plan was presented to the Design Review Board and D.R.B. sent a letter to the church they had approved the project; however, since that time they have been asked to go back to the D.R.B. to review certain aspects -- parts of the building that will occur at a later period of time. Initially, the staff report asked for design drawings of the modular unks that are going to be in place. They wish they could provide those, but unfortunately the Church hasnY secured the parties to whom they will purchase the units. So, they don't know what they will look like. Except, theywill concur with all the requirements of the City in providing skirts, color, size or whatever restrictions are encumbered. He asked for modification of the condition to be submitted to staff at the time of purchase. The other concern was regarding condition 4 in the way it was worded. He asked if the wording meant the Church was dedicating the property, or was this property the City'sTraffic Division will purchase? They have made a concerted effort to provide a Master Plan to ensure the fact that once the enhancement of the intersection is decided upon, it will be available. It was his understanding it would be part of the expenditure of the City to take care of both the improvement and purchase of the property.It was Chairman Bosch's understanding a derision has yet to be made as to what the City ordinance allows,but he will defer to staff for a determination.Mr. Colombo had one other concern. It would be appreaated if the verbiage be such that they would meet the conditions of the Fire Department. There may be more than one way of resolving some of the problems as illustrated or delineated by the Fire Department. Such as, interpretation of the code as to fire sprinklers. The code does allow some alternative means whereby a structure is close to 5,000 square feet and could meet the requirements. He would like the option to remain with the Fre Department at that given time. Regarding the additional conditions of approval, item 27, although the Design Review Board has approved the project, they mead to go back to the D.R.B.Mr. Jones explained what has been submitted and reviewed by the D.R.B. is for the main sanctuary. The condition pertains to the other proposed structures that will be a part of the Master Pian. At the time those structures would be proposed through a phasing plan, then the elevations would be submitted to the Design Review Board. The condition does not imply that has to happen before the Commission can make a decision.Mr. Colombo stated they had elevations of that element. The idea is to minimize the impact of two stories on Glassell Street. If you look at the Master Plan, the new element in front prior to the addition of the second story, will be a one story element to scale down the impact of two stories from the street. This is tour to five years away.Commissioner Pruett wanted a better understanding of item 27. They'retalking about project phases.Mr. Jones said that was corect. They were looking at four different structures that will be proposed. The only one that has been through the Design Review Board is the main sanctuary structure. Staff is suggesting the other structures, at some point in time, go through the same process.Commissioner Pruett understood the condition to mean the phases are not approved, until they are submitted and reviewed by the Design Review Board.Mr. Jones said the Commission would be approving the phases "in concept" -- the site plan and location and the structures would be set in place by the Commission's approval, but the elevations themselves would occur at a future date and be reviewed by the Design Review Board.Chairman Bosch suggested the proposed additional condition be clear with regard to building elevations.Add to the wording of the condition: "Prior to application for plan review and/or issuance of building or utility permits." That way, the Design Review Board is still responsible to assure an appropriate design, Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 1995 fitting with the current buildings on the site and the uses proposed for the new buildings. It's an assurance to the City the building permits would have the pre-approval of the D.R.B. for that design.The applicant agreed to the conditions.Carl Floyd, 1694 Nordic Drive, was the pastor of the Church. The Church has been established for many years and a part of the community since 1961. Currently, they are in a strong growth mode and they are enhancing their services to the community. Adding apre-school would allow them to continue to service the needs of the community in a more effective way.The public hearing was closed Chairman Bosch raised the question to Mr. Glass for clarification relative to condition 4 as to what form acquisition of additional right- of-way should take.Mr. Glass stated relative to clarifying condition 4, the code requires the dedication of the right-of-way;however, the code does provide the ability for the Public Works Director to waive parts of that section,which would involve either dedication and/or improvements. He suggested to word the condition to be more clear in that the applicant shall provide or dedicate in aawrdance with the provisions as stated in the code that the additional right-of-way is required. Then it would behoove the proponent to apply to the Director of Public Works for a waver or deletion of those conditions. This has to be done by the Director of Public Works; it cannot be done by the Planning Commission.Chairman Bosch said the change in wording would allow the applicant to go through a process of dedicating the property (because at this point, the City doesn't know). Mr. Glass said they would work with the applicant and his architect to resolve this issue.Chairman Bosch also asked staff about a series of conditions, starting with #6, which are Flre Department requirements. In his review, he found that all of these relate to code. Typically, in recent years, they've had the code related items not as conditions, but as a reminder to the applicants to help them in the process they must also conform to the code items. But he sees one oftwo alternatives. True, these are code and can't be avoided, but the code also provides for alternative methods of compliance, subject to the approval of the Flre Marshal and Building Official. Either, they remove these from being conditions,because he has to do it one way or the other to get a permit, or that if staff prefers, they make a preamble to conditions #6 and following through #24 something to the effect that the developer shall be responsible for meeting the Uniform Building Code, Fre Code, and City ordinance requirements relative to fire and life safety to the satisfaction of the City Flre Marshal and Building Offidal, which may include the following items or alternative methods of compliance. That would clarify it and it does get back to compliance with the adopted City codes.Mr. Jones stated the Commission could do that. Staff typically does not include these as conditions;however, they submit them when the Flre Department gives them. In this case, there were a lot of conditions.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1474-95 based on the information contained in the staff report, in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 1995 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2121-95 and Variance 1998-95, with the conditions listed in the staff report, but changing condition 4 to read: 'The applicant shalt provide additional right-oi-way, in accordance with provisions of the Orange Municipal Code Chapter 12.52, to accommodate the future installation of improvements for an "enhanced intersection." And, as a preamble for conditions #6 - #24: 'The developer shall be responsible for meeting Uniform Building Code, Fire Code and City ordinance requirements for fire and life safety to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal and Building Official, which may include the following items 6-24, or alternative methods of compliance approved by the City." And, modify condition 27 by adding the following to the end of the sentence: "prior to application for plan review and/or issuance, a building or utility permit." With regard to the variance, the Commission finds a special arcumstance is applicable to the subject's property and that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject project of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and other identical zone classifications because of the requirement to make provisions for delivery of additional right- of-way to the City to accommodate the future installation of improvements for the enhanced intersection per the adopted Circulation Element of the Orange General Plan. With regard to the Conditional Use Permit, it was noted the findings stated on Page 5 and 6 of the staff report required findings and the Commission found the project meets the stated criteria. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Prueri, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner CathcartMOTION CARRIED 2 -NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1476.95 -CITY OF ORANGE An environmental assessment of a storm drain project that replaces an existing open channel with a reinforced concrete box. The project includes minor right of way acquisition for associated street improvements and reconstruction. The project is located on Walnut Avenue, from Hewes Street to 100 feet west of Hamlin Street.The public hearing was opened.Public Comments Nancy Bassera, 4605 East Walnut, agreed to the storm drain project, except she wanted more information. She wanted to know if there were going to be sidewalks. She had not seen the Negative Declaration -- a copy was given to her.Mr. Johnson explained the project is to cover the channel and provide street improvements over the box.They would like to work with the neighbors to acquire right-of-way in exchange for putting the sidewalks in.They have contacted some of the neighbors in an effort to accomplish this. The sidewalkswill only be put in if it's a benefit to the adjacent properties and the owners are willing to work with the City. Otherwise, it will only be a replacement project.Mrs. Bassera wanted to have two driveways; she has one, but wants to add another. Can that be done?Mr. Johnson suggested she contact him to discuss her concerns further.Mark Carter, 4543 1l2 East Walnut, was in favor of the project. He would like to be inthe loop at the proper time. He's still on septic and would like to hook up to the sewer. He would like to coordinate his project with the street project so as not to tear up a freshly paved street. He thought there has been a lot of contusion between the City and property owners and it takes awhile to get to the right person. He Planning Commission Meeting The public hearing was closed. September 6, 1995 Commissioner Smith thought there was confusion in the neighborhood about this project. She felt it would be appropriate for staff to draft a letter to the residents regarding this project and include a name and phone number for residents to contact for additional information. Mr. Johnson responded most of the neighbors have been contacted concerning this project, but they were willing to contact them again formally and discuss the timing of the project and how it would affect certain individuals. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1476-95 in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, with the stipulation the CityEngineer's office will prepare a letter to notify concerned residents the Negative Declaration has been approved and provide a staff name and phone number for contact.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 18, 1995.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart The meeting adjourned at7:50 p. m. sld MOTION CARRIED