Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-1999 PC MinutesCaS5;'e/ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange November 1, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: ABSENT: Coml'! 1issionersBosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning ManagerlSecretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 01 66 t.eN91 1. Approval 01 the Minufes from the Meeting of October 18, 1999 H: i'J:) U.JJ _.Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14360 - SERRANO HEIGHTS (PHASE II)A proposal to subdivide approximafely 204 acres of property in the Peralta Hills, north 01 Santiago Creek and Santiago Oaks Regional Park, south of Anaheim Hills, under aufhority of the Serrano Heights Specific Plan and Development Agreement. The tentative map includes 425 parcels that would be developed with single-family residential buildings and 2 large parcels planned lor multiple lamily residential. (This item was continued Irom the October 18,1999 hearing.)NOTE:Environmental Impact Reports 954 and Supplemental EIR 1305 were previously prepared for this project and certified by the City 01 Orange. The environmental analysis was amended February 19, 1997.Chairman Bosch excused himsell from the meeting due to a potential conflict 01 interest. Vice-Chairman Smith chaired the hearing.Mr. Jones said additional correspondence was received this date Irom the Orange Unified School District,requesting a continuance, and the Commission was given stall's response to a letter received lrom the City 01 Anaheim.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report lor the second and linal phase of the Serrano Heights Specific Plan. The Serrano Heights Specific Plan previously authorized deveiopment of 1,800 residential units on the site. The project site would have access provided by an extension of Serrano Avenue, connecting segments 01 Serrano with intersections 01 Orange Park Boulevard and Mabury Ranch, and Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills. Mr. Donovan explained the City's hisfory of this project,1 Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 including the establishment 01 the Capital Facilities District to lund construction 01 Serrano Avenue, and lor the design and consfruction 01 a permanent extension 01 regional recreation trails connecting portions 01 Mabury Ranch and Anaheim Hills with Santiago Oaks and Irvine Regional Park. There is also a conceptual grading plan in the Specific Plan, addressed by the EIR, which is broken down into two phases. There are lour (4) single-Iamily residential development areas approved on the map, with two mulfi-Iamily residential areas showing as development areas 9A and B, which is split by Serrano Avenue.The Specific Plan approves 355 mulfi-Iamily units on building pads 9A and 9B. For the other development areas, they are limited to a total 01 545 single lamily dwellings, although the applicant is only proposing 425.Staff has been contacted by representatives of two agencies that have asked questions about the project. Orange Unified School District is asking that the City clarify exactly what the requirements are lor development lees that pertain to residential units. Staff proposes to take the prior conditions of approval associated with the last tract map and reiterate that these conditions lrom tonighf's stall report are not intended to supersede any 01 the conditions attached to the approved Development Agreement nor those related to the Serrano Heights Specific Plan, including condition 91 01 Ordinances 9-97 and 10-97.That is proposed as condition 75 lor the tentative map.The City of Anaheim had a number of concerns involving the proposed construction of the secondary access road that would be connected to Nohl Ranch Road, which is a public right-of-way in the City of Anaheim. Staff has pointed out that the request to submit a design proposal for that intersection at this time is premature. The City ordinarily requires such plans at the time they move lorward to review the grading plans. With fhe Serrano Avenue improvements fhat are the link between the intersection and the rest of the development in the City of Orange, staff concurs with the City of Anaheim's comments. They also concur with the requirements that pertain to the installation of a traffic signal at that location. There is a notation in the Anaheim letter that transportation permits are required, and that information has been provided to the developer in that regard. There is also a concern that there are several lots proposed in the tentative map that are technically still in the City of Anaheim, and staff does nof wanf to take acfion on those parcels. Staff recommends that seven (7) parcels (# 412 through #418) be deleted Irom any recommendation made by the Commission (condition 1).Staff also understands that as an institution, the luel modification requirements will be contained wholly within the tentative tract or the City 01 Orange unless the City of Anaheim is willing to authorize such acfivity on properties in their jurisdiction.There is a question about the water reservoir that is proposed on Lot 0, which was acfually in Tentative Tract 14359. That lot is already created by the prior tentative map. Staff will refer these concerns to the City's Water Department to make sure there is adequate screening and the tank is adequately concealed from view.Finally, there is a concern that the City's Public Utilities Departmenfs actively review the water connection that is intended lor municipal fire fighting services. This is a reciprocal agreement between the cities of Anaheim and Orange.Mr. Donovan pointed out a contradiction between conditions 29 and 64 that both pertained to a service roadway that connects Street H with fhe water well site. There is a requirement in condition 29 that requires a 20 foot wide roadway, while the same roadway in condition 64 has a requirement lor 15 feet.Staff agrees 15 feet is adequate after consultation with the Public Works staff. Staff recommends that condition 29 be changed so that the access road is only 15 feet.Mr. Reynolds responded to OUSD's request to continue the hearing. It is the City Attorney's opinion that the Planning Commission can move lorward as nothing in fhe letter raises a concern that would say this needs to be continued to another time or to await some outcome of litigation. A year ago there was legislation and it changed the landscape regarding school lees. In effect, that legislation is the exclusive method of mitigating fhe environmental effects related to the adequacy Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 District is entitled to its school lees Irom the developer, and the Commission cannot deny or reI use to approve the fentative tract on the basis that the schoollacilities are inadequate. The Commission cannot require the developer to do anything other than pay those school lees to mitigate any impact upon the School District. The developer will be required to pay the fees, get a certificate of compliance, and bring that certificate to the City in order to get a building permit for fhe project. This issue is between the School District and developer. The public hearing was opened. Frank Ellend. Ellend & Associafes. 1801 Von Karman. Suite 1260. Irvine, said his comments are reflecfed in the letter dated October 28, he sent to the Commission, along with a summary booklet. This project started out 15 years ago and he briefly outlined its history. The Orange Park Acres Association supports this project. He has worked with the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association, the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition and the Anaheim Hills residents and adjoining homeowners associations. A Development Agreement was negotiated lor the project and Phase 1 was approved and is currently being built. A lawsuil was filed by the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association and a group in Anaheim Hills, known as the Peralta Hilis Alliance. There is also a settlement agreement lrom that lawsuit. Phase 11 will have fewer homes with much larger houses. They concur with all of the conditions 01 approval, and agree with the supplemental conditions 01 approval. Commissioner Carlton asked what the width of the streets are in the cui de sacs. Mr. Ellend's engineer stated the streets are 52 leet wide, which was designated on the Specilic Plan. Commissioner Carlton commented the size of houses are very large lor the size 01 the lofs. Mr. Eltend pointed out there are floor to area ratio minimums thaf were approved as part 01 the Specific Plan. Commissioner Carlton relerred to Page 99, paragraph 5 abouf rear yard requirements. She wanted to know if this relerred to the multi-family attached housing areas.Mr.. Jones said the paragraph relerred to Phase 1 and it allowed as little as 10 leet for rear yard areas.Commissioner Smith questioned the wording on condition 50 abouf fire sprinklers for buildings. She asked lor c1arificafion on what "the building" meant.Mr.. Donovan explained the condition would only apply to buildings that are in remote locations where there isn't immediate access to a public right-ol-way. There are only certain lots where sprinklers will be required, but sprinklers are required for homes larger than 5, 000 square leet.Commissioner Carlton asked if there was any new inlormation regarding recent geotechnical reports 01 the Peralta Hills lault. Mr. Ellend responded as the grading continues in the area, the geologists will be on site to view the property. New studies have not been made.Public comments Joseph Wright, City 01 Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim.Barbara DeNiro, address on record.Kathleen Moran, 10162 Workman Circle, Villa Park.Tom Anderson, 1392 North Sfallion Street.Marguerite Cochran, 6450 East Lookout Lane, Anaheim.Shirley Grindle, 5021 East Glen Arran.Carolyn Wallace, 5504 Crest De Ville.Teri Sargeanf, 137 North Cobblestone.Pam Dunn, 9432 Hazel Circle, Villa Park.Carol Kawanami, Athens Avenue, Villa Park.Marilyn Ganale, 20351 Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 Mr. Wright, a Planner Irom the City 01 Anaheim, stated they are in agreement with the proposed conditions; however, their Public Works Department was concerned that the access onto Nohl Ranch Road, if they didn't have the proper plans, might require redesign at a later date. Anaheim wants to preserve that natural open space that is within the City's limits. They haven~ seen any Fuel Modification Plans and they want to make sure it will not encroach into Anaheim. They are asking lor a view analysis to make sure the water tank is screened and will not be visible to residents. Other concerns expressed by the audience include: Additional inlormation is needed on the Fuel Modification Plan. The school problems are a real concern and needs to be addressed by the City. The Serrano Heights area is laced with no schools lor the children. How much park land is designated in this project? Earthquake faults and building under the flight paths are a concern. One resident did nof leel their community was involved in the discussions of the Serrano Heights development. Who was the County representative Irom Harbor Beaches and Parks that was involved in the approval process? All the trails on the ridgeline have disappeared. The developers have been responsive to the neighbors. Meetings have taken place to inlorm the neighbors 01 what they can expect. Sun Cal and the School District will be meeting later in the week to try and resolve what can be done with excess dirt left over lrom the Serrano Heights development to create another school site. The school problem was not mentioned in the staff report. A condition needs to be added stating that there will be no fuel modification done off of fhe Serrano Heights property. The traffic generafed from this new development will be highly impacted. Sound attenuation should be addressed to protect the citizens. Fire prevention is important. It was requested that the homeowners on Crest De Ville be notified of public hearings. Ms. Sargeant spoke as President of the Board 01 Education of the Orange Unified School District and commented on her 3-page letter lor fhe record. They wanted to separate the two issues: No school facilities for Serrano Heights and the potential lor Barham Ranch to be developed. The School Disfrict is being sued by Sun Cal and Cenfex Homes. The District is requesting that a school site be located in the Serrano Heights development. Mello Roos funds were mentioned and concern was expressed on how these funds are being used. Ms. Kawanami, represented the City of Villa Park, and does not recall the City's involvemenf with the Serrano Heights approval process, and she requesfed that the City of Villa Park be able to review the project and respond with comments. Several of the speakers requested fhe project be continued until some 01 these issues can be resolved.Mr. Jones responded to the questions about the Fuel Modification Plan, a zone that is created which will protect the development from wiid land fires that might encroach into urbanized areas.Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Elfend didn't think there were any outstanding issues with the City of Anaheim. He referred Mr. Wright back to a letter that was sent to the City of Orange in 1989 regarding the information on the deceleration lanes would be required prior fo the issuance of a building permit. Some of the luel modification that may,or may nof be needed in the City of Anaheim is on land that is already fuel modified. There are 325 attached housing units proposed in development area 9A. A trails committee was lormed by the Orange Park Acres Association and they spent a lot 01 time on the trails, with the County's participation as well.The trails are now being implemented. All trallic impacts were evaluated and there is environmental documentation for the project. He has letters from the City of Villa Park, and that city was involved in the approval process. They are proposing a less dense project now. They have been dealing with the school issue for many years and there are several agreements in place, one 01 which is the 1974 Exchange Agreement. They have been trying to work with fhe School District since 1994 in terms of trying to work out some cooperative grading agreement to help provide a 10 acre site adjacent to the Anaheim Hills Elementary School. There was a Mello Roos that was fonned on fhe property, as part 01 the Development Agreement lor Serrano Heights. A majority of the lunding went towards Serrano Avenue and other infrastructure improvements. There was no provision for school funding. They believe the OUSD has three schools that can be expanded. They are willing to work with the School District under the agreements that are in place. However, the only place the OUSD wants a school site is in the Phase 1 area, which is already under construction. OUSD has used a factor of .73, which would generate somewhere in the vicinity of 400 elementary students at build out. There are no park areas reserved for this development. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 The Commission and Mr. Ellend discussed several issues and concerns as it related to the proposed project, including parks, open space, expansion of existing schools or new schoollacilities, grade of slope lor Street Q and ingresslegress of the streets, the School District's lees, the screened water tank and communication with the City of Villa Park. Ms. Sargeant verilied the School District is using a State number 01 .7 children generated per household. They can only put 20 children in a classroom lor Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and some 9th and 10th grade classes. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Smith recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Vice Chair Smith asked staff to address sound attenuation, luel modification areas and the acceleration and deceleration lanes. Mr. Jones responded that sound attenuation was addressed in condition 7. Condition 5 requires that any off site luel modification is prohibited unless such improvements are accepted by the underlying land owner(s) and government agencies associated with land use regulation. Mr. Donovan thought the issue 01 accelerationldeceleration was the sight distance Irom Q Street onto Nohl Ranch Road. There is a 2:1 slope that may interfere if a motorist is coming out ot the tract. The City has adopted standards lor sight distance and they take into account three dimensional obstructions and grading requiremenfs. Public Works staff will look at this issue when reviewing the grading plan. Staff anticipates the intersection will be limited to right turn infright turn out. Commissioner Pruett had concerns about limiting ingress and egress to the east end 01 the project because fhere are public salety and circulation issues. He suggesfed an entrance road on the west side of the project. Mr. Donovan stated the traffic circulation system is what was anticipated upon approval of the Specific Pian, which included a conceptual grading plan. And, it is compatible with the one road at the easf edge of development area 9A. Mr. Hohnbaum would have to see a specific alignment study. Police and Fire personnel are very concerned about multiple access points, ingresslegress and emergency entrances and exits. The entrance at Serrano would also have to be looked at fo see if there is a need for control of turning movements. Commissioner Pruett stated his issue is the specific plan vs. the tract map, and he asked if the issue of traffic circuiation is one of the things fhe City should be looking at as it relates to the tract map. Mr. Reynolds looked at the findings the Commission would need to make. The Commission needs to find that this proposed tract map is consistent with the Specilic Plan, but the Commission is also able to look at such issues as whether this size is physically suitable lor this type 01 development. What comes into play is circulation. If the Commission is unable to make the finding that the Specilic Plan and the map are consistent, then the Commission needs to determine whether this particular circulation plan and proposed development is suitable in terms 01 circulation and safety. Commissioner Romero believed the Commission should be involved in the school issues. He wanted to know if the applicant is bound by the 1974 Exchange Agreement because 01 SB 50, or can it be changed. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 Mr. Reynolds explained the legislation that went into ellect a year ago created a new landscape. The school lee legislation is the exclusive method lor mitigating the environmental ellects relating to the adequacy 01 the school lacilities. He didn't know what the pre-existing agreements say and that is between the developer and the School District. The City can only consider those statutory tees, or the school legislation, as the exclusive means lor mitigating impacts from this project. If the developer complies with the school lee legislation, they can move forward. The developer must submit to the City a certificate of compliance lrom the School District belore issuing a building permit. The developer elected to pay those lees under protest. The City does not have the ability to deny or reluse to approve a tract map on the basis that the school facilities are inadequate. The School District needs to determine whefher school facilities are adequate, and work with the developer in addressing this issue.Commissioner Pruett relerred to the Phase II Tentative Map Consistency Analysis - Composite Specific Plan. He asked for an explanation 01 the local roads. Mr. Donovan replied the local roads that are shown on the Specific Plan are consistent with the roads on the tentative tract map, and he outlined each 01 the roadways. The City reviews all public and private roads according to the Development Standards that the City Engineer has adopted. The plans have been reviewed by public salety ollicials of the Fire and Police Departments. Commissioner Carlton is concerned with the circulation. She lelt the park was too lar away from fhe proposed development. The 1974 agreement is out 01 date. The 4,500 square loot lots are too small for the size 01 homes that are being proposed to be built. Vice Chair Smith asked Mr. Jones to clarify the binding nature 01 the Specific Plan and how circulation, parks, schools, and lot size are addressed. Mr. Jones said the Specilic Plan is a guiding document, along with the Development Agreement. The Specific Plan outlined a circulation system and it outlines the key access points. A traffic study was done and it was updated in 1997. The land use pattern is set lor fhis area. In the 80's there was a declining enrollment of students in fhe schools. The City does not have the ability to relocafe parks or schoo is. The level 01 detail in the Specific Plan outlined fhe maximum size that a home could be. The Commission needs to look at the Specific Plan, Development Agreement and the seven (7) findings that are outiined in the stall report in ferms of making a determination on this project. Vice Chair Smith needs an answer that the schools lor this area are satislactory. The CommiSSion has been told that this issue is out of their purview, but she was not comlortable with that. She questioned the application of a 25-year old Specific Plan. She cannot approve a fract map this large involving 1,800 units without knowing that there will be adequate educational facilities. She heard the City Attorney state there are adequafe lacilities; it has been covered already and the mitigation is already in place. The only mitigation that can address fhe schools for this site are the school lees.Commissioner Pruett agreed the Commission cannot deal with the school issue, it's out of the Commission's hands. However, there needs to be greater cooperation and commitment to reaching a solution by both parties. He's a little concerned that there continues to be this issue going back and forth.He believed the developer should work closely with the community to meet their needs. He's concerned thaf the City approves a Specific Plan and then tie fhe Commission's hands to be able to comment on the tentative tract map. He didn't think there was enough consultation with fhe City 01 Anaheim regarding street circulation and signalization. There are public safety issues and a Specific Alignmenf Study should be done by the applicant. He would like to continue this hearing until additional studies are undertaken.He's very disappointed in terms of the project belore the Commission, and he will not make a motion to approve it.Commissioner Carlton still wants a neighborhood park and open space in Phase II. That would change her opinion about this development. It would make it more appealing to buyers to have a park in the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 Commissioner Romeo supported the comments 01 Commissioners Pruett and Carlton. Vice Chair Smith could not put lorth a motion when the rest of the Commission lelt so strongly about a continuance to address circulation, parks, and the alignment study. The Commission asked the applicant if he were willing to continue the project and address the Commission's concerns. Mr. Elfend prelerred that the Commission take action at this hearing: he did not want a continuance. There have been exhaustive studies done on traltic issues. He has gone through 15 years of negotiations, and he has made many concessions. Commissioner Pruett asked il the Commission were to make a motion for a continuance to enable the staff to look at a specific alignment study and report back to the Commission, would that be appropriate? Mr. Reynolds replied affirmatively. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Tentative Tract Map 14360 to the meeting of December 6,1999, and direct statt to prepare an alignment study, and present a stall report with the revised conditions of approval. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Smith recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting. IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-98, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 7-99, ZONE CHANGE 1196-98,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2227-98, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15680 & ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 99-17 - GREYSTONE HOMES A proposal to allow the land use and development 01 approximately 5.7 acres of property (presently subdivided as 13 parcels, some developed with single-Iamily residences). The site is locafed adjacent to the soufheast corner 01 Heim Avenue, Canal Street and the Mall of Orange.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1560-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, presented the lull staff report as there was opposition. This proposal requests a reclassification of Heim Avenue, from an ultimate planned width 01 4 lanes and 74 feet to a maximum width of 2 lanes and 60 feel. It's a request to rezone commercial lands to allow residential use.AI1>:1, the proposal is fo demolish the ten (10) existing single family buildings on fhe property and redevelop a majority of the site as a planned unit development with 49 single family residential dwellings on small lots. The General Plan Amendment is to redesignate the property Irom G-C to Low Medium Density Residential which would allow a range of deveiopment between 6 and 15 residential units per acre. The proposal is to build 8.6 units per acre. The Ordinance Amendment is required under the Municipal Code. The ultimate planned width of Heim Avenue is currently 74 feet. The Zone Change is to redesignate the property lrom eTR to R-2, including a parcel that is not owned by the applicant. That parcel is owned by the Rios family. The Conditional Use Permit is to establish a planned unit development of 49 units. There is a tentative map to subdivide property lor residential development for the sale of the individual units. And, an Administrative Adjustment is Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 residential driveways Irom 20 leet to 18 leet. Eighteen leet is the required length 01 an outdoor parking stall, but in a single lamily residential zone or planned unit development, the standard is the 20 foot long driveway. The City Council reviewed this project on April 27, 1999. The Planning Commission had recommended approval 01 a more intense project 01 78 units. The Cify Council rejected the proposal saying the proposed density 01 the project was incompatible with the local community. The Council asked stall fo study whether lour lanes on Heim Avenue is necessary, stating the local community is already short on park land and school capacity and need not be overburdened by another high density residential project. The Council asked that the Rios parcel be addressed as they did not want to see a blank check written that may allow development on that property in the future without knowing what was proposed. At least in this case there would be no more than two (2) units that could be developed on that property. Stall's concern is that they didn't want to see that property remain commercial. Stall .also considered the existing Eucalyptus trees and whether they could be preserved if at all possible. Stall determined that Heim Avenue could not be constructed even to the minimum width 01 60 leet without removing the trees. The applicanf is being asked to provide an upgraded landscaping plan lor that frontage along Heim Avenue. Another Council comment was that a single lamily residential subdivision would make a better use 01 the property and the internal circulation must be adequately provided. The last proposal only had streets that were 25 leet wide. The revised proposal has 36 loot wide streets Irom curb to curb and include sidewalks along the two edges. Anofher concern is that a gated development does not belong in a communify that is comprised of open streets elsewhere in the vicinity. The proposal includes a 3,348 square loot recreational area that will be developed with a swimming pool. The proposal satisfies the development standards for a planned unit development in the R-2 zone, including minimum setbacks, height, open space and guest parking requirements.Stall is requesting a revision to one condition that addresses the widfh 01 sidewalks, where the City would agree to the proposal to build a 6 loot wide walkway on public rights-ol-way and 5 leet at the other private streets within the development.The public hearing was opened.Douo Woodward. Grevstone Homes. 26 Executive Park #100. Irvine, reported this is the third change they have made in their plans to develop the property. He briefly explained the history 01 their project. He presented a proposal of 49 single lamily homes. Density was a concern so they reduced the density to 8.6 homes per acre. This will provide a proper transition lrom the single lamily homes to the west to the commercial use 01 the Orange Mall. The plan contemplates maintaining the existing 60 foot right of way af Helm Avenue. The City Council made it clear to the them that a 60 loot right 01 way and fwo lanes was adequate. After the City Council meeting, Greystone Homes approached the Rios family and made a substantial oller to them. The family, however, has chosen to live in that home. They fried to save the Eucalyptus trees, but the residents in fhe area do not want the trees. There will be substantial landscaping and many more trees will be planted. Access to the community is provided through a series 01 sfreefs that are 36 feet in width Irom curb to curb. Street parking will be provided similar to what is lound on other streets. They held a neighborhood meeting and promised the neighbors to make a study 01 two access points. He explained fhe available parking in the community. They concur with the findings 01 the stall report and accept the conditions 01 approval. Mr. Woodward talked about each 01 the findings lor their proposed development.Chairman Bosch noted the Commission has received a number olletlers and correspondence, which will be entered into the public record. Seventeen (17) statements have been signed by residents in favor of the project.2 oeoole sooke in favor Gordon Enders, 1126 Vista Del Playa.Joseph Padilla, 703 East Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 The property in question has been undesirable for the last live (5) years. Greystone Homes wants to build 49 homes. There was a neighborhood meeting held in September. The new project will improve the area and benelit the community. Several people in the audience raised their hands in support 01 the project. 1 oerson had auestions Barbara DeNiro, address on file. The size 01 the lots was questioned. It sounds like any expansion 01 the Orange Mall will be precluded. Information was picked up about a bus transler station at the Orange Mall and a 2-story parking structure that might be built at the Mall. Will there be a play area for the children other than the pool site.5 oeoole sooke in oooosition Barbara Toth, Vice President 01 Leasing lor the Newman property, representing the Mall of Orange, P. O.Box 40, Long Beach.John Kain, RJK & Associates, 1601 Dove Street #290, Newport Beach. He is the transportation planner retained by the Mall 01 Orange to review Heim Avenue issues.Mark Manning, 2710 North Gaff Street.Diane Nowak, 2541 North Bortz Street.Frances Walters, 2240 North Shaffer Street.A letter was read from Mr. Newman who was concerned about maintaining Heim Avenue as lour (4) lanes.The reduction in street width is a concern because 01 future area wide roadway needs and the luture expansion 01 the Mall of Orange. They want to make sure the streets surrounding the Mall 01 Orange provide fhe level 01 service and functionality needed for a major transfer hub for bus services, and providing adequate service to the adjacent neighborhoods. The normal width for a commuter street may be a significant limiting lacfor in the luture for the activity on Heim Avenue. It would be wise to implement a modified cross section for that road. The number 01 houses per acre does not fit info fhe landscape lor the area. The project does not conform to the surrounding neighborhood; the lot sizes are unclear.There are salety issues with lots 36 through 38, and 46 through 49 because 01 the width 01 the roadway in lront of these units. The safety of children is a concern because there are no sidewalks in Iront 01 some of the units. More revisions are needed before approving this project because there are too many houses.Ninety (90) additional cars on the streets are too many.Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Woodward was quite pleased when he saw the letter Irom Mr. Kain because it confirmed that lour ( 4)lanes is not really needed on Heim Avenue. They also agreed that two (2) lanes as a commuter street is the right answer. The City 01 Orange has a commuter designated streef section. The lots are 47, 48 and 50 leet in width. Each plan has a different width based upon the design of the home. Their homes are 37,38 and 40 feet wide. The setbacks befween the edge of the homes and fhe property line is live feet, and between the homes is 10 feet. Their smallest lot size is 47 x 60. All of the homes have private back yards,although they are small. This development is a transition between residential and commercial use, and it is consisfent. The streef widths have been reviewed by Police and Fire and they have been approved.There are only two locations where there isn't a sidewalk. They have provided landscaping on the west side 01 the street as a buffer to soften the wall between fhe projecf and adjoining land owner. He is open to the Commission's decision either way. He also addressed the 90 additional cars. Speed bumps are not planned in the development.The public hearing was closed.The Commission though fhe changes were much better and they lavored the proposed plan as presented. The project meets all of the requiremenfs and findings lor approval. They would like to see a sidewalk on the westerly side 01 the street and incorporate vegetation along the wall. Not having speed bumps is a concern. Commercial development on fhe property would have resulted in lar more traffic.The adjustments to Heim are appropriate. Any development of Heim Avenue that would enhance delivery Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 trucks or buses should be prohibited and lorbidden. They want to enhance the residential development along the street. Buses and delivery trucks don~ belong on Canal or Heim. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Negative Declaration 1560-99 finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlile resources. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 3-98 with the linding that ihere is consistency with the General Plan, which must be lound lor the remaining requirements lor approval of this application, need to be preceded by the General Plan Amendment; that the previous designation on the General Plan of commercial use lor this property has been identified as being unleasible lor realization. And that promotion 01 residential use through the General Plan Amendmenf lor the site is to the benefit of the surrounding community and the City as a whole. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 7-99 and Zone Change 1196-98 to provide conformance 01 the project with regard to the proposed General Plan approval.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2227-98, Tentative Tract Map 15680, and Administrative Adjustment 99-17, with conditionG 1 through 33 as indicated in the stall report, revising condition 23 with regard to sidewalks in the private streets vs. public streets per stall's memo dated November 1, 1999, and also requiring placement 01 the private street sidewalk section on the west side 01 the westerly loop street to the east 01 the properfy known as the Rios property within the development, with maintaining whafever minor landscaping can still occur. The sidewalk is a priority for public safety.And, finding that the Conditional Use Permit is based upon sound principles 01 land use and in response to services required by the community as has been indicated that it provides for a transition of densities from the higher infense utilization of the commercial district and adjacent multiple lamily residential fo the north, to the institutional single lamily uses to the west. The type of housing stock proposed to be developed particularly in the single family form on this site is a benefit to the community vs. a higher intensity commercial or multiple lamily use. That the proposed development, as conditioned, will not cause deterioration 01 bordering commercial and residential land uses or create special problems in fhe area in which fhe site is located. And, that it improves a deteriorated under-developed area and resolves traffic and drainage problems in the immediate vicinity, and provides lor a transition 01 densities which support the continued vitality of adjacent residential uses. That the development has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan, including a modification to the General Plan Amendment to better align the utilization of this property with the on-going and healthy uses of adjacent commercial and residential land. And, that granting approval is made subject fo the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare and Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 Also, linding with regard to the Planned Unit Development, fhat subject to approval of the recommended General Plan Amendment, this projecf conforms to the General Plan. It utilizes creative and imaginative planning in design leatures to create a quality living environment equal to, or better, than what might be accomplished under the R2-6 zoning classification by utilization 01 the landscaped buffers, full width private streets with sidewalks, wider lots and a community pool/recreation area. That the project does not have applicability lor preservation 01 unique physical topographical or environmental leatures. The maintenance 01 the existing Eucalyptus wind break is problematic due to health and salety concerns, as well as the impact 01 the Eucalyptus trees upon obtaining proper and safe trallic and pedestrian development along Heim Avenue.With regard to Tentative Tract Map 15680, the lindings noted in California Government Code Section 66474 which would require denial of approval 01 the Tentative Tract Map do not exist to this application. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-99 - MASTER PLAN OF PARKS A proposal to adopt a Master Plan lor Park Facilities, Recreation and Community Services. This document will replace the Parks and Recreation Plan and Master Parks Plan contained within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1609-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.The public hearing was opened.Barbara DeNiro asked why there are lees when there is no land, excepf lor the upkeep 01 the current parks.Bob Bennvholl. 10645 Morada Drive. OranQe Park Acres, supported this plan.Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a communication from the Orange Unified School District and the Commission looks to a response from staff relative to the City's relationship with the OUSD lor joint use 01 school and park properties.Chairman Bosch had a number of concerns with the policy document. In many cases, there is some verbiage that limits giving strength 01 proper management and needs to be corrected. He believed the word "should" needs to be changed to "shall" or "will". He offered to share his copy 01 the document with stall so that they could make the appropriate changes prior to the document being lorwarded to the City Council. All 01 the diagrams could use some enhancement by adding a legend to the maps. He asked what type 01 agreements or guarantees are in place to provide continuity, given changes in the Education Code vs. the Municipal Code and funding mechanisms so as not to miss opportunities to develop park and recreation resources independently. He referred to Page 78 01 the report as it relates to the implementation plan and talks about user lees. One of the bolded items indicates a joint use with non-profit organizations where sports teams would renovate fields andlor provide field maintenance, labor or cost, if guaranteed use during the season. He didn't disagree with this common practice, but he is concerned that the policy slales that this type 01 agreement does not remove the field or park from community use. It could be construed that a special interest group could lock up a field or a park because 01 their contribution, and deny that inventory to the citizenry at large lor use. There are also several locations throughout the report that talk 01 the cycle 01 years 01 when the plan should be reviewed again.In some places if states either 2 or 3 years. Staff needs to decide on 2 years or 3 years and be consistent.He sees some danger in looking at Table 5-1 which indicates potentiallunding sources lor improvements for a variefy of existing and currently undeveloped park lands in the City. This includes a Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 contribution. The issue 01 ball field lighting at existing parks is a hot item lor neighbors as it can be destructive to the neighbors. There shouldn't be a policy statement that will open up problems lor the neighborhoods. It is also important to show how all the resources interlace together. The Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails should be added to the document as well to show how it all works together. Commissioner Smith strongly believed the school yards make nice large areas lor recreation and she wants stall to continue working with the OUSD lor the best joint use 01 those properties. Gabe Garcia, Community Services Manger, handed out stall's response to one of the letters the Commission received. Staff has been working with OUSD lor some time and have met on several occasions to discuss issues of concern relative to joint use between the City and OUSD. There is a Master Recreation Agreement between the City and School District, which essentially allows the City to coordinate scheduling 01 the open space at the K-8 sites in Orange, excluding all 01 the high schools and Santiago Middle School. They coordinafe all the youth sports activities at the K-8 sites. However, Orange does not have any occupancy rights, and the OUSD has the right to reluse an application on behalf of the City and can terminate the Master Agreement af any lime. The Master Plan 01 Parks does not identify any school sites as a park except those that are noted in the Specilic Agreement. It has never been the City's intent to charge youth groups a fee to participate at school or park sites. The City receives park development lees lor residential development of single and multiple lamily dwellings. Those fees are used lor the acquisition, development andlor renovation 01 new andlor existing parks. Sfaff will make the noted corrections to the document before it is lorwarded to the City Council.The public hearing was closed.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve Negative Declaration 1609-99 and find thaf there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to recommend to the City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment 2-99, the adoption 01 the Master Plan lor Park Facilities,Recreation and Community Services as presented, with the inclusion of the documentation Irom and in response to the communications lrom the School District, including the markings and comments relative to strengthening ambiguous language, correcting typographical errors and slightly improving the quality of the graphics by including legends and providing inlormalion to link them to the other parks and recreation assets within and adjacent to the City of Orange, prior to lorwarding this item to the City Council.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The Commission requested a copy 01 the document upon completion 01 the revisions.IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 5. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPEAL NO. 5-99 (RE: DRC NO. 3434) - RON HORTON The applicant is appealing the Design Review Board's denial01 an unauthorized 1' 001 replacement and a modified front porch. The site is located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District and is addressed Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1999 The public hearing was opened. Ron Horton. 237 North Harwood, submitted some pictures 01 the bungalow houses in his neighborhood. He has lived at this residence lor 25 years. He personally built on the flat rools 01 the house 20 years ago. A year ago he decided to raise the 1'001. He received two stop notices and was requested to submit plans to the City. The DRB denied the plans so he revised the plans with help lrom City stall. The DRBfDRC denied his revised plans. The City has approved other projects and he doesn't understand why his plans can not be approved. Joan Crawlord. 394 South Oranoe, thought the Commission should support the DRC's decision because this project does not meet the design standards. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith commented this is a nice bungalow and the flat rools were added to the side. The work has been done without permits and she upholds the DRC's recommendation. The Commission also concurred with the DRC's recommendation. The Commission hopes the appellanf can work wilh the DRC to find a way to salvage a portion of what has been done in terms 01 cost and arrive at something fhat is not only sale, but enhances the property. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to uphold the Design Review Committee's decision and deny Appeal No. 5-99 (Re: DRC No. 3434) finding the project does not meet the Old Towne Design Standards nor the Secretary 01 the Interior Standards. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones explained the appeal procedure to the appellant.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to a joint study session with the Design Review Committee to coordinate policies and procedures on Monday, November 8,1999 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room "C". The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a. m. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld