Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1991 PC MinutesCI+y Clef'K PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California November 18, 1991 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary;John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning;Jack McGee, Director of Community Development;Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney;Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE:MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to continue the Minu tes of November 4, 1991 to December 2, 1991.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PERMIT 1721, CLOSURE FAVOR OF REALIGNMENT 1262 - 10M CORPORATION l4544, MODIFICATION OF A PORTION OF STATE THROUGH THE PROJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE COLLEGE BOULEVARD IN SITE, ADDENDUM TO EIR Request for approval of the following applications: l) Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property; 2) Modification to the site plan and project phasing as originally approved under Conditional Use Permit 1721-89; and 3) An addendum to EIR 1262, addressing the potential changes in environmental impacts due to the changes in the project. In conjunction with the site plan modifications,there is a change to the City street system including the closure of a small section of State College Boulevard at that location where State College intersects The City Drive. A realignment of the arterial road system will occur, with the construction of a roadway through the project site, Subject property is located at the Orange Drive-In site, located at the intersection of State College Boulevard, The City Drive, Anaheim Boulevard, and Koll Center entrance driveway. NOTE:In Act for compliance with the California Environmental Quality CEQA), an addendum to EIR 1262 has been prepared this project, This item was continued from the October 21, 1991 and November 4, 1991 meetings.) Planning Commission Minutes November l8, 1991 - Page 2 Mr. Godlewski reviewed the project with the Commission. The high points of the application were covered by Ms. Wolff, except to go into any great detail on the actual request for a tentative tract map. One unique feature of the tract map and one -of the reasons the item has been continued is to work out the details of the request to have a horizontal type property separation between Lots 1 and 7 to allow the construction of a basement structure with the construction of a future 10 story office building over the basement at some future date. Staff did not have a problem with the request for the tentative parcel mapl however, they were concerned the Building Code would not allow the future construction to take place. Extensive meetings have been held with the applicant and everyone's attorney has been involved.Staff feels they have been able to work this out in the form of either a map being submitted as a condominium or by separate agreement that would be recorded with the final tentative tract map. The public hearing was opened.Applicant Ron Winkler, IDM Corporation, 5150 East Pacific Coast Highway,Long Beach, stated this project has had prior approval from the Commission and City Council, The actions being requested at this hearing would allow the project to move forward into the construction phase. The tract map will break the parcels down into a necessary configuration for site development, as well as certain modifications that resulted to the site plan by the commitment to TRW as a major tenant for the first increment of development, which is a 400,000 square foot office building.Everything else that has been presented is consistent with the original environmental reviews and approvals. They have updated certain portions of those to reflect changes on the site plan in terms of street patterns and circulation, The building heights and the total square footage, estimated traffic counts and total scope of development is to be consistent with the prior approvals. A couple of inquiries were received from adjacent individuals who own property or who are tenants on the property.They were concerned that Bakery Street was going to be closed,That will not happen; it is to be a functioning street. The street pattern is a little unusual, but they're forced to take some unusual steps because the freeway schedule for improvements are not in place at the present time.Those speaking in opposition Eric Cernich, 602 1/2 Orchid, Corona Del Mar, owns a piece of property adjacent to the proposed closure. They will be adversely affected. Their building is on State College and they have a State College address. As a real estate developer, he has Planning Commission Minutes November l8, 1991 - Page 3 intentions to build a 10 story building on his site. Cal Trans will eventually take a portion of their property. with the proposed street closure, they will lose their access to any major street and they will become land locked. He submitted a compromise for the Commission to consider. If there could be a trade off they would not oppose the street closure. Mr. Cernich was not sure how much property Cal Trans would take from them.Mr. Johnson thought the State's plans for the interchange and re- configuration of the State COllege/I-5/Chapman interchange has been established. The best information is shown on Phase 2 of IDM's plans. There may be a few changes depending on what the final design dictates, but it is staff's opinion the State would acquire all of that property because of access problems.Rebu ttal Mr. Winkler commented it was his understanding from conversations with Cal Trans that there would be a complete take of those adjacent properties. As shown on the Phase 2 plans, Cal Trans will take 25% of their property as well. Their original project design was revised because of Cal Trans' plans. He thought Cal Trans would possibly look at accelerating their acquisition schedule.