Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None November 7, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Vern 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: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of October 17, 1994, with the following correction: Commissioner Smith was absent during the hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit 2080-94 and the motion and vote on Page 3 has been corrected to reflect that. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Smith must abstain from the hearing on Southern California Edison because of a potential conflict of interest. They asked the Commission to reverse the order of the Agenda. Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to hear item 3 -Negative Declaration 1462-94 prior to item 2 -Southern California Edison. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1462-94 -CITY OF ORANGE Environmental evaluation of proposed installation of storm drain pipes within public right-of-way on Main Street from Walnut Avenue to Alvarez Avenue, and Batavia Street from Collins Avenue to Nicolas Avenue. Mr. Johnson explained the two projects are underground storm drains which will serve the target area and will be financed by CDBG funds. The only mitigation problems will be during construction and it will be of a minor nature involving traffic and dust control. The public hearing was opened and closed as no one commented on the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Walters asked how staff planned this project to begin during the winter months, rather than wait until dryer weather? Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1994 Mr. Johnson replied because of federal funding commitments, the project must be undertaken during the winter months. He believed the project could be done without the potential to create a flooding condition. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1462-94, noting the project will have no significant impact on the environment. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15027; ZONE CHANGE 1172-94; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2078-94 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON A revised proposal for a subdivision comprised of 277 single family residential lots, one multi-family residential parcel of 6.76 acres and a fire station site. A similar development proposal was previously approved as Tentative Tract Map 13125, General Plan Amendment 1-89-A and Zone Change 1087. The zone change application is requested to adjust some of the A-1 (Agricultural), M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and P-C (Planned Community) zoning boundaries that were created upon approval of the previous tract map. A conditional use permit is required because residential lots will not have direct access to public streets, as the developer is proposing private streets. There are approximately 188 acres situated along either side of the Loma Street Extension, north of Serrano Avenue, and south of Via Escola (northern city limits, between Villa Park and Anaheim Hills). NOTE: Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) 1204 was previously prepared and certified as complete (S.C.H. No. 8801211). An addendum to the E.I.R. has been prepared as an update. Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Smith were excused from the meeting. Vice-Chairman Cathcart chaired the hearing. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Pat Buttress, Area Manager for Southern California Edison, 531 East Chapman Avenue, introduced their planning consultant, Bob Mickelson. Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, briefly went over the differences between the current proposal and the previous approval. Several things have changed since the original tract was approved in 1989. The market has changed drastically. More information is now available on some of the physical constraints on the site. There have been some changes that were warranted to some degree from circumstances beyond their control; therefore, they presented a revised project for the Commission's consideration. The revised project is nearly identical in concept to the previous one with the exception that the product type and lot sizes are slightly different. In some cases they picked up a few single family detached lots and in some cases they dropped some multi-family areas and changed them to single family estate lots. They also created more of a variety with a net reduction of 30 units from the original 350 that were approved. The P-C text is similar in concept to the one done for Southridge. He used the exhibits on the wall to explain the differences between the original and proposed projects. A couple of issues had been discussed with the Mabury Ranch homeowners. They asked for a different street configuration and an "S" shaped street has been proposed. The closest lot to the Mabury Ranch has been moved back some 150 feet. There is an existing trail that comes through a culvert under Serrano up to the edge of the City's park. The trail is proposed to come up the pipeline easement to the access road into the substation and then along the service road on the edge of the substation and join the other trail to the top of the hill. The other trail system is pretty much the same except for some minor revisions to improve it and make it more usable. The Commission and Mr. Mickelson discussed the trail system as it traversed the private roads and the appropriate markings associated for the trails. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1994 Regarding the conditions of approval, Mr. Mickelson agreed with all of them, with a couple of corrections, which he discussed with staff earlier. On Page 18, #90 a. -there was an error in the unit. It should say unit E rather than unit A. Unit E is the most southeasterly planning unit and that is where the traffic would come to Serrano. They also asked to insert wording in that condition to read: "Prior to any occupancy permit or final inspection of the 51st unit..." They would like the flexibility to build 50 units before the north side of Serrano Avenue is absolutely required to be built. That would generate some cash for the developer to do that. Regarding condition 27, Page 22, the graded reservoir sites are off-site on property owned by Woodcrest. Since they do not have control over them, as long as it is understood the condition was prior to the recordation of the tracts, then the Subdivision Map Act requires that the City...if they cannot acquire them, then the City can condemn them and the developer can reimburse the City for the condemnation. They would like clarification it was intended the condition would be prior to recordation of the final map. They have also met with the Mabury Ranch and Crest de Ville homeowners. They have agreed to install a signal at E Street, (north of the retarding basin) and Loma. That signal is not warranted until build out, but because Loma Street is going to be opened soon and because that is going to be the main access for Crest de Ville, and because it will tend to direct traffic from areas D and E over to Loma rather than Serrano, Edison has agreed they will install that signal as soon as practical after the Map is approved. Commissioner Pruett referred to Page 11, item 16, It indicated in order to ensure consistent maintenance over the entire trail system, maintenance should be performed by a common entity, and responsibility not left to a private homeowner. But he didn't see it in the conditions as to how that would happen. Mr. Johnson said it was part of condition 44, (last sentence) Page 23. Mr. Mickelson thought the original draft was a little more flexible because he believed the Orange Park Acres Association was still willing to take over the maintenance of the trails, once they were completed. Commissioner Pruett discussed condition 60, Page 24. He thought the intent was to facilitate the installation of cable television facilities as required by the cable television franchisee. Mr. Johnson said they have required the developer to provide for the installation of conduit or other means of providing for cable to be pulled. Those speaking in opposition Tom Broz, 6306 East Bryce Avenue, is a member of the Board of Directors for the Mabury Ranch Homeowners' Association and represented more than 385 homes that is situated due south of the proposed tract. Their concern is whatever is done that it be done in a coordinated manner such that impacts are minimized to whatever extent they possibly could be. This has been a positive experience as opposed to the previous experience with Woodcrest. They have met with Edison, Mr. Mickelson and City staff. A lot of the conditions are a result of these meetings. However, they still have some concerns and would like to voice them and add to the conditions of approval as well. One of the first issues is "L" street. Previously it was "S" street. Concessions have been made in the re-routing of the street. But there are still concerns -- part of it is the visual aspect and more so, is the traffic. They are a land locked tract; there is only one way in and out. They want to minimize intersections and left hand turn pockets because Serrano is going to be a by-pass for the 91 Freeway. The streets will be tied into Yellowstone and O.P.A., but the boundary does not extend to either street. They thought the City should take a more active role in resolving the situation in coordinating the streets. Construction phasing is also a concern. Condition 98 deals with the construction of Serrano Avenue. They would like a stipulation put in that construction access for that grading all have the equipment be off of E Street/Coma and not come down Serrano. The second part of that condition would be until Serrano is completed to two lanes, that all construction come off of E Street. It would also be consistent to keep Serrano limited to two lanes all the way out to Loma. Their greenbelt area is a drainage area. Edison and Mr. Mickelson have committed not to increase the storm drain flow; however, it is not currently written as a condition of approval. They would like a specific condition stating their commitment. Nuisance water is also a concern (run off water). Condition 59 requires subdrains be provided throughout the tract. He pointed out the horse trail drops down into their greenbelt and then crosses under Serrano through the culvert. The culvert is the horse trail. Unless some mitigation measures are taken, the culvert will always remain wet. He suggested some type of system be provided (i.e., subdrain through the greenbelt area be installed by the applicant). The slopes need to be maintained. He suggested tying in the current subdrains to the inlet storm drain. He further recommended this project go to the Traffic Commission for review and study. It's not appropriate that Loma have a 45 M.P.H. speed limit. Nohl Ranch Road and Loma are similar in design configurations and should have the same speed limit of 35 M.P.H. 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1994 Commissioner Walters did not follow Mr. Broz' logic that Loma be restricted to two lanes. There is going to be a fair amount of residential traffic. It will be a sufficient reduction in the usage of the road and will work against the maximum movement and ease/transfer of people from the edge of the tract over to Loma. Gene Scarcello, President of the Crest de Ville Homeowners' Association, agreed with everything Mabury Ranch has said, especially the stop light on Serrano. They would like to see athree-way stop installed at E Street immediately before the road is opened. They agree with the speed limit and generally like the project. Rebuttal Mr. Mickelson said Mr. Broz did discuss all the issues with them and they have tried to work as cooperatively as they can with him. But they thought there were some areas that were going beyond their ability to meet their desires. The issue of the 4-way intersection may be self-defeating in keeping the traffic off of Serrano. The Traffic Engineer stretched a bit to assign 70% of the traffic to the E Street/Coma intersection which would then warrant the signal. They don't object to the 4-way intersection as long as they can proceed. It was not productive on their part to try and pursue it because they attempted it with the County in the past. There are some physical constraints at Yellowstone, thus creating some problems (park land). If you go to Orange Park Boulevard, you have to infringe upon the County's open space, which they own in fee. They think the design they have put together is adequate; it does direct traffic primarily to Loma and it is not an unsafe situation. They didn't have a problem with construction phasing and any conditions to have the grading equipment take access off of Loma and not Serrano. He didn't mention the grading plan was designed to balance on site. In order to do that, the entire site would have to be graded in one operation, which would take 6 to 9 months. He didn't know if they had a problem with construction traffic off of Loma until the north side of Serrano is completed. It shouldn't hurt the project in any way. He was unclear on restricting the two lanes until the Eastern Corridor to Jamboree connection was made. They've agreed to build the north side of Serrano and have asked that it not be required until 50 units have been constructed. He didn't know if it would be appropriate for the developer or land owner to be the one that closes off the lanes or not; that's a function of the City's traffic control. They have agreed to put in the conditions that the hydrology has been designed so that the storm waters through the greenbelt area do not increase in volume; they will maintain the same volume. He asked that they not get so specific at this time regarding nuisance water. For example, there may be other ways to resolve the question of nuisance water in the greenbelt other than a hard, fast commitment that says they will construct a subdrain because there is 1500 lineal feet and they don't know what that might cost. He would rather commit to working on that solution with the Mabury Ranch Homeowners' Association. Perhaps there would be a way to work that into a storm drain system; perhaps it would be necessary to at least participate in the subdrain. But it shouldn't be the responsibility of the proposed property to totall~r resolve the problems that were created by a previous development. It should not be the responsibility of the proposed project to repair and rebuild the subdrain system on Crest de Ville and City-owned property at the north side of Serrano. What they said, as they designed the street, it would be necessary to design it with appropriate catch basins and, if necessary, storm drains to catch nuisance water and run off water that would come down that slope. It would have to be done in accordance with the Street Improvement Plans when they're designed and subject to the City's approval. They don't have a problem with the speed limit, nor a 3-way stop at E Street. He thought that was also a City traffic issue and must be resolved with the Traffic Department. Commissioner Cathcart added a lot of the issues are not within the Commission's purview. It would be appropriate for the Commission to pass them on to the Traffic Commission for their review. Mr. Johnson clarified condition 59 regarding subdrains. They had a history of water being conveyed underground in the Anaheim Hills area. The water, on a regular basis, starts seeping out of the slopes and up and over curbs. It was staff's intent for the developer to put in underground perforated drains to accept the water and go into the storm drain system. It was not meant to be a low flow channel situation. He understood the problems with directing an urban runoff condition into the natural channel because yes, there will be nuisance water running in that natural channel. He didn't believe they will have that kind of condition in the tract; however, the concentration of water from their tract will drain down to the greenbelt area of the Mabury Ranch. Commissioner Cathcart was under the impression the applicant was not opposed to the conditions regarding the subdrains. He's hearing that the Mabury Ranch Homeowners' Association have gone further down towards Loma and talked about the condition they would like near the City's right-of-way -- 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1994 not just nuisance water that comes down near L Street in the park area. They're talking about the additional expense to take all the nuisance water that is coming off the slope on the south side of Crest de Ville and having to deal with that. He thought that was what they were opposed to -- not the nuisance water running off of their tract into the natural creekbed. Mr. Mickelson thanked Commissioner Cathcart for clarifying that. They do not oppose the condition because it was their understanding that is something that is a state of the art grading, flood control, drainage issue. It's something that has been done in Southridge and other projects. The 1500 feet is from Loma southerly to the Mabury Ranch (straight south through the greenbelt). The other area is basically the south slope of Crest de Ville and the City's narrow piece of property that joins it. There was some sort of irrigation and drainage control to deal with the nuisance water and he thought it was unfair to ask this project to solve that problem entirely on their own. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters didn't think the Commission could get involved with requesting stop signs or speed limits as it was out of their purview. He didn't think they should address the Crest de Ville tract because it was outside the proposed project being discussed. The L Street, as designed in this plan, seems to meet reasonable criteria. If it were moved, it would increase the chance residents would want to go out of it. He didn't see a purpose for a two lane restriction all the way through to Loma. Commissioner Cathcart said as part of the Minutes and discussion specific to the traffic issues, this will be forwarded on to the City Council and it should be noted that the Traffic Commission will be advised and there are some issues that need to be worked out and coordinated. It would be in the City's best interest, as long as all parties are still cooperating, to resolve these issues. He wanted to leave condition 59 in the conditions of approval, but the coordination of that issue be taken up at the time the north side of Serrano is built with the City of Orange and Crest de Ville Homeowners' Association. He wanted to make sure condition 90 is reviewed and either left out or put in the fact that the Mabury Ranch Homeowners' Association has agreed they do not have a problem with the construction of the north side of Serrano Avenue, including a central median, after the 50 units are built and occupancy is granted. Also, the typo be corrected in condition 90 to reflect unit E rather than unit A. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to accept the addendum to Environmental Impact Report 1204, which was prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines. It was found that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1172-94. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 15027 pursuant to O.M.C. 16.12.010. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2078-94, changing condition 90 a. that the north side of Serrano Avenue be constructed after 50 units have been built and correcting the typo of unit A to unit E. All traffic issues discussed at this hearing are to be coordinated with the Traffic Commission and Traffic Engineer and be made part of the conditional use permit. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to a study session on November 21, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. sld MOTION CARRIED 6