Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange October 1, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT : ~1one STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Furman Roberts, City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Master welcomed new Planning Commissioner Mark Murphy. IN RE: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Minutes of September 17, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Murphy MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1870-90 AND VARIANCE 1889-90 - EDWARD B. FRANKEL: The applicant requested a continuance to the first meeting in November for a plan change. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1870-90 and Variance 1889-90 to the public hearing on November 5, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13984 - SOUTHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: A proposed Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 17.4 acre parcel into 70 single family lots. The site is designated as Development Area "D" of the Southridge Planned Community, and is located north of the extension of Via Escola Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 2 between Meats Avenue and Loma Street. The overall Southridge Planned Community is located east of Meats Avenue, south of the City of Anaheim, north of the City of Villa Park, west of the future extension of Loma Street, and includes the Southern California Edison Transmission Line easement. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 854 was previously prepared and certified for Southridge Planned Community Development. The proposals are consistent with the approved plans; therefore, additional review is not required. This item was continued from the September 17, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting.) A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, represented Southridge Development. Staff has explained everything in their staff report and he didn't have anything to add. It's a rather straight forward single family detached subdivision that is being proposed except each of the lots will have a building pad of a minimum 60 x 100. Chairman Master asked if they had read the conditions and if they were in agreement with them? (Yes they had and they are in agreement.) Secondly, he wanted Mr. Mickelson to clarify if it was their intention for a transfer of units. Mr. Mickelson said it was hard to answer, but he said quite possibly. The reason for that is because of what is happening in the real estate market today. A marketing study is being completed for the remainder of the acreage. Once that is completed by Al Gobar & Associates, they will be retaining an architectural planning firm to do a site plan for the rest of the area. There is a provision in the existing zoning code that does allow for transfer of units. Commissioner Cathcart referred to Lots 16 and 17. Mr. Mickelson apologized as Mr. Godlewski pointed that out to him earlier. It was indicated with only the 15 foot pan handle width it .might be inadequate to get the driveway approaches. They were contemplating a shared driveway on those two lots. Public Works staff was not thrilled by that. He thought. they could add another five feet to each of those without affecting the buildable area of either of the lots on either. side of those two and then there would be a 20 foot wide pan handle to access those lots. They would stipulate to such a condition. Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 3 Commissioner Scott said the normal driveway width is 14 feet minimum standard). He asked if they could add enough frontage so that it could be accomplished without going into a joint driveway? Mr. Michelson thought the joint driveway would work better, but he suspected he was out numbered. However, he thought it could be done. Mr. Johnson said it could be done that way with a joint driveway. In order to get full access out of the four lots, there will be no curb face. Normally, you would have 16 feet of opening for a two car garage. These are luxury homes and will probably require three car garages. The access and lot configuration in a cul de sac is not desirable and that is why it was pointed out. Ms. Wolff said there were two conditions that were not worded properly. Condition 26 (Page 15 of the staff report) should read: Erosion control facilities shall be installed to prevent water erosion in graded areas, and prevent silt from entering existing streets and drainage facilities. Condition 39 (Page 16) should be reworded to state: A second address of 4 inches is required, located at driveway entrances to Lots 16 and 17, to be illuminated and visible on structure at driveway entrance. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch asked Commissioner Scott if he were. comfortable with regard to the applicant's request to seek approval with the understanding he would adjust the lots by five feet for the driveways. Or, should the Commission call the map back before them as revised? Commissioner Scott personally would like to see the revised map. In addition, he was concerned about the Environmental Review Board's concern of Via Escola not being completed as far as the development is concerned. Commissioner Bosch asked the applicant how much time it would take to come back to the Commission with an adjusted map? Mr. Mickelson did not have an objection to a short continuance. He looked to Mr. Johnson as to a time frame. Mr. Johnson said it depends on what type of documentation was needed to provide to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. If staff could work it out and present an exhibit for review at the next meeting, it would be fine. If documentation were required a week in advance, staff would need three to four weeks. Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 4 Everyone concurred November 5, 1990 would be acceptable. Mr. Mickelson stated no discussion came up during the hearing about Via Escola, but it did surface afterwards. He was not sure he understood the concern. He stated for the record they were well aware of staff's concern as it was different now than it was when first approved five or six years ago. At that time a condition was established that before the first building permit could be issued, there had to be a connection to the arterial highway system on the east end of the project. It is their intent to build Loma, Imperial and Via Escola before the completion of this project. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Tentative Tract Map 13984 and Administrative Adjustment 90-20 to the meeting of November 5, 1990, at which time the driveway entrances on Lots 16, 17 and the adjoining lots be reviewed by staff, and also staff's concern regarding the completion of Via Escola. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14322 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1857-90 - THE PREVIEW COMPANY: A proposed Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 7.6 acre parcel into seven (7) one acre lots and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the creation of two lots without direct access to a public street. Subject property is located on the south side of Santiago Canyon Road midway between Orange Park Boulevard and Jamestown Way. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1353-90 has been prepared for this project. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. Staff received a couple of letters regarding this proposal. One is from tree President of the Ornage Park Acres Planning Committee who asked that his letter be entered into the record. Another letter is from the County regarding a potential trail crossing of Santiago Canyon Road. This is a 7 lot residential tract. It does have a private street. Each lot is a minimum of one acre. It is a vacant piece of property; it was a former avocado grove, adjacent to the Handy Creek corridor - the underground storm drain culvert. The property is within the Orange Park Acres plan area. The zoning is R-1-40 (Single family residential, minimum one acre lot size) and the General Plan designation is Estate Low-Density Residential, minimum lot size of one unit per acre. This project is adjacent to a tract that was proposed and approved for Alan Trider, Tract 14105. That was approved in April, 1990. The significance of the proximity of the two is that a public road will have to be constructed and was required of this Tract 14105 to intersect Santiago Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 5 Canyon Road and prcvide access to that tract. This tract currently under consideration will also take access from that street (shown as "B" Street on the map). This map shows dedication of Santiago Canyon Road to an ultimate half width right-of-way. It also shows dedication of trails and land- scape easements over the lots within the tract. A 17 foot wide trail easement is required bordering along Santiago Canyon Road to provide for both a recreational trail and a landscape easement. A 12 foot wide trail is required on the western boundary of the tract along "B" Street for trail purposes. An association will be formed to maintain the private street and the perimeter of landscaping. The Orange Park Acres Planning Committee is a body that is set up by .the Orange Park Acres Plan to interpret the plan and to review proposals for consistency with that plan. They did review the proposal and they brought up some issues that are of importance to the community that are not directly addressed in the staff report because they are not related specifically to items that are on the master plan. These issues relate to a potential future equestrian undercrossing at Santiago Canyon Road and also relate to a potential re- location of a community equestrian arena which is located on the adjacent Salem Church property. The issue with the arena is a private issue; the City is not involved in permitting that arena. A safe trail crossing at Santiago Canyon Road would be an asset to the community and would match with the County's plans linking Santiago Oaks Regional Park with other open space areas. However, the City's General Plan does not indicate an equestrian undercrossing at this or any other location. The letter mentioned previously that came from the County transmitted with it a map showing a general crossing of the road in this area of an equestrian trail, but did not specify whether it was at grade or undercrossing. Again, it is not on a County master plan. The location of this tract and the grade differential between the street and the property, which is lower, seems as if it could facilitate an underground crossing. In the O.P.A. Planning Committee meeting, the developer indicated he would be willing to hold off on building permits for a certain period in order to provide some additional time for this issue to be addressed by the community and to pursue the issue further. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive #200, Newport Beach, spoke on behalf of Beazer Development West, the parent company of Sully-Miller Contracting Company, owner of the property. Also in attendance were the Regional Manager for Beazer and the civil engineer. They are in accordance with Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 6 the recommendations made by staff. They are consistent with the General Plan, the Orange Park Acres Plan and they seek no variances. They presented this program to the O.P.A. Planning Committee and understood until they saw this letter this evening that they had endorsed the project. Based on the conditions proposed for the map, there is a trail being provided adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road. In addition, the western property boundary there is a trail along that location. They are at a location in which some community leaders in O.P.A. feel is a legitimate location for a crossing of Santiago Canyon Road. Staff has pointed out the Santiago Oaks Plan, which has been the most recently developed plan in which the County has addressed trails, addresses the need for a crossing of Santiago, but it does not identify it as an underground crossing. To the best of their knowledge there is no authoritative planning document that has been acted upon by any public body which provides the funding for or establishes any feasibility for an undercrossing of Santiago Canyon Road. For the record, he filed the City of Orange General Plan, with particular attention to the trails element. In addition, he filed the General Development Plan update for the Santiago Oaks Regional Park, which does identify the crossing. They have provided to the O.P.A. Association leadership was their assurance that they would not seek the issuance of a building permit on one of the lots adjacent to Santiago for a period of six months following City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map. They thought if the consensus for a crossing was to emerge and it's to be studied, that was a reasonable period of time. They would like not on seven lots to shoulder the entire burden the equestrian interests of the entire O.P.A. community. Those speaking in opposition Gary Wright, 7235 Grovewood Lane, had three questions. Is the area considered to have earthquake faults? A relative lives along that channel on the other side of Jamestown. He has received information that he lives in a high flood zone area and is now being told he has to purchase flood insurance. Is there a problem with his property flooding? Regarding the undercrossing, perhaps someone should talk to the people on the other side of the road. It's difficult to go under if you don't know what the man says on the other side. Mr. Johnson responded to Mr. Wright's concerns. Digging was taking place to determine whether or not if earthquake faults were in that area. He has not received the results of those diggings. He believed that was part of the applicant's preliminary soils investigation. Regarding the flood threat, about seven years ago there was a facility built called the Handy Creek Diversion (an underground box that took the water out into the creek through Sully Miller's property and diverted it away from the homes that exist on Jamestown, Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 7 San Juan, and Valencia). The City has had a real problem trying to get F.E.M.A. to take the flood threat off the map. They seem to want one study after another and the latest study would require a complete analysis of the Santiago Creek in order for them to analyze the true hydraulics of that facility. As far as the Flood Control District is concerned, there is no flood threat. Larry Bonnam, 332 South Olive Street, was very much concerned about the lack of adequate park space in the City of Orange. Adjacent communities are also growing and that means the need for park space is greater than ever before. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, took exception to the gentleman's comments that they're not entitled to one acre lots. Regarding the undercrossing at Santiago Canyon Road, the people on the other side of the road are the same people. Beazer and a combination of owners own that land and discussions have been taking place for many weeks as to what happens on the other side of the road. This whole thing is tied into a very complex discussion involving the number of housing units that will be allowed on the Sully Miller property if and when they go out of the asphalt business. They have asked Beazer to provide them with a geotechnical study of all the land on the north side of Santiago Canyon Road. The community is asking, and they've agreed to it, is for the time being they hold the one lot until a decision is made. His final comment was to leave his one acre alone! Paul Belten, 1499 North Portsmouth, was curious as to how the alignment of the access road into this piece got established. The access road is about 18 feet east of his property line and the existing access road, back to the old tennis club, is only 8 feet from his property line. Mark Sandford, 10591 Meads Avenue, thought it should be noted that the owner has 7 acres on one side and is also involved in the ownership on the other side of the road. It has been brought up numerous times, both by Beazer and the community, about an undercrossing. The same developer has had discussion with them regarding the five acres park and arena on the north side of Santiago Canyon Road. The question has always been, how do you get the people on the south side of Santiago Canyon Road across a future six-lane very busy Santiago Canyon Road? There are a lot of questions as to how this undercrossing will be built and they request clear answers before that happens. Richard Siebert, 1388 North Kennymead, understood the Commission had a letter in their possession from the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. He was a member of that Committee and was asked to say a few words. They've had meetings with the developer and had several questions. Some were answered; some were not. At the last meeting, how that meeting ended was, "We'll get back to you with the answers in order to move forward in Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 8 resolving the issues." The developer has not gotten back to their Committee and the issues have not been resolved. The issues were brought to the table, were discussed on both sides, and the end result has not been resolved. Rebuttal Mr. Bettencourt agrees that the undercrossing needs study, but they would not like to be used as a pawn while the study takes place. They feel they have provided a rather generous and substantial trail system. It would duplicate the trail system that is requested on the north side of the road (under the County's plan). The County's own trail system has the Handy Creek Channel trail on the east side of the proposed road. At the staff's insistence though, it has been moved to their property. Discussions about the Sully-Miller property is much more involved; it's not on the table as far as this proceeding is concerned. The materials that are going to be provided as part of a soils and geological investi- gation will be more properly provided at the record map stage when the public improvement plans are submitted. Mr. Bennyhoff defended the one acre lot program and they did not seek any amendment to that plan. He confirmed their commitment to withhold the development of one of the lots (Lot 3) pending an undercrossing study would take place. They felt six months would be a reasonable amount of time. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1353-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Master asked if discussion were needed regarding the hold of one of the lots. Would that be done in part of the Tract Map or part of the C.U.P.? Mr. Godlewski responded the developer's stipulated offer was stated for the record, but as far as putting that in as a condition, staff did not have the authority to require that as a condition. Mr. Roberts suggested the Commission make a finding that they heard the evidence and heard the proposal of the applicant to put the commitment in writing to hold a certain lot for development for six months prior to the underpass study; and you find that this is a reasonable offer. He said to make it a condition of the C.U.P.. Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 9 Nis. Wolff pointed out staff tied together the tract and conditional use permit with a single set of conditions since the two are integrally tied together. Approval of one would not work without approval of the other. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, based upon their findings that under Municipal Code Section 17.92.020 the criteria exists for issuance of Conditional Use Permit as requested, and given the stipulation, freely given by the applicant, with regard to withholding from sale or issuance of building permits of Lot 3 for a period of six months for a study of a potential equestrian undercrossing at Santiago Canyon Road (said study to be done by others), that the Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 14322 and Conditional Use Permit 1857-90 subject to conditions 1-35, with condition 35 being added to state: "As stipulated by the applicant, sale of Lot 3 or issuance of a building permit on Lot 3 will be withheld for a period of six months following City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map, for the study of a potential under- crossing at Santiago Canyon Road. Said study to be undertaken by others." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14293 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1861-90 - GEORGE ADAMS, JR.: A proposed Tentative Tract Map 14293 and Conditional Use Permit 1861-90 to subdivide a 5.28 acre parcel into five (5) one acre lots and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the creation of three lots without direct access to a public street. Subject property is located on the south side of Lewis Drive, 300 feet east of Windes Drive, addressed 7242 East Lewis Drive. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1356-90 has been prepared for this project. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a tentative tract map to subdivide a 5.3 acre site into five lots. The tract map includes improving the site with a private drive to access all five lots, the establishment of a sewer easement and utility easements off of properties to the west of the site connecting onto an existing sewer and utilities on Windes Drive, and construction of a drainage swell at the end of the proposed private drive connecting to Windes Drive. The site is located Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 10 within the Orange Park Acres planning area and does not include the typical site improvements, such as curbs and street lighting, in order to conform with the planning criteria set up for that area. The site will have minor grading so that the proposed street can access off of Lewis Drive. Lewis Drive is approximately 30 feet higher than the majority of the site. The private drive will require importation of dirt in order to be completed from Lewis Drive. The C.U.P. request is to create three lots that will not have direct access to a public street (Lewis Drive). The recommended conditions of approval include one that an ingress access easement be established over the private drive for the three lots that do not have direct access onto Lewis Drive. The project conforms to its zoning designation, R-1-10,000 and conforms to the criteria and objectives of the Orange Park Acres plan. There has been a letter submitted with concerns regarding the project from a neighbor to the north of the site, expressing concerns that cars exiting the site will have car lights shining into their existing house (because the angle of the drive is so steep that they will be pointing up). That house is slightly higher than Lewis Drive. Commissioner Cathcart said one of the concerns is the differential in grade from Lewis onto the site. Is this the only site plan the applicant has submitted, or was there some sort of working relationship between staff and applicant? Mr. Carnes said the original site plan had a much deeper street. The street was leveled out somewhat to conform with Public Works' maximum 12~ grade allowed. Staff and the applicant did mitigate some of the problems. The public hearing was opened. Applicant George Adams, 20341 Lewis Drive, had some photos of the site. Access to the property was discussed using an exhibit. He positioned the road to have the least impact on the two houses that were there. It's the only way to develop the site by coming in off of Lewis (the only access there is). They tried to keep a rural atmosphere in conformity with the area. He lives on Lewis and got involved with the project because he was concerned how it was going to be developed. Those speaking in opposition Gary Wright, 7235 Grovewood Lane, had some questions: At the end of the cul de sac there is a three foot wide concrete drain that runs down to the back of their property and then runs out to Windes. Was the map drawn to scale? He assumes the 10 foot buffer runs through the horse ring. Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 11 Mr. Johnson said it appears there are 12 feet or so from the property line to the edge of the horse ring, or maybe the horse ring is to be relocated. It appears the culvert is between that and the property line. Mr. Wright understood Mr. Admas to say there was an easement running all the way to Windes Drive where he would run the drain and the sewer. (Yes.) There are obstructions between the property the applicant owns and Windes Drive. He had to conclude the people have given him opportunities to go through their property. Mr. Johnson stated conditions 8 and 9 indicate there will have to be a dedication made for the sewer and provision for the private storm drain. Mr. Wright also asked who was going to be responsible for maintenance and repair? Mr. Johnson said the maintenance of the drain would remain under private ownership and responsibility until it got into the dedicated street right-of-way, which is at the Windes Drive site. Mr. Carnes said condition 10 stated the homeowner's association shall maintain private street and on-site/off-site drainage systems. Mr. Wright also inquired abut the egress being brought in from another angle because of the severe drop. Does the road on Lewis go all the way around far enough to the east so that the applicant could bring it in down one side? He didn't know where Lewis ended. Mr. Johnson thought there was some versatility with regard to where the new street enters Lewis Drive. The end of the dedicated road appears to be some 60-70 feet from the east of the center line of the projected road. He thought the alignment of the road could be adjusted, if in fact there is a problem with lights. There will be a threshold up at the Lewis Drive elevation so that you don't come at a 12% grade and immediately turn down the street, which is probably another 6 or 7%. A flater area is needed as Lewis Drive is approached for site distance. Mr. Wright urged the Commission to consider saving the trees. Laurie Bush, 7133 Grovewood, wanted clarification of where the sewer is coming through. Will it be to the southeast over to Windes? It will be coming from behind her property. Her property abuts her neighbors tennis court. And with the tennis court coming through there, does this proposal inter- fere with that line? Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 12 Chairman Master said the sewer line is to the north of her neighbor's rear lot. There would be a storm drain directly behind her. The developer is required to get the easement to run his drainage line across that property. Rebuttal Mr. Admas said the property has natural drainage down into the southwest corner. A11 the properties draining down into that corner floods out the horse corals and tennis courts -- it makes a mess. The people who live there were cheering when told the water would be alleviated. No trees will be taken out other than a couple that must be cut down to actually enter the property. As far as moving the road, there is no way to do it without taking out 70 or more trees. The road gets very narrow up against the side of the hill. The road could be moved up a little bit, but you then end up with the next homeowner having the same problem. He tried to structure the plan in such a way that it had the least impact on everyone and to also solve the water problem at the same time. Commissioner Bosch commented the photo rendering shows a gate across the proposed private street. Is it your intent to construct a gate there? Mr. Adams said when the artist drew the rendering, he drew the gate in. His plan, though, is to not put in a gate. Commissioner Bosch asked if the applicant has approached the neighbor that would be most significantly impacted by the storm drain easement to Windes Drive relative to their acceptance of the easement? Mr. Adams said he has made a down payment and signed a letter of intent to get an easement from them subject to getting the project finalized. Commissioner Bosch commented several of the lots appeared to be just under the 1.0 acres. He recommended the Commission require some minor adjustments to assure the full acreage requirement per the City's ordinance. Regarding the possibility of moving the access road just a few feet, it appears if you swung the northern terminus of the street with Lewis Drive further to the east towards the parcel 3 access easement on the north side of Lewis Drive, you might be able to avoid head- light impact on neighbors north of the street and might also solve some minor traffic problems across those two easements. Mr. Adams responded the intersection comes all the way down to the corner of the property. To try and move the road down there, when you try and do the five lots, you end up Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 13 with very long, narrow lots; it just didn't work out to make clean, easily buildable lots. His engineers told him there were one acre lots drawn on the map. 5o they had better be. The community is very adamant about one acre lots; he will check it. Commissioner Bosch said on Lot 2 the staff report indicates an approximately 20,000 square foot buildable pad. That has the five foot water line easement for the Santiago Mutual Water Company crossing diagonally through the lot. It appears that although the zoning setbacks would give you 20,000 square feet, the actual buildable area is substantially smaller. Have studies been done as to the buildability of that lot, given the impacts of both the easements and slope necessary to gain the private access drive? It looks fairly crowded to place a house on that pad. Mr. Adams stated they would be building a slight retaining wall to end up with a maximum pad. His engineers are dis- cussing the water line easement with the Water Company as to if the line is even being used. If he has to, he will relocate it between the corners of the property line. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1356-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The Commission was concerned about the retention of the trees due to maintenance and water issues. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 14293 and Conditional Use Permit 1861-90 subject to the conditions as listed. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1865-90 - ASPEN KATELLA PARTNERSHIP: A request to allow a mixed use office, retail commercial and industrial development in the M-2 zone on property located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Struck Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1358-90 has been prepared for the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 14 Staff commented a letter was received in support of this project from Assemblyman John Lewis. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Ron Aschieris, 1641 Foothill Lane, Santa Ana, prepared some information booklets for the Commission and handed them out. He felt it was nice to come before the Commission with a use that would benefit the community and one they feel meets planning code requirements. The project is supported by both state and local agencies. The use is a Department of Motor Vehicles satellite facility, comprising about 9,000 square feet of public space and 3,000 square feet of inter-departmental office space. The main concern appears to be whether or not they have provided the amount of parking necessary for the use. They feel they have achieved that level. Examples of parking ratios were shown on an overhead of neighboring communities. The satellite facility is less intensive; it is designed to handle the local community's needs. As part of this project, they plan to construct an automotive service space adjacent to the DMV space. City code is 3 stalls per service bay. Predominantly, the parking ratio per 1,000 square feet is about 4 per 1,000. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Alvarez if the State has power over the City ordinances if they wanted to change the use of the facility (such as increase the intensity of the use)? Dave Alvarez, DMV Headquarters in Sacramento, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, responded this was one of eight satellite facilities they 'were trying to establish to alleviate congestion. DMV's primary goal is to be a good neighbor in the community. This is not a state-owned facility. They are merely a tenant in an existing structure. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart would personally like to see a satellite office of DMV here in Orange; however, he was concerned about the .site plan. He doesn't think the circulation plan works well. He concurs with Page 4 of the staff report which expresses the concern with. regard to location of the auto center and the adequacy of the off-street parking and internal circulation. Commissioner Murphy shares the same concerns. He expressed the same problems with parking for a satellite facility despite the fact it is reduced in its scope. Chairman Master has a problem with the site layout. He doesn't know if the applicant has considered other site layouts. He's not sure this plan is viable for the circulation to the system. Is there enough interest in an alternate Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 15 layout that would facilitate a greater circulation than the L-shape which blocks off a portion of the parking. Commissioner Cathcart asked if Traffic has looked at this in relationship to the ingress/egress -- those two points out on Main Street to avoid one turning left and one turning right? Mr. Glass said the southerly driveway will probably have access restricted to right turns only. The northerly driveway will be facilitated with a two-way left turn lane. The right- of-way on Main Street is 100 feet, which will provide 8 foot parkways, 42 feet centerline to curb. This could facilitate six lanes. Main and Katella is an enhanced intersection. Some additional right-of-way will be needed. Commissioner Bosch asked if Traffic has looked at the internal circulation of the site relative to queuing that would occur potentially at that driveway due to left turn egress being allowed? Mr. Glass responded they have looked at it. It is not throated into the property very far. It's the distance cf one parking aisle. He suspects DMV traffic would use Struck where they can get access with a signal. Mr. Aschieris said with regard to site design, they have revised the .site plan with the help of Planning staff. The employee parking for DMV will be at the rear of the site, in back of the building. It's screened from public view. With regard to parking, it's not a state owned DMV facility. He referred to their statistics in the handout. Commissioner Bosch said the DMV offices are the preferred part of the project. His judgment as to the problems with the site plan relate to the remainder of the use which causes 1490 lineal feet plus or minus a single load of drive. The project was discussed between the applicant and Commission. Mr. Aschieris did not feel there was a circulation problem. William Skinner, 3185-F Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, said the circulation is for the southerly element. It would be off of Struck and the southerly drive, trying to keep the auto use as isolated as possible. There was a better circulation pattern, but staff wanted them to separate and internalize the auto use so that they faced one another instead of facing out. The original solutions allowed for a little better circulation in that regard. Commissioner Bosch asked if a site plan were considered that rotated the auto center in any configuration so that it was parallel with the easterly side of the site and rotated the non-auto center spaces parallel to Main Street? It looks like the depth of the site might accommodate that, or to loop Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 16 the site to provide more exposure to the industrial and DMV office spaces left to the auto center drive. Mr. Skinner said that was true, but there was a demand for some sales at the front end of the auto center. As a consequence, they wanted that on Main Street in order to get the exposure for the retail use. Ronald Gass, 9142 Ardendale, San Gabriel, is a prospective tenant for the center. He operates a small chain of auto repair centers. He has had the opportunity to go to a satellite DMV and it is a pleasure to not have the congestion. In respect to parking, 6.5 per bay is really an excess for their type of business. If they get four per bay, that's ample. Chairman Master excused himself from the meeting. Commissioner Scott asked if the applicant had read the conditions? (Yes.) Condition 17 where the Design Review Board recommends approval only after they receive the revised landscape plan? (Yes.) Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1358-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Chairman Master returned to the meeting. Commissioner Scott agrees there is a need for this DMV facility, but has problems with the layout of the site. Commissioner Bosch had the same difficulty. The problem isn't even the mix, but he's not convinced with the orientation of the site plan; it's a detriment because of the orientation vs. one that would take advantage of Struck Avenue for a type of use that could be easily separated from the DMV office. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1865-90 because although the proposed DMV office use represents a need required in response to services in the community, the Conditional Use Permit should not be granted if it will create special problems for the area in which it is located and must be considered in relationship to its effect on the neighborhood and community plans for the area; and the circulation and on-site design of the proposed mix of facilities does cause a negative impact. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 17 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14385 - PSOMAS & ASSOCIATES: A proposed Tentative Tract Map for commercial condominium purposes for an eight story medical office building to allow the building to be subdivided for sales and financing purposes. Subject property is located on the south side of LaVeta Avenue, 500 feet east of Main Street, addressed 1140 West LaVeta Avenue. NOTE:. This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301-C. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Robyn Ravgiala, represented St. Joseph Hospital, 1100 West Stewart Drive, said Psomas & Associates is their civil engineering firm who was kind enough to put the documentation together for this application. St. Joseph Hospital is developing an ambulatory care medical office building. For purposes of financing, the Hospital has an opportunity to finance by tax exempt bonds. their portion of the construction. Their bond authority told them in order for them to be allowed to do that, they must separate the two pieces of the building. The one piece that houses ambulatory care services vs. the piece that houses medical office buildings. As a result, they are requesting that they divide this property into two distinct pieces so that the bond authority will be happy and they can finance their portion with the advantage of the tax exempt bonds. The building has a three-story portion that goes across the side at the bottom. Upon that, sits a tower that's four additional stories of less square footage and that's the medical office building. That's how the condominium is to be divided. It's a two section condominium: One belonging to the Hospital; the second section belonging to the partnership of physicians who will be housed ire the medical office buildings. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 14385 with conditions 1-12. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1990 - Page 18 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a study session, October 8, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to review the proposed Landscape Ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. sld