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Cathcart made changes to the verbage of the following conditions: Condition 6, Page 10 -- replace "should be. with "shall be" in the third sentence. Condition 57, Page 20 replace "should be. with .shall be. in the first sentence. Condition 102, Page 24 -- replace .should be. with .shall be..Commissioner Master commented on the verbage of Conditions 46 (a)and 46 (b) dealing with Level of Service D, Pages 15 and 16. He recommended the wording be changed to read .not to exceed LOS D"delete ...., to maintain an intersection LOS D".. Regarding Condition 58, Page 20, he preferred the Commission not get into the point of concurring that any height wall provides the sound attenuation such that the noise in the mobile home park meets City code. He prefers to meet the standard rather than go on record saying what will minimize or mitigate the noise developed.The suggested wording would be: .A sound barrier of sufficient height to meet City Noise Ordinance requirements. .."Chairman Condition and add Condition 7l, Page sentence. last line),Bosch recommended re-wording the following conditions: 2l, Page II -- delete "Among typical requirements are:.Requirements include, but are not limited to:..61, Page 20 -- delete the word "potential.. Condition 2l -- replace " should be" with "shall be" in the second And, delete the words "if required. (second sentence,Condition 72, Page 2l -- replace "should be" with Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1991 - Page 4 shall be" in the second sentence, Condition 127, Page 27 --change first sentence to read "Provide street trees per City Street Tree Division requirements and as required by the Southwest Redevelopment Area Design Standards." . Eliminate the second sentence pertaining to the size of tree wells.After discussion with the City Engineer regarding Condition 78,Page 22, it was decided to leave the condition as written, not changing "would drain" to "shall drain". The wording was taken from the Environmental Impact Report.Moved by Chairman Bosch,the Planning Commission takes no exception to that the Addendum is CEQA.seconded by Commissioner Master, that has reviewed Addendum EIR 1262-88 and the Environmental Review Board's finding in conformance with the requirements of AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to approve the proposed modification to Conditional Use Permit l721-88 and Tentative Tract Map l4544 with the conditions so stated and amended at said public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ZONE CHANGE 114l-91, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1930- 91, VARIANCE 19l6-9l, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION l392-9l - ROBERT A. SMITH Proposed development of an automotive center, which includes service and repair uses such as lube/oil change, car wash, tire shop, and an exi sting servi ce station. The followi ng are requested: A zone change application to reclassify the property from C-I (Limited Business District) to C-2 (General Business District), a conditional use permit application to allow the establishment of an automotive center adjacent to a residential district, and a variance application to allow a waiver of development standards regarding number of on-site parking spaces,gas pump aisle width, driveway entrance depth, and front yard setback. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Wayfield Street.NOTE:In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), Negative Declaration 1392- 9l has been prepared for this project,This item was Planning Commission Minutes November la, 1991 - Page 5 Chairman Bosch stated the Commission received correspondence from Beam and Associates dated November l2, 1991 summarizing concerns paramount to Wayfield, left turns and other consequences if the left turn is not enacted as well as with respect to street improvements and shared parking. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened.Applicant Carl Middleton, President of Cardinal Development Company, agent for the applicant at 375 Bristol Street, Suite 50, Costa Mesa.Joe Faust, Faust & Associates, was also present as the traffic consultant. They are excited about the plan before the Commission; they think of themselves as professional auto care center developers. They have developed lO centers so far. The site is on the northwest corner of Chapman at the 55 Freeway;it' s ideal for an auto care site. They are convinced the auto plex will be successful at this location. They propose a car wash, the Mobil station, which will be enhanced architecturally to comply with the new development, new landscaping, a quick lube facility and a variety of other automotive service uses (i.e.,tire store, transmission shop). It will be a very clean, upscale looking center. They have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with the exception of two modifications. They submitted a modified Condition 4 to the Commission and a new Condition 28 for consideration. Regarding Condition 4, it does not appear that the right-of-way improvements will be needed for several years, They would like the opportunity, with the City Engineer's approval, to dedicate those improvements and bond for them rather than dedicate them and currently construct the improvements. They would like to enjoy the width for Mobil as long as they can. A second request is for new Condition 28, which would take the existing two left turns out of the Mobil station and consolidate them into a single turn .on Wayfield Street. They believe this to be a safer movement for both street traffic on Chapman and for their customers coming into the center. They will be giving up access in two points for consolidation into one, but they feel it's safer; the left turn access is very important to the site.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch said the key concern is the left turn. What restrictions, if any, are placed upon the City relative to access onto Chapman in that proximity to the freeway?Mr. Johnson attempted to answer. There is an island in what is considered to be the interchange limits of the Chapman Avenue alignment. That is considered to be state jurisdiction.Anything east or west of that is the City's decision making process. If the City wanted to extend the island to physically prevent left turn moves out of those two driveways, or require Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1991 - Page 6 developer to do that,knowledge there are no turns at Wayfield.he assumes that could be done. To his Cal Trans related constraint upon left Commissioner Scott thought the Shell station across the street has left turn capabilities onto Chapman from both of its driveways, as well as the Mobil station on the north side.Mr, Johnson left going Restricting side of the said that was true, He also believed one could turn westbound on Chapman into the Midas Muffler site.those moves would affect those people on the south roadway, Mr. Glass, Traffic Division, said the existing restriction at Wayfield was done because of its proximity to the freeway interchange itself, With regard to left turn access along that segment of Chapman, it's his opinion that at some point in time the City will not have any left turn access along that area simply because of the volumes of traffic anticipated. Under the Cal Trans improvement, which does do a reconfiguration of the ramps, it will move the off ramp for the southbound freeway closer to Wayfield (he's talking within lOO feet) and that will be signalized. At that point in time, Wayfield will be right turn in/right turn out. There is no major accident scenario going on at Wayfield. There are some recorded left turn type accidents that are attributable to the service station, It's speculation what would occur if the City were to allow left turns. Commissioner Cathcart asked if the Mobil station owner and the lessee are in agreement with the request for Condition 28? (The applicant responded yes,)Commissioner Master witnessed the area in the morning and evening hours. He finds the area treacherous, He doesn't know what left turns would do to help the situation. There would be an adverse impact on it. He has difficulty with the area -- not the request. He has trouble supporting activity in the area that's going to increase traffic. He calls it a negative consideration.Chairman Bosch shares the concern about left turns, particularly in close proximity to the off ramp. He's concerned about what the future might bring for all the property in that area when Cal Trans does whatever it will do. He agrees with the danger there.He feels by eliminating the danger of left turns out of the existing Mobil driveways, if it can be done with the concurrence of the property owners across the street on the south side or through some other constriction devices on the Mobil property,that at least moves the danger somewhat further away. Despite the posting of "No Left Turn" on Wayfield, he watched many cars make that move anyway. So the current controls are absolutely worthless. He doesn't want to encourage any greater traffic Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1991 - Page 7 danger, but traffic by Way field by improvement, it seems by creating a method to prevent blocking the those who don't want to turn left onto Chapman from creating a marked left turn lane would be a good as well as closing the driveways.Commissioner Scott also observed the area both in the mornings and evenings. A lot of the activity is trying to get on the south bound freeway. He looked at other sites this firm has built, one being on Tustin. He observed the traffic activity and didn' t see a high activity of vehicles.Commissioner Murphy complemented the applicant as to the way the center is designed, They achieved the goals they were looking for from a standpoint of cleanliness and appeal of the auto facility. The key issue though is safety with the left turn on wayfield. Shouldn't this application be heard by the Traffic Commission? If the Commission approves the added Condition, he believed it should be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer or some other body.Mr, Glass said the normal course of making changes to traffic control devices within a public right-of-way is not.to fall within the Planning Commission, but should be directed to the Traffic Commission. Those recommendations the Traffic Commission would make, would then go to the City Council for a final determination.Chairman Bosch explained there are number of things not totally within the Commission's control. Whether or not the Commission acts favorably upon the request, there are still several hoops to go through, There's some future to consider with regard to Cal Trans and the economic viability of the proposal,Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1392-91 in that the ERB has found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the environment. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart,to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 114l-9l,Conditional Use Permit 1930-9l and Variance 19l6-9l subject to the conditions so listed and those as amended. Condition 28 is subject to a positive recommendation by the Traffic Commission to the City Council regarding the left turn movement in the right tur n only lane,AYES:NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Planning Commission Minutes November l8, 1991 - Page 8 IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1927-9l, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91- 260,NEGATIVE DECLARATION l390-9l - BURKE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Proposed development of a mixed use, multiple tenant complex in the M-2 (Industrial District) zone consisting of retail, office,and industrial uses. The following are requested: I) A conditional use permit application to allow general office and commercial uses in the Industrial District, joint use of parking facilities, and creation of lots without direct access to a public street, and 2) A tentative parcel map application to allow a l6 lot subdivision. SUbject property is located at 1432 North Main Street.NOTE:In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Negative Declaration l390- 91 has been prepared for this project.This item was continued from the October 2l, 1991 meeting.)A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened,Applicant Robert Guthrie, Burke Commercial Development, 42 Corporate Park,Suite 2l0, Irvine, requested a continuance because of some modifications to the project. As a result of those modifications, they feel their design is one of the most attractive designs Burke Commercial Development has come up with in the Anaheim Stadium area. They have built over 100 buildings in the Cities of Orange and Anaheim ( including this project).They received a copy of the conditions of approval for the project on Thursday afternoon. There are a couple of conditions that are slightly different than their understanding. They were able to meet briefly with staff this afternoon and consequently request modifications to some of the conditions. The site is located in the M-2 zone, but is an area that is currently transitioning from industrial to office and retail use. They thought there might be a chance they would attract an user for the project who would be an office or commercial type user. But overall in the consideration of the project, they thought it would be a relatively small portion of the project. They request the CUP to allow for commercial-office-industrial uses. The intent of the project is to build a concrete tilt-up industrial project, but because the site directly to the south will develop to a higher and better use in the future, they wanted to plan accordingly. They would like to have the flexibility of offering units to people who want to improve the units beyond what is currently allowed in the M-2 zoning. They propose Condition 2 be modified to read: "All Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1991 - Page 9 most easterly unit in Buildings 3 and 4 shall be permitted office and industrial uses." (Delete the word commercial.) Planning staff concurs with this modification. Condition 3 ~ould then be changed to read: "The three most westerly units <in Buildings 3 and 4 shall be limited to industrial uses only." To further ensure they maintain enough parking on the project, they agreed to delete Condition 4 as written. The revised Condition 4 would read something to the effect that: "The second floor area to be built out within the building shell will be limited to the cross- hatched area as shown on the site plan dated September 30, 1991." The area consists of 9,000 square feet. They would maintain an overall project square footage of 53,507 square feet, In regards to Condition 5 pertaining to the CC&R's for the project, they propose to add language to the last sentence: CC&R's shall address space allocation (including, but not limited to specific uses and build out in each unit), reciprocal access, parking and maintenance." There is one other issue regarding TSIP fees. The project is currently zoned M-2. They were planning on paying the TSIP fee for the M-2 zoning, which is approximately $1.80 per square foot.There is a condition which requires them to pay the commercial rate of $4,95 per square foot on approximately 31,000 square feet in the project, with the balance being $l.80 per square foot.It's their opinion they would not expect 3l,000 square feet of commercial or retail use in this project. It's truly an industrial project. Their initial proposal is that they pay the l.80 per square foot TSIP fee for the industrial use, and if there is some mechanism that can be included in the conditions that will prohibit them from receiving a permit to build out additional space for office or retail uses until they pay the remainder of the balance of the fee. Staff did explain to him there was no mechanism that would ensure notification of a permit being pulled for retail or office use. Chairman amendment permitted fee. Bosch to use.asked about the applicant's Condition 2 eliminating the Yet, he referred to commercial desire to see an commercial as a uses and the TSIP Mr, Guthrie apologized. It was a mistake on his behalf. Because they are limiting the commercial use, rather than retail or commercial, they would be using the office rate, which is $3. 00 a square foot vs, the $l.80 per square foot.Chairman Bosch clarified the applicant is proposing to restrict the potential for pure office use to buildings 1 and 2 with the future mezzanines and the first two units of buildings 3 and 4,What is the total square footage?Mr. Guthrie responded it's roughly 34,000 square feet plus a little additional, The balance would be approximately 18, Planning Commission Minutes November la, 1991 - Page lO 19, 000 square feet. It is not their intent to build out the project with 34,000 square feet of office space. It's their intent to allow enough units in the project to have the designation to be built out as office units.The Commission and applicant discussed the square footage as it relates to TSIP fees. Staff does not have a mechanism to deal with incremental billings for TSIP fees.Mr, Herrick explained the TSIP fees are a creature of ordinance;not the conditions of approval for the project, There is a mechanism in place through an administrative hearing or an appeal of the fee assessed at the time building permits are pulled. It is not within the purview of the Planning Commission to come up with a condition that will resolve the problem.The public hearing was closed,Commissioner Scott didn't know park way trees were installed on ma in streets?Mr. Johnson said there were park way trees, even in the industrial area. It is a standard condition.Commissioner Scott wanted to know if staff concurred with the applicant' s proposed changes to the conditions?Ms, Wolff said staff talked with the applicant today. They made some calculations and found that the proposed request would meet parking code requirements. Staff did not have a problem with the proposed changes.Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Johnson if the standard Tract Map/Parcel Map conditions of approval (Addendum A) were to be included?Mr. Johnson said Addendum Sheet A is always a standard condition.They have not been including this as an individual item in recent submittals, but should be attached.Chairman Bosch suggested adding Condition 33: "Public Works Department Addendum Sheet A conditions shall be conformed to. II Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1390-91 in that the ERB has found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the environment and that it is in conformance with CEQA. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November l8, 1991 - Page II Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1927- 91 and Tentative Parcel Map 91-260 subjecttconditions l-33 and other modifications as discussed. 0 AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1931-9l - STEVEN G, McHARRIS A request to allow the conversion of an attic space of an existing residence into a second story bedroom in the Residential Combining District. Subject property is located at 485 South Orange Street,NOTE:Th is pr oje ct provisions of CEQA) per State is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality CEQA Guidelines, Section l5301. the Act A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened.Applicant Steven McHarris, 485 South Orange Street, requested to convert his existing attic space into a master bedroom and bath. The project is sensitively designed because it retains existing space; it keeps away from modifying exterior space in a historical area. The improvements are basically exterior with window additions. The house has a dormer in front. The dormer and roof line in the front will not be changed. The side elevations do not have windows so they are proposing to add windows on both sides of the house, In the rear there is a slight change to the roof line to accommodate a dormer for clearance and the interior stairwell, All exterior modifications have been consistent with staff recommendations as well as Design Review Board recommendations.Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. McHarris had read the recommended conditions?Mr, McHarris had read them and responded to staff.Those speaking in favor Rich attic space. to his Robertson, 477 South Orange, has seen the plans for the and thought Mr. McHarris is making good use of the attic He's a good neighbor and has made favorable improvements house; he approves of Planning Commission Minutes November l8, 1991 - Page l2 The public hearing was closed,Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by approve Conditional Use Permit 1931-9l stated in the staff report. Commissioner Scott, to with the-conditions as AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1934-9l, VARIANCE 19l8-9l - PRAFUL PATEL A request to adapt two existing signs (for the Colony Motel) to an updated display under the city's sign ordinance and the addition of two new monument signs, which are under five feet in height, approximately l40 feet inside the property from Katella Avenue. Subject property is located at 1930 East Katella Avenue.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section l5301(g) l53ll( a). the Act and The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened.Commissioner Scott asked if the Commission would be out of line acting on this proposal because this is located within the Redevelopment Area and the Redevelopment concept was trying to get all non-conforming signs to conform,Mr. Herrick said the request is for a variance, which would render the sign legal. The City's policy with respect to a non-conforming use has been in the past that no modifications would be permitted unless the signs were brought into conformance with the new sign ordinance, The variance procedure is a way of reconciling those two positions. The Commission is always able to consider the possible precedential impact that such a decision would have in the future, It would not be contrary to the ordinance.Applicant Ken Pearson, l640 West Commerce, Corona, represented the applicant and their proposed project is to improve the identity and advertisement of a major new franchise entering into the City of Orange, replacing the existing Colony Motel with a HoJo Inn by Howard Johnson. It is the introduction of the first HoJo Inn in the Southern California area. They are faced with a couple of obstacles largely due to the fact of Planning Commission Minutes November la, 1991 - Page l3 property in question, Due to the characteristics, the property is blocked from traffic view in all directions going east and west on Katella and north and south on the 55 Freeway, The other problem is the setback of the property. "It sets back approximately 227 feet. Without the signage, no one would be able to identify HoJo Inn. The signage is critical in drawing people to the property, There is also a car wash in front of the property blocking it from view. There is only one access to the property and that is shared with the service station and restaurant. They feel the new signage will help bring customers into the property and lessen the confusion and make it easier for people to access the hotel. Their new signage is much more pleasing than what is there now and would be consistent with Redevelopment' s plans. If the height of the sign were reduced,it will not be visible. They request relief from some of the conditions: Condition 1 calls out for an opaque background.They beg to differ with the interpretation of the code. Their sign is not light or white by any means. It is a dark teal background; a fairly muted color. It adds a great deal of identity to the franchise. It is part of their corporate colors and a requirement in the franchise agreement to use these colors.Condition 2 says they are to integrate the sign on Katella with the Shiki sign. That presents some complications in that the Shiki is a separate sign identifying a separate business and to integrate those would require getting the restaurant owner's approval and financial participation when in fact he is not applying for a sign variance, From an aesthetic standpoint, he thought the Board felt by joining the two signs would make it more architecturally; more pleasing to the eye. However, they differ in that opinion and the sign is more pleasing the way it is. The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Cathcart asked if they were to grant a variance for the HoJo sign that would bring it into a legal conforming sign,what does that do with the Shiki sign sitting on top of that?Would that sign remain a legally non-conforming sign? Mr. Herrick presumed so, If it were not covered by the variance, it would still be non-conforming. Mr. Herrick requested ( on behalf of the City Attorney's office) to continue this item.There are some unresolved legal issues brought to his attention regarding the property, He would like an opportunity to meet with the applicant and resolve those issues.Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1934-91 and Variance 1918-91 to the December 2, 1991 meeting.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott Planning Commission Minutes November lB, 1991 - Page l4 IN RE:NEW HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-9l, ZONE CHANGE ll40-9l, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1391-9l - SOMMERVILLE/ MOHLER Proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential (l5-24 units per acre) and a pre-zone change from County Commercial to City R- 3 (Residential Multiple Family)district. Subject property is located north of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Dell Street addressed l563l and 15635 Lincoln Avenue.NOTE:In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 139l- 9l has been prepared for this project, Ms. Wolff 1991 from opposition noted a letter has been received dated November l5,Paul Cleary, President of the R,J, Noble Company in to this project.There was opposition; therefore, Ms, Wolff presented the full staff report, The application is for two parcels which have a combined area of 2.3 acres. It' s to re-designate the properties from general commercial to medium density residential on the City's General Plan, and to pre-zone them from the County commercial zoning to the City's R-3 zoning. R-3 zoning would allow a range of 15 to 24 units per acre which could result in a potential maximum of 55 units on the property. The site plan that has been presented to the Commission is for illustrative purposes only. If this item is approved, the applicant would not be bound by that site plan, but would instead be required to comply with whatever rules would be in effect at the time the development proposal was initiated. A rental yard and a self-serve car wash are located on the property now. The General Plan commercial designation exists along the north side of Lincoln for approximately an 1,100 foot span. The commercial designation starts 200 feet west of the project site and extends to 600 feet east, Other development fronting Lincoln on the north side of the street includes the R.J. Noble property, which is a mining and processing operation, self-storage units and an apartment complex near Glassell, The south side of Lincoln is developed with a mixture of residential and commercial uses.Abutting this project site to its north is the R.J. Noble operation, which wraps around the project site. In the immediate vicinity on the R.J. Noble site is a truck haul road, rock crushing plant and a maintenance building. Staff has identified various impacts from that operation on this property -- dust and noise impacts being two of the primary ones. Mitigated Negative Declaration l39l has been prepared and it does suggest mitigation measures to lessen the Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1991 - Page IS The public hearing was opened.Applicant James Mohler, 874 North Batavia, has been out of town until today and has not had an opportunity to contact Noble, He wondered if it would be proper to postpone the hearing until he talked with Mr, Cleary, He requested a continuance to December l6, 1991.Chairman Bosch thought it fair and proper to hear from other people before considering Mr. Mohler's request,Those speaking in opposition Dorothy Hudecek, 3196 North Hearthside, thought this property would also involve an annexation and it hasn't gone to LAFCO yet,Ms, Wolff said it was mentioned in the staff report the annexation request would be forwarded to LAFCO subsequent to the Council' s resolution which was adopted in September, authorizing an agreement with the County to redistribute the property taxes.Ms, Hudecek said the residents are opposed to the apartments;they are not opposed to the annexation. They're not even opposed to having it re-zoned R-I. They would like to see the 130 acres re-zoned residential area. This has been a real dinosaur for many years. There will have to be soil testing and geological testing because this property is sitting on the rim of a lOO foot gravel pit that at one time was lOO to l2S feet deep. Directly behind the property is just mounds of old asphalt, rock, etc,The air smells horrible. The back of this property is in a flood plain, She doesn't know of anyone who wants to overlook a big hole in the ground, This does conflict with the General Plan.They would like to see some continuity; that's their main goal,The entire area does have a problem because of the gravel pit.She doesn't see anything happening until this matter is resolved.They proposed in 1988 negotiation and having some commercial along Lincoln and perhaps doing residential in the 130 acres. The property is surrounded on all sides by residential, even across the river into Anaheim, She realizes there would be just a small increase in traffic and circulation, but these small developments keep increasing over and over. She disagreed with the traffic study, Traffic on Lincoln has increased considerably, She does not believe a study of this northwest area has been done;something she requested during the General Plan Update, Parking and congestion are also issues, The population is at a maximum for the area without continual apartments being built. She questioned the open space; the noise level would Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1991 - Page l6 Rebuttal Mr, Mohler has been talking with the representative from Noble and they're worried about the problems with noise-and dust, Mr. Mohler plans to work with staff and do a noise study to find out how to correct that problem. He prefers to continue with the hearing and not continue the item, They own the apartments on the north side of Lincoln, They bought this property one year ago, Originally they were going to build a small Shopping center; however, they feel it would be better to construct apartments and seek the Commission's approval, The public hearing was closed, Commissioner Cathcart felt this site does not provide an environment that would give good quality of life for people to live there. Residentially, the site does not offer itself for a livable environment, Commissioner Murphy lived in the area for a couple of years and is familiar with the property and surrounding properties, He doesn't see it as being habitable, especially given the close proximity to the asphalt preparation and recycling/crushing work. Noise and dust issues are something less than desirable. He doesn't see it as a viable option. Commissioner Master thought the highest use of what it is zoned for now is not appropriate either, It's commercial now and he questions that. Chairman Bosch said the mitigated Negative Declaration hits upon the negative aspects precluding a positive living environment from being created on the site. He doesn't believe the mitigation measures are ones that can reasonably be implemented. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to not accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board regarding Negative Declaration 139l- 9l. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart,to recommend to the City Council to deny General Plan Amendment 4-9l and Zone Change l140-91, The apparent inability under the review of the ERB and through the Negative Declaration to provide mitigation measures adequate to create a livable environment at this site and because this continues a residential development in an area that is currently under the General Plan for commercial and needs an integrated plan for the area; that Planning Commission Minutes November IS, 1991 - Page 17 is adequate in that commercial designation fact, adequate,regard at this time relative to the whether or not the specific zoning is, in AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch stated the petition is recommended for denial.This item will automatically go to the City Council.IN RE:NEW HEARING PRE- ZONE CHANGE ll44-9l - CITY OF ORANGE Proposed pre-zone change for 25 unincorporated parcels from the existing County of Orange zoning district of 100E4-20, 000 (Single Family Residential, Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet) to the City of Orange zoning district of RI- 20 (Single Family Residential, Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet). Subject properties are located east of Rancho Santiago Boulevard in the area surrounding Glenn Albyn Lane, Glen Arran Lane, Glenn Robin Lane and Wonder View Drive.NOTE:Th is pr oje ct provisions of CEQA) per State is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality CEQA Guidelines, Section 153l9.the Act A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened,Those Speaking in favor Shirley Grindle, 1905l Glen Arran Lane, resident of area in question, stated a handful of residents in her neighborhood started raising questions about annexation into the City about a year ago, Out of the 22 people involved we had written support from all but four, There is strong support to annex into the City. She reiterated the zoning they hold in the County stays equivalent to the City's zoning. However, this wasn' t the case 20 years ago, This is a small, isolated neighborhood that has no thru streets, At the present time, Glen Arran is only being annexed. There are two other private streets which are not included. The neighbors on her street all signed a written agreement and recorded it to run with the deeds to their properties in which they have committed to a legal responsibility in sharing the maintenance of the street, The Fire Department may have some concerns about serving this area because the streets are narrow. At the present time there is an extremely inadequate water system at the top of Glen Arran. She hopes within a few weeks that problem will be resolved, She believes they will be released from Orange Park Planning Commission Minutes NovQmbQr lB, 1991 - Page l8 Bob Bennyhoff, l0642 Shirley very strongly They' re just over the decided to come into the the City.Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres,whatever she wants, he's hill from Orange Park Acres.City by pieces. It's time they supports for it,They' ve got into Mary Worth, 19162 Glen Albyn, is not one of the property owners annexing, but had some questions. In the 25 parcels stated in the proposed zone-change, only 22 are identified. Why is this? Her second question concerned the status of the roads, which was answered that it will remain private. Ms. Grindle responded some of the properties were owned by the same people and this caused a difference in numbers, The public hearing was closed, Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve Pre-Zone Change l144-9l.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING PRE-ZONE CHANGE ll45-9l - CITY OF ORANGE Proposed pre-zone change of four lots with a combined area of 4,6 acres from County Estate Residential to City R-1-40 (Single Family Residential Minimum Lot Size one (l) acre) district.Subject property is located on the east side of Meads Avenue at the northeast and southeast corners of Meads Avenue and Acre Place, a private road.NOTE:This project provisions of CEQA) per State is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality CEQA Guidelines, Section 153l9.the Act A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened.The public hearing was opened,Staff did not have additional information, but would answer questions,Public Input Forrest Keeler, 2617 Roberta Drive, is one of the four property owners involved in the annexation. He' s in favor of annexing to the City with the understanding that the rural atmosphere of the community is retained. After talking with Mary Ann Chamberlain he realizes Planning Commission Minutes November l8, 1991 - Page 19 Bob Bennyhoff, l0642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said in all his discussions with the City, the City has agreed that the County islands come into the City just as they are, They do not want street lights, curbs and gutters, etc.; they're not asking for anything, And the City has agreed to take their animals,Storm drains are another matter. And they've become tax payers in the City of Orange and deserve the same consideration that the rest of Orange does,The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Murphy commented pursuant to Mr. Bennyhoff's comments, item II in the staff report does make reference to the Orange Park Acres Plan goals intended to preserve and enhance the rural atmosphere of the area. He did not think there was any misconception about the intentions.Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend to the City Council to approve Pre-Zone Change ll45- 9l.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Cathcart received correspondence from Mr. and Mrs.Samuel Thickland, 63l East Trenton Avenue, with regard to their opposition to a project that will be coming before the Commission at some future date. The letter was given to staff for inclusion with the staff report.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn at 9:20 p. m, AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED