Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1996 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission December 16, 1996 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones,- Manager of Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo. l4~slstant City Attorney, Jack i3rothettOt~,.~9pi~trnent'of Public Works, and Sue Devlin, Rig Secretary I IN RE: ITEM TO BE CON'CtN.t1EQ 2. APPEAL NO. 435 - CHEVRC3N` U.S.A. '. An appeal of a decision of the e~Ahing Administrator to deny Variance 2024-96, a request to Construct ~! ~0' tall freeway oriented sign. Tft~ property is located at 19A0 ESst Katella Avenue, adjacent to the southbound on-ramp to the 55 Freeway. NOTE: This project Is categorically :exempt from the provisions of the California Enviranmer-tei Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guideline8 5ettion 15311. This item was continued from the November 18, 1996 meeting.) The applicant requested a contiryuance in order to allow time for an inquiry about CalTrans' future plans to widen the freeway or build sound attenuation walls along the Costa Mesa Freeway. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Appeal No. 435 Chevron U.S.A. to the Planning Commission Meeting of January ~0, 1997. AYES: Commissioners Sosch, Carlton, Pruett, pomero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CA.EtNIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETINGS OF 11/18/96 AND 12/2/96 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Crxnssttt Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ~;~'iON CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 3. ORDINANCE AMENa~MEN~' 3-98 -CITY OF t')RANGE An amendment to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to rr4Ake minor changes in the Zoning Ordinance, and to correct omissions that ooCUrred with the comprehensive update of the Ordinance adopted in 1995. This item was continued from the November 4, 1996 meeting.) Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Joan Wolff, Sr. Project Planner, presented afollow-up report to the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance. There were a number of changes the Commission recommended, and she briefly went through the revisions. On Pale 1 of the attachment is with regard to Side Entry Gara es, or swing in garages in the R-1 zone. Staff's initial proposal at the last meeting was to allow a 10 foot~ront yard setback for side facing garages in any R-1 zone in the City. The Commission was concerned that such a provision could potentially result in substantial changes to some of the City's older existing neighborhoods, and recommended some limitations on such a provision. Staff modified the section to allow for setback reductions only in new tracts, planned unit developments and planned communities, and only when a minimum back up area is proposed. Page 2 has to do with Setback Lines and Projections from Buildings into setbacks and into public right-of- way. In the initial proposal, staff recommended re-inserting two provisions that were found in the prior code that had been omitted from the updated ordinance. The provisions pertain to the distance that building projections (such as eaves, awnings, canopies and marquees) could extend into required setbacks. The Commission said the permitted proiections were excessive and directed staff to make an alternative proposal. Under the first provision staff had proposed to re-insert, that pertained to setback areas on private property. Under the former code, projections were allowed to extend two-thirds the distance into all required setback areas. Staff is now proposing the projections be allowed to extend two-thirds of the distance into required interior side yards only, which will reduce that projection to only one-third the distance in required front, rear and exterior (or corner) side yards. The second provision pertained to protections over public rights-of-way on buildings that abut street property lines. This situation is found in the Plaza District. The former code allowed projections to stand out from a building three-quarters the distance between the property line and curb. Based on the Commission's concerns, staff recommends that such projections not be allowed to exceed nine feet. Page 5 addresses Drive Through Operations in Commercial and Industrial Zones. Staff had initially proposed a minor Change to the section only to clarify the intent of the existing guidelines. The Commission recommended the existing guidelines be re-formulated as standards to provide better direction to project developers. Because of the wider variety of drive-up windows that are now being proposed (not just fast food restaurants), it was suggested the standards be made more universally applicable. Staff's recommendation is to eliminate those guidelines that pertain specifically to fast food restaurants, and to keep only those items pertaining to basic health, safety and welfare issues. This necessitated adding a requirement that an applicant submit a queuing study to address the stacking area needed for a particular use. On Page 7, the next item is Setbacks in Old Towne. At the previous meeting only a minor change was proposed to eliminate the term district where it did not apply, and to consolidate the setback requirements for all the Old Towne areas into this part of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission pointed out two additional concerns. One, structures in the Downtown Core, which historically had a zero foot setback, were made non-conforming by this section. To correct this, staff added a provision to allow structures within existing zero foot setbacks to maintain that zero foot setback when additions or modifications were proposed. Secondly, the phrase regarding recessed entries to buildings in the Plaza District was struck from the Zoning Ordinance. Building entries are a design feature rather than a setback issue, and the requirement was left in the Old Towne Design Standards where it is more appropriately addressed. The next item has to do with Fence Requirements (Page 8). Staff had initially recommended a provision similar to one that was contained in the prior ordinance requiring all fences and walls to be built on the property line, in order to prevent situations where parallel fences could be installed so close to each other as to create a hazard. The Commission was concerned with the language that was proposed. Staff modified the section to state that perimeter walls must be placed on the property line, which leaves open the ability for other fences or walls to be placed elsewhere on the property. There is also a provision built into the section allowing the Community Development Director to waive this requirement where it is not warranted. Lastly, Page 9 addresses Service Stations. There is a minor change made to the section to address the term "precise plan" with a more generic terminology of "detailed site plan". 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 The remaining pages in the report (Pages 10-17) include the changes that were generally found acceptable by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Chairman Bosch had a question on Page 7 -Setbacks in Old Towne. He thanked staff for addressing the Commission's concerns relative to the Historic District and the Downtown Core of Glassell and Chapman. He didn't believe, though, all of the Depot District falls within that category. There are a number of buildings in that District, including an old industrial building on the north side of Maple Street, north of the terminal, and several others within the District that may not fully fall under the definition. Was there a way to include that so that it would be covered with regard to other historic buildings? He was trying to avoid non-conforming uses. Commissioner Smith said the Depot area is under a Specific Plan. She suggested part of the wording could include something about the Specific Plan. A portion of it was in the area they were talking about. Anything adjacent to the Specirfic. Plan area could be governed in that Plan. Ms. Wolff said that could be done. She was also hearing the Commission say there may be some other spots that have not been though± of. Chairman Bosch replied that was correct. One came to mind - an old garage building used for commercial purposes on Lincoln, just west of the Santa Fe tracks in Olive that is probably close to a zero setback. And, there may be a few others. Ms. Wolff said the sentence was added under #2, but maybe it could be inserted as #5 so that in any portion of Old Towne, a historic property with a zero foot front setback or setback that is less than what is currently required could maintain that existing setback. Chairman Bosch thought it may be desirable to encourage the zero setback on some properties to enhance the nature of that district in its relationship to the adjacent commercial core. It would be a good idea to consider inserting "Depot Specific Plan" within #2. Or, if #2 were relocated to cover any portion of Old Towne as well. There are two separate provisions that need some thought. The public hearing was opened. Public Comments Wil Chambers, 242 South Olive, had a question on Page 7, #4 -- Within the Residential Quadrants, all properties shall have a front yard setback of 20 feet. He understood Chairman Bosch to say if that were done, everyone on Olive would have non-conforming properties. Chairman Bosch was speaking to the commercial-industrial properties, rather than residential. That is a separate issue. Item #4 is staying intact at this time; he had no comments on it at the last meeting. The public hearing was Gosed. Commissioner Smith thought the staff had done an exceptional job pulling the pieces of the document together. She was willing to put forth a motion; however, she heard there are still some concerns about the setbacks in Old Towne. Chairman Bosch would like to see the exact wording of the revision so as not to leave the burden on staff. He thought staff had done an excellent job, as well, in pulling together some of the housekeeping items, and the changes that came forth from the last meeting have done a lot to preserve the property values in the areas the Commission was concerned with. It would be important to be sure there is continuity by seeing it once again. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Ordinance Amendment 3-96 to the meeting of January 20, 1997, in order for staff to make additional changes as previously discussed. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARINGS December 16, 1996 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15371; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-96; ZONE CHANGE 1184-96; MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 23-96; VARIANCE 2026-96 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 96-9 - POLYGON COMMUNITIES, INC. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 30 acre parcel, located at the southwest corner of Hewes Avenue and Rancho Santiago Boulevard, into approximately 100 lots for single family residential purposes. This proposal includes a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from OS-P (Open Space Park) to Low Density Residential and to reclassify the property from R-O Recreational-Open Space) to the R-1-8 and R-1-10 zoning districts. Also requested are waivers of setback requirements, and approval of lots without direct access to a public street. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1509-96 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, to address the potential environmental impacts of this project. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report in order for the public to have a better understanding of what was being requested. The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the site's land use designation from Open Space-Park to Low Density Residential, which will allow residential developments with a density ranging from 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. It includes a Zone Change request to change the site from Recreational-Open Space to R-1-8 and R-1-10,000. These designations would allow the site to be developed with single family uses with minimum lot sizes of 8,000 and 10,000 square feet. A Tentative Tract Map is proposing to subdivide the lot into 100 residential lots and 7 lettered lots. The purpose of the lettered lots are to establish areas of landscaping that will be maintained by the homeowners' association that will be created for this tract. The Minor Site Plan Review process is being used to create lots without direct access to the public streets. The Variance request is to allow five of the single family residences on five of the lots to be developed with minimum setbacks of 10 feet. The Zoning Ordinance typically requires a minimum front setback of 20 feet. The Administrative Adjustment request could be considered open ended to allow the applicant to reduce the typical 20 foot setback by 20% or to 16 feet, or up to 30% of the proposed residential structures. The project does include for environmental review a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The document found that the project could have a significant impact on the City if the recreational area, potential recreational uses or open space available on this site would not be placed generally in the vicirnty of the City. So, included in the Negative Declaration is a mitigation measure that requires some agreement be placed between the City and County on the replacement of that recreational potential. The action taken by the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission could approve the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and not approve the rest of the applications. This would allow the subject site, at some future date, to be developed residential, subfect to a new application. The Tentative Tract Map and Minor Site Plan Review should be considered together because the Minor Site Plan Review, in creating the lots without direct access to the public street cannot be approved separately from the Tract Map. The Tract Map includes conditions creating the access easements to provide public access and permanent access to the site without direct access. The Variance application should be considered separately because specific findings have to be made to approve that. As well as the Administrative Adjustment request. Because both of those have specific findings that are necessary to approve them. There are 62 conditions of approval that could be applied to the Tentative Tract Map and to the Minor Site Plan Review. Commissioner Smith said the Mitigated Negative Declaration mentioned the park/recreational property would be negotiated. She asked who will negotiate that for the City? Mr. Carnes replied negotiations would be between a County representative and the City Manager's Office. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Steve Shepard, 15751 Rockfield Blvd., Irvine, was the project manager for Polygon Communities, Inc. They are proposing 100 lots and support the project, and particularly wanted to address their request for the Variance and the Administrative Adjustment. Those applications have been necessary because of the Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 burden placed on them by the re-alignment of Hewes. That re-alignment caused the overall property line to move into the site and dimension the available land area, and impacted several lots that have been listed. It is necessary to obtain an approval in order to be able to plot the homes they would like to build and to provide the yards necessary for the community. He brought with him a color board demonstrating some of the architecture that may be proposed. It represents a pro ect they are currently building in Huntington Beach, and are considering carrying it over to Orange. ~t reflects the type of detailing they put into their homes. The fact that they are requesting the setbacks to be less in the front, they feel it won't hurt the overall community at all. The lots are at the ends of cul de sacs; they are not along the street scenes. They will be relatively invisible from the naked eye because they will be towards the end. Their architecture has very detailed and meticulous elevations with variations of colors and textures. There are different types of garages to make the homes attractive and to avoid having a very lineal street scene. They've worked with Public Works staff in mitigating the Hewes re-alignment, working it into the site plan as well as re-aligning the exit street onto Hewes in order to get the proper sight distance and allow for left-hand turns, and accommodating that whole Hewes upgrade. They have received the revised conditions of approval and support them. Commissioner Smith was hesitant to reduce the front yard setback. She believed they were asking for 1 /3 of the project or 30%. She hasn't heard enough rationale to do that. She asked him to give her more information. She couldn't understand why they needed to do that when the lots were large. Mr. Shepard explained in their application they listed particular lots that would have the greatest impact upon them. Those do not represent 30% of the total lots. There are particular lots that will be greatly impacted if they are not allowed to move them forward, anywhere from 4 feet to less than that. Those lots need some relief. However, they want to avoid the linear line of houses being stacked at 20 feet straight down. They also want home buyers to enjoy a nicer yard. Twenty feet is a rather large setback, particularly for the type of house they build. The floor plans have a variation of garages that side-in in the front. Then there is one plan that has a garage towards the rear of the property -- it cannot be seen from the street. One plan has the living space up front. The 30% number is what they would like to see so they could balance the entire site with those lots that have been impacted. They would use a varying setback; it was not their intention to go 16 feet, then 20 feet, then 16 feet, etc. It would give the lots a custom appeal, while maintaining the rear yards. Commissioner Pruett noticed atwo-car garage in one floor plan that a person would pull straight into. Then, there was aone-car garage that was off to the side. Mr. Shepard said that was correct, on one of the plans. They are currently building that plan in Irvine and it is being considered for Orange. There is one plan where there is an entry in between the two garages, giving a greenbelt in between the garages. The third plan has the garage that is set behind a portico. Commissioner Pruett said when discussing the Ordinance earlier, one of the issues was the swing-in garages, which he would consider the one-car garage to be. And, the amount of floor area or turning area that is required for that. What do they plan for their driveway approach for that type of garage? Mr. Shepard replied his engineer was going to use the standard turning radius to assure that cars can actually turn into the garages. There are two tests that can be done. There is the 45 degree angle test, where you measure from the drive approach to the front of the garage. The other is, simply most of the lots are wide enough to scoot the house over towards one side and then that gives the lot a bigger arch in which to turn in. There is some elbow room because they are wide lots. Commissioner Carlton could see on the plans the 10 foot setback would allow a much generous use of the back yard. She asked if they have determined which particular lots those would be at, or was it still up in the air? Mr. Shepard said it was still up in the air. There were a few lots that were of particular concern. He was sure they would use the Administrative Adjustment on those. It really depended on the market. At this point, not having finalized the plan, they were not sure which houses were going to be built on the lots. That would affect the plotting of the houses. Staff would be reviewing that to make sure they stay within the percentage. 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Commissioner Romero spoke to the perimeter wall along Hewes and Rancho Santiago. He understands they are requesting a minimum 5 foot wall. What will determine the 5 foot height? What sound level were they hoping to obtain? Is security a measure that would prompt them to build a higher wall? Mr. Shepard explained they will have a final noise analysis done by their consultant. They will make the final recommendation and whatever that is, they will abide by it. It will meet the City of Orange requirements. One of the reasons they asked for the condition to be written like that is that they do have an area where there is a short retaining wall on the perimeter. There are restrictions as far as the total height of a retaining wall and perimeter wall. They didn't want to exceed in those certain areas that height. In order to be conservative, they asked that the condition be worded that way. The findings of the study would, however, take precedent to allow them the flexibility to meet both the requirements of the study and the City for the wall height. They have no intention of going less than 5 feet. Commissioner Romero asked what the total height would be for both the retaining wall and perimeter wall? Mr. Shepard responded they were at about 4 to 4 1/2 feet for the retaining wall and 5 feet for the perimeter wall. The length of that 4 foot section was approximately 10 to 15 feet at the most. Commissioner Romero was trying to picture a wall on Hewes. What type of an average height of a total wall could be expected? He was worried the 5 foot wall would be too low if it seems to be the norm. Mr. Shepard did not think that would be the norm. On an average, it would probably be 6 feet overall. With regard to the areas with the higher wall, they have put in a landscape buffer of 5 feet. That will screen the height of the wall and retaining wall to make it attractive. Chairman Bosch referred to grading. The staff report reflected there were continuing modifications being considered for grading along the south Property line, adjacent to the existing tract along Swallow Avenue, where the plan currently calls for retaining over a number of lots anywhere from one foot to almost three feet. He asked if they have been in contact with the neighbors who will be impositioned? What is being done in line with what the staff report says towards minimizing the impacts on those residences? Mr. Shepard stated they had a neighborhood meeting. And, that was one of the issues they discussed with the neighbors. They've managed to cut down the height of the retaining walls. Although there may be one or two small areas that are about 3 feet, most of them have been reduced to a 1 - 1 1/2 feet. The residents indicated that would be welcomed, particularly if they could get even a wall within the 7 foot range. They revised some of the grades on the map and in the grading plan; they're still working on that, but have mitigated 80% of it. Chairman Bosch asked if that were an existing wood fence along the rear property lines of the existing residences? What were they proposing to do there? Mr. Shepard said there was an interesting mixture of fencing -- wood, some retaining areas, and then some block wall. They propose to, after approval of the Tentative Tract Map, have another neighborhood meeting to discuss these issues and to meet with the homeowners to figure exactly how to handle those details. There is such a variety there; it's not simply a wood fence that is on the perimeter. Their intent is to blend in a new perimeter wall with the existing walls and fences that are there -but not doubling up and having two walls side by side. Chairman Bosch was concerned about Lots 99 and 100 at the Bluebird entrance off of Hewes. Lot 100 is rather extraordinary - a triangular shaped lot on a frontage that is really impacted by both streets. He was concerned whether that was a livable lot in terms of an environment given the size of house plan being proposed there. Mr. Shepard felt it was a livable lot. If those lots had been part of the Warmington community, those two lots would have been designed in originally and constructed. They are not as desirable as an interior cul de sac lot, but the size of the lots will help to compensate for that. The drive approaches will be as far away from the intersection as possible and the homes will be plotted so that they will allow for some breathing room in the front. Those will not be ones that are pushed forward, but will keep back in 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 continuity with the existing community that is there. The lots have been sized so that there is plenty of livable space around them. Chairman Bosch was a little bit loathe to leave community values in the hands of the marketing department without benefit of some overview to assure that the lot placement makes sense. Up to a 20% reduction on 30% of the lots -- 30% of the lots is what concerned him. The apparent impact on the streetscape would be greater than 30% of the lots. Condition 2 requires the DRB to review and approve preliminary and final building, wall, and landscape plans. It should be mentioned to give the DRB some discretion with regard to the applicability of that percentage to certain lots to assure there is some streetscape maintained. There needs to be some level of review that keeps the general approval in mind when looking at such reductions, rather than providing a blanket as requested. Mr. Shepard understood the Chairman's concern. He had a graphic that displayed the variations of the front setbacks. The homes have been colored differently than the garages to see how the living spaces and the garages are designed. The front setbacks are varied on the plan. Their intent is not to have row housing. Chairman Bosch asked what control do they have with the request for the 20% reduction that a different model home might not be proposed, but does have a less articulated facade? Do they know what the average setback isgenerated by the homes? He stressed the Commission needs to be careful they write something that s not again colored by what they don't have control over, but assures them that, if approved, there is a community value maintained in the streetscape. Mr. Shepard replied their major concern were the homes where there were side-in garages. That's where they would ask for the most typical relief because those could be pulled forward, keeping the living space in the back, which increases the rear yard area. They didn't know if they could condition it to where there would be a larger percentage for homes that have the side-in garages, to avoid having the 3-car garage up front. Thirty-five percent (35%) of that 30% will be side entry garages, and the rest of the percentage could be the other type of units. He asked if a smaller percentage was something that may appeal to the Commission? Chairman Bosch stated it was something they would think about. His concern was -- is it Just a percentage? Or, is it a percentage on the particular lot as well? In other words, rather than the blanket line - 20 feet across - it may be that there is a minimum setback of a certain distance on those, but there is an average. Or, the minimum setback can't exceed a certain percentage of the lot width. Mr. Shepard has done a block average before and that has worked well. They have taken a block face of the whole face of the street and it has to average 19 feet on the average, or whatever it is. It would allow the flexibility to pull some of the homes up to 16, but it couldn't be done to all of the homes. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if the board actually represented the development, or was that just a generic example? Mr. Shepard said it was for this protect. The entrance was off of Rancho Santiago. They took those lots and the homes included in the Commission's packet and plotted them. They showed this to the homeowner's at an earlier meeting, showing several lots at the 16 foot setback and other lots at the 18 foot setback. It should be roughly 30% of them shown in the quadrant. Commissioner Carlton was trying to get a visual of the 10 foot setback in relation to the whole streetscape. Mr. Shepard explained the 10 foot setback would only occur on those five lots at the end of the cul de sacs. Commissioner Pruett spoke to the lot that had the single car garage that one would enter from the street. He asked what the setback would be on that? Mr. Shepard replied it was 20 feet. One of the requirements of the City is that you must have a garage face at the 20 foot setback. This particular model must always have 20 feet. And, the living space could not be moved forward. 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Commissioner Pruett wanted clarification on the revised conditions. On condition 23 and also condition 54 they refer to several lots and the drive access easements. The actual lots that have the easement across them are 48, 50 and 82, and then 96 and 97. Lot 98 does not have an easement across it. The easement serves that lot; the same is true of lots 47 and 51. The issue becomes one of the easements and the lots that are impacted by the easement -- not the lots that are granted the easement to cross over. Then, the same thing holds true in terms of condition 54 on the access drives. It would be posted as "fire lanes" -lots 82, 96, and 97 are the lots that have the easement across them. Lot 98 has the easement rights across those two lots. That should be corrected in conditions 23 and 54 if those conditions are approved. He wanted staff's concurrence the Commission was correct in this interpretation. Mr. Shepard understood was he was saying; however, his comment was they could go either way. When they do put in the CC&R's there will be verbiage that, for example: with lots 47 and 48 -that lot 47 will share maintenance responsibilities, but not easement responsibilities over the easement. It's a dual play. Chairman Bosch said it appeared condition 23 may be all right, but condition 54 is missing a couple of lots. Commissioner Pruett agreed condition 23 could be retained the way it is written, and condition 54 needs to be changed. Commissioner Smith thought the drawings of the architectural styles were beautiful; she liked them a lot. But she was worried because Mr. Shepard just said those were very similar home styles. She would like clarification because she has seen projects the Commission has approved with beautiful drawings, but then a pro ect is built and it is a minimum of everything that was approved. They end up being at the lowest en~ of what was approved. These homes look like estate homes on large lots. What reassurance can he give her that it will be these kinds of homes shown in the drawings? Mr. Shepard explained when he said "similar", the reason he said similar was because the architecture shown on the wall will have some of that same architecture, but they want to also incorporate some different features that blend more with the community. There is a little bit more brick and a more rural Craftsman look -- those type of features. The homes shown on the wall don't necessarily have the strong elements in some of the elevations that they would like to see to blend in with the community. They intend to revise some of the elevations so that they are stronger in the community appeal for the overall area. That's what he meant by similar -- not that they are going to build to the mirnmum standards. Assurance on the quality that Polygon builds -- hopefully the Commission will take his word and visit some of their other projects. They are known as a quality builder. They are not a large builder; they are a small, medium sized privately held company and are in a very competitive market. In order to do that, they have got to build a better product, which is done through architecture and design. Commissioner Smith also gets concerned over the word "Craftsman" because no one ever does an authentic reproduction of Craftsman style homes. In today's building world, sometimes that means minimal. Chairman Bosch thought it was important for staff to clarify the role of the Design Review Board and exactly what in this hearing the Commission was not approving. It was his understanding they were not approving the architectural style, the exact homes on the lots, but there is a process that will be followed. Mr. Jones replied that was correct. Condition 2 clarifies that prior to issuance of any building permits that the applicant shall submit to the Design Review Board preliminary and final building, wall and landscaping plans for their review and approval. There is another detailed process that the applicant must go througgh and submit their elevation plans for all the structures and building materials, etc. This process will be followed by the Planning Commission's determination on this project. Commissioner Smith realized that and appreciated the re-iteration. Her comments were mostly for the record in case the DRB happens to read the Minutes. 8 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor December 16, 1996 Shirley Grindle, 5021 East Glen Arran, said this was (hopefully) the last time they would have to deal with the strawberry field. They have dealt with it for 20 years as an empty field and a potential park. About 5 years ago it was becoming apparent the County would not develop it as a park. She complimented City staff and others for putting the past in the past and cooperating with each other and trusting each other to get to this point. They have sold a valuable piece of property, there is a developer processing a pro ect, the County is committed to giving a lot of money back to the City of Orange to help solve the pars and play field problems. Tomorrow, on the Board of Supervisor's Agenda will be an item that will get an approval and authorize the distribution of this money. That's really a landmark decision. They had a hugge neigghborhood meeting several weeks ago and the developer presented their plans. Mr. Schuler, Mr. Bennyhoff and herself have been involved in this project since the bidding days. They're very pleased that Polygon has received this. The homes will be very upscale and because of the pace paid for the property, the homes are not going to be cheap. The builder will need to build a high qualit~r product to get their money out of the protect. The community does not want any "Mediterranean' housing on this project site. Most of the neighbors are going to be concerned about the perimeter landscaping, the treatment of the trail system and the block wall. They will be interested in following this project through the Design Review Board. She wished there was a system set up where homeowners could be notified about DRB hearings. That's really one of the most important steps after a project is approved. She will be working with the developer and Mr. Carnes to keep track of that. When they have their detailed architectural plans ready and their setbacks and the landscape and perimeter plans ready, they will have another huge neighborhood meeting. The neighbors were promised another meeting so they will get a chance to see up close and in an informal setting what the developer is proposing. She asked about Condition 2 -- she was concerned about the number of homes that are being requested for the Administrative Adjustment and Variance. She was confused. Is the variance for the homes in which the garage is a swing-in garage? Chairman Bosch didn't believe so. There are two issues: the Administrative Adjustment vs. the Variance. The Variance is just for the five cut de sac lots. (That's not a problem.) It's just the Administrative Adjustment, which was not just for the swing-in garage, but it's up to 30% of the lots. Ms. Grindle replied the Commission then made the statement that no front in garage could be 20 feet. Not less than 20 feet.) Commissioner Pruett was also confused. He understood the side garages or the swing in ggarages would be part of the Administrative Adjustment. But the staff report indicates that the Admirnstrative Adjustment request was for 4.2, which would place a portion of the living room in the front setback. Which floor plan were they talking about? Ms. Grindle said the Administrative Adjustment did not include homes that have a front in garage. Was that a correct statement? Chairman Bosch said it did not include the front in garage. It doesn't state that it specifically excludes that lot. Because they could propose a different house plan for lots and apply that to the Administrative Adjustment. But a garage door facing the street would have to meet that requirement. Ms. Grindle didn't know whether 30% was too much. She wanted them to build the best product they could. She trusted they were in a better position to judge that than she. But she would like to see why and what? Could that be included as part of the Design Review Board's process? It was not clear to her on condition 10. It was talking about the continuation of the existing parkway trail. The trail on Rancho Santiago is a straight 10 feet. They would like the developer to consider a meandering trail, which would give them pockets of landscaping, give a little more variety, and the community would like to give them the flexibility to do that. Mr. Carnes assures her the condition does not preclude that because the last few words, "as it is built south of the subject site" only refers to the 10 foot width of the trail. It's not in writing though. Condition 24 -street lights. The neighbors on her side of Rancho Santiago do not wish to have street lights shining in their back yards. She talked to Mr. Brotherton before the meeting That is a concern of the neighborhood - to keep the street lights from shining in the yards of the neighborhood across the street. She supported the protect and asked that it be approved. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, drove down to Northwood the other day and was very impressed with their project. Orange will not have anything to worry about if they build the Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 same homes here. This particular piece of property has been a pain for 20 years. He endorses this project wholeheartedly. He thanked staff for their hard work in keeping this project together. There have been problems along the way, but everyone has worked towards a compromise, which will protect the City. It's important that this plan be approved and to proceed as soon as possible. If there are more delays, there could be more problems. Richard Shuler, 4721 East Golden Eagle, spoke in support of the project. He was called by Ms. Grindle to come over and keep an eye on some 12 developers who initially came in and sppoke to the County. He has had the opporturnty to follow this and it has been an interesting procedure. He has met with the Polygon people several times and found them to be impressive. They want to keep the "community value maintained" in the area. Comments from applicant Mr. Shepard thanked the neighbors for their support. The community meeting was one of the more successful ones they've held with neighbors. They've been working on redesigns of grades to mitigate some of their concerns. They want to be a good neighbor and make the project successful. The primary concern he heard was with regard to the Administrative Adjustment and which homes would receive the Administrative Adjustment. Primarily it is self-limiting in that if a house has a garage that faces the street, it cannot, by definition, get an Administrative Adjustment. They are limited to a 20 foot setback for that particular house, regardless of whether they would like to move it up or not. The code requires a 20 foot setback to the face of the garage. That restricts it right there. The only two possibilities would be a side-in garage home or a home that may have a portion of the living space that is in front of the garage. By not allowing them, through the Zoning Ordinance, to move the face of the garage closer to the street, it is going to eliminate the concern of hawng a sea of garage doors right at the front of the street. That won't happen. They can, however, have aside-in garage with an elevated side of the home that moves closer to the street, or the living room itself may move a little closer to the street. Those would be the only two areas that would be moved closer. Those two plans need help the most in that usually when the garage doors face the street, it's a more compact house. It's not as deep. The other thing they are considering is having their architect look into the possibility of incorporating a single story home within the community. That was something that was expressed at the neighborhood meeting. They expect to have designs to look at this week. The footprint is bigger -the house grows. .They may need to use the Administrative Adjustment to keep the rear yard comparable to the other rear yards. That could be the case in which the elements are lower and it won't have the two story design. Perhaps the percentage and distribution will be left up to the Design Review Board for review. They presented a preliminary design on the block wall at the community meeting. They will be working to finalize it. They had, at that point, expanded even the areas they were going to landscape at the intersection of Hewes and Rancho Santiago. They took a larger area of the tract and brought the wall in to give it a larger landscaped area at the intersection to make it even more attractive rather than just taking a five foot strip around and having it dead end. They've also considered meandering the trail and perhaps take the two feet of the area and put it on the inside, then come back out and put it on the outside to help break up the trail. This would bring some landscaping against the wall to help break up the wall and still keep the landscape in between the sidewalk and trail. They've expanded the entry way landscaping to include a section of landscaping on Rancho Santiago, as well. Architecturally, they want to blend in with the existing community and be an upgrade. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Smith was concerned about the front yard setbacks. With 100 lots every lot is 1% of the project. The applicant has asked for the Administrative Adjustment on 30%, which means 30 lots. But, also the Variance asks for 5 more lots. That really means the setbacks are diminished on 35% of the project, or 35 lots. That's more than one-third of the project. That's a little high to have reduced setbacks, especially when five of the lots are reduced 50%. She would like to see it stay at the 30% deviation for reduced setbacks, which would include the five lots at the 10 foot setback and then allow another 25 lots to have a reduced setback of 16 or 18 feet. She heard the Chairman's suggestion of some ratio between the setback and lot depth. A block average was also proposed. She would be more comfortable with an overall reduction of 30 lots out of the 100, making it 30%. The five need to be included that are also proposed at the 10 foot reduction. She was also concerned about lots 99 and 100 and there needs to be more discussion about those two lots. She respected Ms. Grindle's recommendation of the meandering trail at 10 foot wide, and wanted to make sure that it was specified in the conditions. 10 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Commissioner Romero's concern was with condition 3. If a 5 foot wall is an accepted height for proper sound that with a retaining wall that will be required on some length of Hewes and Rancho Santiago, when you add the retaining wall to the perimeter wall, it will exceed 6 feet. He suggested to include in the condition a 6 foot minimum, including the retaining wall throughout the length of the perimeter wall. Chairman Bosch wanted clarification from staff. Typically walls are measured from the high side. If they call out for a minimum of 6 feet... Commissioner Romero continued, six feet, including the retaining wall. If it were from the sidewalk with a 4 foot retaining wall, then a 5 foot perimeter wall -that would be 9 feet, which would be acceptable. But, if there is no retaining wall, that wall would only be 5 feet. Commissioner Pruett said it would still be a 5 foot wall though. If it is measured from the high side, from the lot itself, the height of the retaining wall won't make a difference. Commissioner Romero wanted to add additional clarification from the house side, just so it would be 5 feet and from the sidewalk side, a minimum of 6 feet. His concern was the retaining wall declining down to no retaining wall and still having a 5 foot perimeter wall. When walking on the sidewalk at that point, people could look over the wall into the back yards. Chairman Bosch thought on the perimeter walls, the concern was primarily where the street was higher than the lots. There is also a condition along Hewes where the lots are higher than the street. He would like to see some wording that stays with "minimum height as measured from the high side". If the lot is the high side, a minimum height wall of 5 or 6 feet gives good protection. If the high side is the trail, then the minimum height is measured on the high side at 5 or 6 feet -- he personally didn't think 5 feet was adequate because that didn't block his line of sight. But in that case, the homeowner would have the opportunity, given the potential of a retaining wall, some point at 4.3 feet high, as the highest, with the wall on top -- that could be a 10 foot wall. The homeowners have the opportunity on their side to do landscaping that might mitigate that, whereas it won't change on the street side. Commissioner Pruett's concern was that if it were measured from the high side, you've got the retaining wall and the road is higher than the lot. Then, you could end up (with a 6 foot minimum) with a wall being 8 feet in the back yard. He didn't know if that was what was wanted. He didn't think the 5 foot wall was unreasonable. Commissioner Pruett had several more comments. On the Administrative Adjustment, the way it is reported in the staff report is that the Administrative Adjustment is requested for floor plan 2, which would place a portion of the living space in the front setback. What he hears the applicant ask for is both for the living room setback, as well as the side entry garages. The Commission needs to make certain in dealing with the Administrative Adjustment that it also includes the side entry garages. In terms of Commissioner Smith's concern about the 30% factor, he didn't have a big concern about that. If you look at the number of streets in the tract, it turns out if you average them out per street, it's three units on each side of the street (or 6 on each street) on an average. And, 3 lots in terms of trying to create that meandering face on the lots, that's something you would almost need to have. It would add something to the lot in his opinion. The issue on condition 54 - he wanted to delete lots 81 and 98 from the posting of the fire lane. Commissioner Carlton agreed the setbacks are absolutely necessary in the cul de sacs and also the percentage of 30% does not seem high to her in looking at the overall project. It's only 4 feet and she would much rather see a varied environment when driving down the street instead of having the houses all lined up in a row. Commissioner Smith said her mind could always be changed. She couldn't figure out Commissioner Pruett's math because she got 24. She has confidence in the builder based on the neighbors who spoke in favor of the project. She will go along with the majority consensus. Chairman Bosch said given the quality of the product that will have to occur on the lots and the size of the lots, he didn't have a problem with the 30%, if included in the 30% are the five lots in the Variance application. He appreciated the applicant's willingness to see the Design Review Board review the placement of those lots to assure they have a good, varied streetscape. His only concern was for some 11 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 unforeseen reason the project would not be built by the current developer/builder. The land use approvals go with the land, not with the developer and not with the potential house designs that are put forth at this time. There needs to be some control over how the setback is set. And, the blanket adjustment of up to 20% is what concerned him. He didn't have a problem with the 20% reduction in terms of feet. He had a problem with drawing a straight line across the front of the lots and he would like the Commission to consider limiting it to a percentage of the lot width that can be reduced to the minimum. It might be 50% of the lot where the very narrow lots set in the cul de sacs, other than those that have the Variance and will require a special lot design, are the lots that often have less frontage or are less amiable to a shorter setback in his opinion. But, setting it at 50% means that on the narrower lots the living room projection type of design would still work, with a lesser setback. The side-in garage wouldn't work in a narrower cul de sac frontage in any event so there would be no loss there. It would be spread out on the straighter runs of streets. And, perhaps 50% of the lot width might be a percentage that would work without any difficulty, given the side yard setbacks to take off as well. So, a 45 foot lot would provide for 22 1/2 feet maximum, where you could go to the minimum, with the full 20% reduction for a required front yard setback. This would be in concert with the DRB considering the placement of the lots with the reduced setbacks as part of their review under condition 2. Commissioner Smith asked if the Chairman said he was in favor of the 30% plus the five lots, or incorporate the five lots into the 30%? Chairman Bosch replied including the five lots, as she pointed out. Continuing with the setbacks, he asked the applicant that question to make sure they were not foreclosing their options under the types of house styles they have put forward at this hearing. The proposal was to, if approved on the Administrative Adjustment, where the 20% maximum reduction was taken on each of those lots, only a certain percentage of the width of the lots would be allowed to have that maximum projection. He was suggesting 50% which would be greater than the width of the side-in garages. Mr. Shepard said they were looking at a single story home. The footprint is larger. To restrict 50% of the frontage of the lot where the adjustment can be taken, it may not work with additional houses they design. It's possible that restriction would just be for the two-story houses. The single story homes will almost require front-in garages and will have to sit way back. Chairman Bosch stated they need to consider the maximum reduction is 4 feet. He was trying to avoid a single story plan without taking anything else into consideration that sets a relatively straight wall, without articulation, at the reduction of 4 feet in setback across the front lot, causing that massing. His concern is one that will help to assure the community values are met. He didn't know if 50% was the best number. A side-in garage is very unlikely to occur in a single story residence. It's at least 20 feet deep so there is something between 20 and 22 feet of garage out of the average lot width of 45 feet, which works within the 50%. The remainder of the structure can still be within -- have a greater setback, but can't be all the way forward. This is to assure there is some articulation between the 0 and 4 feet for the facade of the house. That was what he was looking for. He didn't think it would work otherwise. Does the 50% width give them enough for the side-in garage? Mr. Shepard, not having time to analyze the 50%, was afraid of it. With a 3-car garage, it could be more than 50%. Chairman Bosch replied a 3-car garage would be front-on to the street and they couldn't go under 20 feet. Mr. Shepard acknowledged that was true, so it may work out. If that became a condition, they could live with it and would try to work within that parameter to fit in with their design. Chairman Bosch concurred with the correction on condition 54. He recommended condition 2 be revised by adding to the end of the condition: "including review of the reduced setback and placement of lot locations as allowed under Administrative Adjustment 96-9." He suggested adding to condition 10 which speaks to the trail; the wording there raised some concern. The last line talked about a continuation of the existing parkway trail as it is built south of the subject site. Insert the words "right-of-way width" after trail. And add the words, "and allowing for a meandering trail development within the landscaped area" after subject site. That would give some freedom there. 12 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 On condition 24 there was a concern about street lights and impacts on the neighbors. He suggested adding to the condition: "Street light locations and street light shielding shall prevent property light intrusion onto adjacent existing properties at Rancho Santiago, Hewes, Bluebird and Snow Goose." This is in addition to what Public Works normally requires. Chairman Bosch would like to see the Administrative Adjustment worded, as previously discussed, with regard to where the 20% maximum reduction in the required front yard setback on up to 30% of the lots proposed, no more than 50% of lot width shall have the maximum 20% building setback reduction. Commissioner Pruett had some language for that: "The maximum projection (in terms of width) would not exceed 50% of the lot width." Regarding the perimeter of the wall, he worried if 5 feet were enough, given there is a recreational trail. Unless there is a retaining wall or a segment on the trail side of the perimeter wall, 5 feet provides no visual privacy whatsoever in the adjacent lots. He would like to see a 6 foot wall. He would like to guarantee a minimum height of 6 feet on the outside (Rancho Santiago and Hewes rights-of-way). He suggested modifying condition 3 to say: "The wall shall have a minimum height of 6 feet as measured on the E Street and Rancho Santiago Blvd. side of the wall." Commissioner Carlton still had a problem with the Administrative Adjustment. She felt she didn't want to adjust it. She wanted to approve it the way it was. The builders met with the neighbors, who are in favor of the plan. The builder needs to be given a little latitude on this; it's real restrictive by cutting it down the way it has been proposed. She would hate to vote against the whole project just because of that one item. Chairman Bosch respected her views and appreciated her consideration of his concern overall. He didn't think it was overly restrictive. He also didn t think the applicant would have a problem as they move forward on the protect. The plans the Commission has seen work within these conditions. Again, they're talking about a 4 foot articulation in the facade. He had faith Polygon would continue with the project, but he also must be prepared for the alternative. Commissioner Carlton asked in the unlikely event Polygon did not build the project, would not who ever took it over have to come back to the Commission with their plan? (No, absolutely not.) Commissioner Smith said one of the things that makes her feel like 30% is enough is because on five of those, the reduction is not a mere 4 feet -it's 50% of the requirement. It's to a 10 foot front yard setback, which on a Variance, is large. They don't like to grant variances of more than 1 or 2 feet. Yet, this (in total) is a variance of 50 feet. Commissioner Carlton would rather have a smaller front yard and have more usable back yard to a buyer. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1509-96, finding that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a sigrnficant effect on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 3-96 and Zone Change 1184-96. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 13 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 15371 and Minor Site Plan Review 23-96, with the revised conditions 1-62, dated 12/16/96, modifying condition 2 by adding "including review of placement of lot locations approved by Administrative Adjustment 96-9, if approved." Condition 3 is revised to say that: "The wall shall have a minimum height of 6 feet as measured on Hewes and Rancho Santiago Blvd. sides of the wall." Condition 10 to be revised to include additional words in the second sentence, last line, "a continuation of the existing parkway trail right-of-way width as it is built south of the subject site and allow development of a meandering trail within the landscaped trail area." Condition 24 is revised by adding, "Street light locations and street light shielding shall prevent property light intrusion onto adjacent existing properties at Rancho Santiago, Hewes, Bluebird and Snow Goose." Condition 54 is revised to delete lots 81 and 98. In approving the Minor Site Plan Review, the project will not cause deterioration of neighboring land uses and is in conformance with the City's Development Standards and applicable design guidelines of the Specific Plan. The project will not cause a significant environmental impact, and on and off site circulation is adequate to support the project. City services are available and adequate to serve the project. The project is compatible with community aesthetics. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Variance 2026-96 with the following findings: Because of special circumstances that are applicable to the subject property, including the size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications. The variance granted shall be subject to the conditions and will assure that authorized adiustments will not be constituted as a special grant of privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Also taken into consideration was the burden on the property by the re-alignment of Hewes, which led to reduced land area. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to approve Administrative Adjustment 96-9, granting a reduction in the required 20 foot setback where up to 30% of the lots (including the lots granted under the Variance), and that the maximum width of the maximum reduction of the protection into the 20 foot setback would not exceed 50% of the lot width. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None Mr. Jones informed everyone this item would go to the City Council some time in January, 1997. The City Clerk's Office will set the public hearing and the public will be notified of the hearing date. 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15398 - PULTE HOME CORPORATION The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 11 acre parcel, located on the north side of Canyon View Avenue between White Oak Ridge and Old Camp Road, for single family residential purposes. The proposed tract map creates approximately 100 lots. The typical lot is approximately 3,000 square feet in size. NOTE: EIR 868 was previously certified for the overall Santiago Hills development, including this project site. There was opposition to this item; a full staff report was presented because of the opposition. 14 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Joan Wolff, Senior Pro ect Planner, reported the subdivision was proposed for the last remaining undeveloped parcel in ~antiago Hills. It is an 11 acre parcel, situated directly across Canyon View Avenue, from the County's Peters Canyon Regional Park. Development of the site is regulated by the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan, which is a zoning document that provides for the land use and development standards for the entire Santiago Hills area. This is a fairly straight forward proposal with a tract map that complies with the provisions of the Specific Plan. It provides public streets interior to the project site. The proposal is to subdivide the property into 97 lots for detached single family homes. In addition, there are two small lots along White Oak Ridge that will be dedicated to the City as additional parkway landscaping, and one lot that connects the tract with Old Camp Road that will be used for emergency access purposes. There are no common, recreational or open space areas within the tract. The project density is 8.8 urnts per acre, which is less than the maximum of 15 units per acre that would be allowed for this site under the Specific Plan. The lots in the tract are generally between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet in size, but some are slightly larger or smaller. The tract design provides only one entrance to the site, and that entrance is located on White Oak Ridge, directly across from Loredo Street. The emergency access drive off of Old Camp Road would be gated and will only allow access for emergency services. The tract configuration was proposed by the developer and has been reviewed by City staff. Although there are no City standards regarding the number of units that can be served by a single access point, staff finds the circulation plan is adequate for a tract of this size. There was a question about the noise study and the potential additional condition to address that. She provided an additional condition 42: "The project shall incorporate the recommendations of the final noise study regarding wall and housing design prior to issuance of building permits. The environmental impact report was prepared for the overall Santiago Hills project. Because the proposed project is in compliance with the Specific Plan, and all the impacts have been adequately addressed by the EIR, staff is recommending the previous EIR be used to address the environmental impacts of the protect. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Peggy Tabas, Pulte Home Corporation, 3 Corporate Plaza #203, Newport Beach, briefly discussed the history of Pulte Homes Corporation on this piece of property. They purchased the property from the Irvine Company in 1989. The land use designation for the site at that time, and still is, 15 dwelling units to the acre. The company was considering and had approved a tentative map for a condominium project. There was a major market down turn. The company had the ability to shift emphasis from region to region. They made a decision at that time to pull out of this region and let the property sit until a possible turn around. Pulte entertained the idea of selling the property to another builder m 1993-94. In 1993 another applicant came forward and got approval for 159 lots. Their proposal was for a mix of stacked flats and condominium units. For unknown reasons, that transaction never took place. In 1996 Pulte Homes re-opened a division in Southern California. They now feel this is a great piece of land to come back to. They have one other project in Corona Ranch. This project in Santiago Hills would be their second in Southern California. It was their feeling the neighborhood had changed from when it was first subdivided. It had turned into a single family neighborhood with a lower density. They did not want to bring in a 1989 concept and introduce it into a 1996-97-98 neighborhood. They, therefore, have reduced the density significantly to come in and introduce a single family project. Commissioner Smith noticed there was no provision for open space of any type; no open lot for a children's playground. Why is there no open space for the developmentlproject area? Ms. Tabas said the reason for that was simple. They are adjacent to a trail and park. They felt the needs of the homeowners would be met with the adjacent facilities and amenities. It was also their goal to provide a product that would not be much of a burden on the homeowner living in the community. The cost of a homeowner's association, even for a small tot lot area, creates a costly fee. Commissioner Romero asked if the 159 lots that were approved previously provide recreational areas? Ms. Tabas replied yes, but that was a stacked flat condominium type configuration where recreational open space is always provided. The down side was there were 159 homeowners so the population of the area was much greater. The parking issues and other impacts were greater. 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Chairman Bosch questioned the layout. His concern was to what level of traffic engineering study had been undertaken for the offset of D Street from the entrance street into the property? He was concerned there was an offset of about a lot's width -- a lot of traffic passes that intersection vs. a straight intersection. Was that done to get lot yield? It was such a short offset with too many turning movements. Traffic safety was a major concem, given that configuration. Ms. Tabas thought that was a fair question. The entrance to the project has been modified somewhat in response to staff's comments regarding traffic. It was their goal to see the entrance lined up with Loredo to the west. It resulted in the loss of urnts to their project. In moving that, the offset became a little bit shorter than it had been at one point. However, the issue has been looked at by a couple of engineers and it was found that it meets the requirements of the City. Chairman Bosch said with regard to access to the paseo and equestrian trail that links to the community park in Santiago Hills, it appears the only access is to be via the Fre Department's secondary access from Old Camp Road? Ms. Tabas said that was in response to staff's comments to them urging a link between the surrounding equestrian trail and pedestrian circulation. That's because of the problems that have occurred on the weekends on Old Camp Road. Chairman Bosch's point was it was nice to get dual usage out of something; it precludes a loss of units. But in terms of maximizing accessibility from the majority of the lots to the major part of the public recreation space for the community of Santiago Hills, and reducing the distance to it, that's almost the last place he would put accessibility to the paseo. The primary access for recreational purposes will have to be out the tract entry street and up White Oak Lane to get back to it. Was the selection to merely double the usage vs. having true accessibility to the community's recreational resources? Ms. Tabas was responding to the City's comments in not emphasizing the link to the paseo. If there was traffic congestion on the weekends, she thought the surrounding homeowners would want to not have the most obvious of circulation entries into their property. Chairman Bosch thought he didn't articulate it well enough for her to understand. He was not talking about mitigating access from the people who use Peters Canyon Regional Park. He was talking about the residents in this proposed development gaining access to the Santiago Hills greenbelt system and into the community park, which is the other direction. Ms. Tabas thought it worked both ways, the way she looked at it. If she were giving them access, she would also be giving others access. She didn't have a reason for not providing more access, other than that. Chairman Bosch said she couldn't have it both ways. She either would be using the community recreational resource in providing good accessibility to it -- not the regional park. Or, you're not. That's a concern to him. He understood Commissioner Smith's concern with the lack of shared open space or any development of open space in the community. Typically, in single family home tracts that is found within the community recreation area, which in the Spec is Plan of Santiago Hills, was handled in a different way. Although, the multiple family developments have their own recreation center. With the small sized lots, he was worried about providing the best accessibility to the community resource that this land paid for, as well as everyone else in the community. It just doesn't seem to be here at present. It was important to address several of the parameters that are applied, given the number of lots, in the Santiago Hills Standards for the site. He understood there was a reduction in density from what is allowed. With this, are the 18 foot driveways. Ms. Tabas stated the driveways are 24 feet from the curb. (But 18 feet from the setback line?) Correct. Chairman Bosch continued, other than the 18 feet for the garages from the curb, what is the setback that would be allowed in the development to the living area? Ms. Tabas believed the living area was 15 feet. They plan to build two-story homes; she couldn't see a one-story home being built. 16 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Chairman Bosch presumed there were retaining walls proposed primarily around the central cul de sac area, which looks like it is primarily depressed with the houses surrounding it raised up. (Correct.) He wanted her to explain the rationale? He found it a bit unusual that the center portion of the tract is depressed down (of being in the hollow). Ms. Tabas agreed with him. She explained when their engineer prepared the plans, previous data was used and it was a couple of feet off from the actual design. They have since revised the grading. She does not want to have a development that is lower than the paseo. She has met with staff and has taken steps to bring that grade back up to the very least "at grade" level. They will not be increasing the import. Chairman Bosch wanted her to address the lot sizes. They know what is allowed under the Santiago Hills Specific Plan, which was approved many years ago. There is a 2400 square foot minimum lot size allowed for detached single family units. He noted the applicant had a 2835 square foot minimum on five lots less than 3,000 square feet, despite the minimum allowing all of the them to be. Ms. Tabas assured the Commission they will continue to make adjustments so that there will be as large a lot as possible, and bring those five lots down to as close as zero as possible. It was their goal to have a minimum of 3,000 square foot lots. They also want to meet the market demands of their potential buyers. They are still working to improve their tentative tract map with minor adjustments. Those speaking in opposition Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, appreciated the reduction in size from 157 down to 97; however, the size of the lots are very small. These homes will be bought by people who have kids. He was concerned about the lack of open space; where will the kids play besides the street? The park is too far from this development. Children will have nothing to do, but get in trouble. Teresa Oliver, 127 S. Shadow Pines Road, asked the Commission to reconsider the lot sizes of this development. The lot she lives in is 5,000 square feet and it's like a postage stamp. They have a large driveway and share with their neighbors a common driveway. There is no place in the neighborhood for the kids to play, but in the street. People park in their neighborhood on the weekends rather than pa ing the park entrance fee. They do not have sufficient parking in their neighborhood. There will be no place for the residents to park in the new development either. She also voiced concern with the ingress and egress problems. The new schools are overcrowded. There are too many homes in too small of an area. The developer did not give up a lot for the emergency ingress/egress. If she read their map correctly, they only gave up 25 feet. Pulte Homes should not be grandfathered in at this time. Gary Samaha, 187 S. Shadow Pines Road, said they were trying to maintain their neighborhood. They fight an increasing onslaught of traffic on a daily basis, increasing noise and danger with children trying to go to school. The proposed plan is, in his opinion, motivated by only one thing; that is to maximize at all costs revenue to be produced out of this plot of land. Anew toll road will be dumping more traffic into the area. Dave Delorenzo, 120 S. Sage Hills Road, was also representing two other homeowners who had to leave the meeting: Bruce Praet, 143 S. Shadow Pines Road and Vickie Hix, 148 S. Shadow Pines Road. He went over five points quickly. He was an original homeowner in the Canyon View Tract built in 1988-89. They are on 5,000 square foot lots (or smaller) and most of the homes have 3-car garages. His house has a 3 foot driveway, in addition to the sidewalk. There is not enough street parking in their neighborhood. There is some difficult)r in getting to the parks, especially Peters Canyon and Irvine Park. They do have the benefit of having direct access to the greenbelt. Even with the homes having 3-car garages, there is an undue amount of on-street parking, both by the residents in Canyon View and people using the park on the weekends. It is clear with the proposed lot sizes and setbacks, it is not enough to address parking for the residents and to handle Peters Canyon traffic. He was also concerned about the lack of recreation in the new neighborhood. Other neighborhoods have their own small tot lots; this new development should also. He also spoke about the traffic and parking concerns. Everyone needs to think about what can be done for the area, and adding value to the respective homeowners that will be coming in. Some recommendations need to be made to the Design Review Board to make sure the community is kept cohesive and at a density everyone can live with. 17 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Joanne Barton, 131 S. Shadow Pines Road, was opposed to the cookie-cutter homes that are proposed to be built. Pulte Homes made a bad investment. She didn't think 100 families were waiting in line to buy new homes. Six homes in her neighborhood are vacant, waiting for someone to buy them at a very good price. Aaron White, 8215 White Oak Ridge #71, lives in the condominiums. He has one of the larger units, about 1600 square feet with an attached garage. He stated it was terrible having company visit him. No parking was available in the complex and visitors needed to park on White Oak Ridge. When he bought his condominium, he was told a park would be built next to him. Those areas that are designated for recreational use should be used for parks and open space. The City should not allow these areas to be built on. Char Russ, 8316 E. Woodman Avenue, was concemed about the traffic. Her 12 year old son is now riding his bike in their neighborhood. A week ago there was a major car accident with two seriously injured people on White Oak Ridge. She could not understand why only one entrance and exit was proposed for some 300 cars to dump out onto White Oak Ridge. It's too dangerous for the community and children who ride bikes. She also spoke about all the cars parking in their neighborhood and had the same concerns. Carol LaBounty, 8245 E. Ironwood Avenue, was concerned about the one exit and entry into the proposed tract. Her tract has 78 homes in it and they have only one street bordering their tract -- White Oak Ridge. There are two ways in and out of their neighborhood onto White Oak Ridge. Having two streets is a convenience for the homeowners. There are also two ways to get to the shopping center as pedestrians. She pointed out there are currently 7 housing tracts of single family, detached homes in Santiago Hills and all 7 of them were planned and built with two entrances into and out of their tracts. Requiring this development to have at least two entrances and exits would be consistent with the rest of Santiago Hills. Cathy Kaufman, 130 S. Sage Hills Road, commented about the 25 foot strip that has been left for emergency vehicles only, which would be closed by a gated entrance. The Commission shouldn't even consider that as being an emergency exit. It's actually going to be a public eyesore. The adjacent condominium complex also left an emergency exit and it turned out to be a vacant lot where the grass and dirt have sunk in. It has turned into a mud pit and the sidewalk was not even completed in front of it. That was on Jamboree; it's an eyesore and has been an eyesore for eight years. She assumed that was put there for the emergency access to the condominiums. It should be a normal entry and exit way; otherwise, it will be an eyesore that people will have to drive by and look at 24 hours a day. She thought the second entrance should be put on Old Camp Road. Dennis Henderson, 126 S. Sage Hill Road, concurred with the statements of his neighbors. One thing Pulte Homes has not considered is the practicality of their plan. One entrance does not conform with the rest of the entire community. The gated entrance for emergency vehicles is not practical and is inadequate. The 1984-85 plan is out of date. The density of 160 homes in unrealistic. Thomas Oliver, 127 S. Shadow Pines Road, was worried about the parking situation. The community would like Pulte to build a nicer home. By putting these homes in, it will not increase the value of the community. There are six vacant homes now in his area that cannot sell. He felt it was nothing more than greed on Pulte's .part. They want to build as many homes as they can, but in today's market he didn't think they could sell them. Teresa Babcock, 8636 E. Sugar Loaf Peak Road, agreed there should be a second opening into the proposed tract. They also need to make some concession for parking and the traffic. Eric DePasse, 125 S. Shadow Pines Road, was not against Pulte making a living. If the City wants to make the community a hustle and bustle type atmosphere, then they need to approve the 100 homes in an 11 acre lot. It would, however, increase the density and make a lot of happy homeowners very unhappy. He was sure the City wanted to keep it a nice community where it was safe for the kids, as well as everyone else. John Murin, 111 B S. Crosscreek Road, said the vacant lot on Jamboree was actually an utilities easement - a storm drain comes through there. He knew the City had plans to finish that off. His complex has been in discussion about completing the wall and landscaping across there. There is 18 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 nothing that says an emergency exit needs to be an eyesore and he pointed out two emergency exits that were dealt with in a competent, aesthetic manner. His complex had 400 units with two exits. They have no problem entering or exiting. He didn't think the proposed development with one entrance would have a problem. He would rather see a single family housing tract be built rather than a condominium complex like his with such a high density. Eight units per acre is a substantial improvement over what he is currently living in (24 units per acre). Rebuttal Ms. Tabas addressed the comments of the neighbors' concerns. She felt there were many misconceptions. She heard financial success and greed mentioned as part of their goals. She clarified there is no financial success, nor greed. She thought she was doing something that would be welcomed in the neighborhood. She had no idea the neighbors had so many complaints. They believed a single family product would be well received as opposed to introducing another condominium project. Everyone has had a major economic setback these last six years, including herself. She appreciated the concerns about property values and the equity they had at one time, but not now. Pulte Homes cannot be blamed for that problem. In the seven years they have owned this land, they have paid their taxes as though they were an active 147 unit development. They have contributed 2.546 million dollars to the school, which they will have some impact on, as well as for all the improvements that surround their property. Pulte Homes feels they are entitled to the use of those improvements. The major issues she heard is that there are some existing problems in the neighborhoods -- not enough parking, too much traffic from outside sources, too much influence from a central location by people cutting through the existing neighborhoods -- that only speaks to the attractiveness of the area. It's an unfortunate position they are in being last. They are not going to exasperate the problem, nor should they be held accountable for solving the problems. They are trying to minimize the problems. They came in with a single family proposal because they did not want to create the controversy that is evident at this hearing. They are trying to blend in with the existing fabric of the community. Their project has parking on both sides of the street, there are full length driveways for each and every home, in addition to a 2-car garage. City staff has encouraged them to provide a product that addressed the parking concerns and they felt they did that. She couldn't help the parking needs of everyone else. This was an issue that has been growing for some time. The proposed project meets the needs of the homes they are proposing to bwld. The other issue she head was that they were going to build low priced houses. She didn't bang anything product oriented because the proposal was for a subdivision of land. Until they are at the Design Review Board stage, they are only getting entitlements for 97 lots if approved. The product has not been finalized. A study has been made m the Santiago Hills area by their market research parson and they found the product everyone wants to buy is a single family detached home. They also look at the type of community they propose to build in. There is a condomirnum project to the East. There are single family projects surrounding the project site. They should not be compared to the piece of property that was heard just before this project. They are trying to provide a product at a price that is appropriate for its location. A lot of thought and care were given to their proposed project. They do not have on-site recreational opportunities. But that's a function of the product. The single family detached homes have side and rear yards for people's use. It has been proven people do not want attached homes with open spaces provided. The Irvine Company gave quite a lot of land and open space to the community when the Specific Plan was approved. Densities are higher, lot sizes are smaller and setbacks are a little bit different than found elsewhere. That's because the Irvine Company had provided a lot of recreational and open space opportunities in the community. The proposed property is only a part of the large community that comes with existing entitlements, or up to 15 units per acre. They have met each and every requirement of the Specific Plan. Emergency access was required by the Fire Department; Pulte Homes did not determine that; however, they must comply with their requirements. As far as direct access to the paseo and recreational areas is critical to the project and community, then that is something she would be in favor of. It was her understanding they were to discourage that. This design is a reflection of what they understood to be the City's goals. She was well open to adjustments to make that happen. Commissioner Carlton asked if Pulte Homes had met with the neighbors in a community meeting? Ms. Tabas received a call from one person and they spoke at length two times. 19 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Commissioner Romero said the major concern was a project that fits in with the existing community. Most of the existing neighborhoods have easy access to the Chapman Hills school, parks and recreational zones. He didn't honestly feel she properly addressed the neighbors' concerns with regards to the question, why not? He thought it might be because of pure economics. Small homes with small lots will attract young families whereas the condo/apt. commurnties to the East may attract some kids, but largely will not. Yet, they have open space and recreation facilities. Ms. Tabas wanted to say a couple of things. There were a couple of ways Pulte Homes could provide additional recreation. That is by going to a higher density product where they gang the units into buildings, leaving larger green spaces. Then, there is the condominium project. They could decide to make this a 95 lot protect and add a swimming pool or open space (grass area). Will providing a lawn area meet the requirements of the other neighborhoods? That isn't what she heard. Commissioner Romero heard one comment that 7 areas in Santiago Hills provide 2 ingress/egress with lesser units per acre. Her comment was only one that had one entry/exit. He agreed with the staff report the bulk of traffic will probably access Canyon View, as compared to White Oak to Newport Avenue. But, it is still a fact that more than one entrance/exit would be more desirable. He didn't know how much more additional space that would require -- maybe one full lot, in addition to the fire exit. Ms. Tabas thought they could look at all those issues. They are entitled though to 15 units per acre under the Specific Plan. They would have to consider going back to a product that is condominium. There are some complications and difficulties with timing, etc. Commissioner Romero's original point was blending in with the fabric of the community with the proposed project. Ms. Tabas interrupted him...she thought two entries to one entry, she didn't know because she never compared that point. Recreation on site, she pointed out the expense of a homeowners' association, which was even addressed in the staff report, is a consideration. It would burden the homeowners with an association for what they may consider to be a burden and not worth it. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch had a couple of questions for staff. What, if any, development rights continue to accrue to this property under the Santiago Hills Specific Plan? Please give a brief review of the legal authority of the planrnng Commission as the basis for review of the tract map? Ms. Wolff explained the Specific Plan is the Zoning Ordinance for the property. It contains the list of permitted uses, as well as all the development standards -building, setbacks, heights, etc. -for the property. Those are the rules that govern the project. As far as the Planning Commission's role in the tentative tract process: the Zoning Ordinance states that the Commission is advisory to the City Council. The Commission's lob is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the tract map. Chairman Bosch believed that no previous tract map was ever finaled; therefore, there is no realization of the entitlement in place to build any number of units for this piece of land. Ms. Wolff said there were two tract maps that had previously been approved. But, she was not sure of their status at this point, whether they were still active or not. Mr. Brotherton said state law requires a developer to file a final map within 24 months; however, there is new state legislative actions that extend that for another two years. He believed the prior two maps had expired. Commissioner Carlton was not part of the original master plan and dealings with the Irvine Company. At this point, retrospect or hindsight is easy. It needs to be re-addressed. Her experience in trying to market properties in that neighborhood has been difficult, to say the least for all the reasons that have been stated at this hearing. Other communities have the same stigma on them. She was sympathetic with the builder on the one hand in trying to create a community that they can market and make a reasonable profit on. But she didn't think they have achieved that goal with this tract map. Aside from the parking problems, if there is parking on both sides of the street that will relieve some of it as compared to the communities where there is no parking. She was very much against the size of the rear Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 yards. There are too many developments where the lots are too small and there is no back yard. That's in the past; they've been approved and built. The City needs to look forward. One thing that distresses her about the tract map is the irregularity of the lots. There is one lot that sides up to three other properties -- three properties back up to that on one side. There are several others in there that are maybe twice the size of the other lots. That is not consistent with a good community plan because it will make it difficult in the future to market those properties. They just don't fit in. This is not a site for high end properties; they would not fit in with the existing community. There has got to be a compromise somewhere. She has seen areas where detached homes that are on small lots have been successful and they do include recreation areas. Homeowners do appreciate and will pay for a community facility and/or a tot lot. She would like to see Pulte Homes go back to the drawing board with this project, taking into consideration some of the suggestions and issues that have been raised at this hearing. She appreciated the economics of it; however, she thought they could still revise the map and take a couple of the lots to make at the very least, a tot lot or some park area, and still have a viable project. The project needs to be fine tuned. Commissioner Pruett listened to a lot of testimony and he was not sure whether the issues have been dealt with. These lots are way too small. The density is unacceptable, especially for the size of the units that are being proposed. A 10 foot back yard, with 5 foot side yards and then 15 foot setbacks in the front yard is not acceptable in terms of living conditions without some type of open space. He was almost certain the two previous plans for this site had some type of open space development or some type of open space that was available to the community. They haven't come close to reaching the quality of life that the City would want to create in a single family development. He was not impressed by the proposal and he didn't know how to get around it other than deal with the lot sizes in terms of increasing them, or going back to, as suggested by the builder, a condominium type development that may have more density, but at least would have the open space to serve the people living there. Commissioner Smith was really tired and she didn't know if she made good decisions when tired. She didn't think the project was that bad, but it would have to have some components for it to fly with her. She would like to see the project reduced by two units to provide at least two lots for recreation purposes and open space. There is not enough open space. The lot sizes are very small, but she also thought there was a market for a small lot, with a small house as a starter home. She would insist there be parking on both sides of the street; that there would be a full length driveway for every unit; and that there would be a 2-car garage. That would feasibly provide three on-site parking places, which is over the requirement of two spaces. That would help mitigate the parking situation. That doesn't sound like those are the requirements in some of the adjacent tracts. She would like to have the developer look at the ingress/egress issue, although she heard Ms. Tabas say they have been guided by City staff and emergency services as to what would fly on the project. If they have complied with what they have been guided into, then they cannot be faulted for that. However, it is a concern that many people have raised and it's worth looking into. This has nothing to do with the criteria of decision she could make on this. She looks at the economics of it from a different view point and that is where her children will live if they stay in the City of Orange. Her kids will never be able to afford those houses approved earlier. There is a chance they might be able to afford houses like these being proposed by Pulte Homes. She didn't look at it from the economics of what the developer is going to make or benefit from. There is also an economic market that drives it in favor of the development. She thought the developer had a disadvantage of coming in last. Because there is hardly anything that could be built there that people would really like. She didn't want to vote on this project at this hearing; she wanted to continue it and have the developer look at it again. She would personally not like to see it go to condos; she would rather see it as detached single family homes, but it's got to have some more open space for young families. Commissioner Romero said this project needed more planning, especially addressing the concerns of the residents. He was also open to a continuation, but would go along with the majority of the Commission. Chairman Bosch stated they live to regret what other people before them have done. He thought that was the case with the Santiago Hills Specific Plan. People's best vision at the time was blurred. They didn't have the opportunity to see what would result from this. Thus, this developer is again saddled with being the last one on the block and it makes it horribly difficult. He agreed, there is probably nothing ideal that could be placed on this piece of land given the concept that it won't accept a higher value of residences on the site. He wished it would; maybe it does. Perhaps everyone is over looking that because the numbers are coming down, but they're not looking at the value of the product that goes on it 21 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 to the community as a whole to enhance the overall Santiago Hills community. He thought small lots, if appropriately designed in a community that includes appropriate access to open space and shared community open space within the neighborhood, are acceptable. There is no other purpose for making smaller single family lots than to allow some community resource to be gained by it. He thought the traffic of having a higher density neighborhood, as has been approved here before, is a greater traffic hazard and load on the Santiago Hills than this would be. It doesn't mean this is very good in that regard, but any other, would be much more of a traffic impact. There would be more density in terms of the number of homes, it would be a different housing product. The last one they saw was characterized as court yard homes or clustered patio homes around access paddles with four to six or maybe seven homes on each one, where the kids got to play in the shared driveways, as well as in yards often larger than what appears to be on the proposed lots. They also worried about the available community open space with that project. Even though the density was higher, it had more open space than the proposed project. He thought the layout has suffered greatly because of that. Partly, it's because of the envelope it can fit in. It doesn't relate for most of the houses to the community open space; it doesn't relate to views; it doesn't relate to slopes that might help out. It's all piled in and down into a hollow. That concerns him greatly. A small lot subdivision could be made to work on this land. He was afraid, in his opinion, of going to a couple of recreational lots and an additional access lot, may not do it. He understood there was a good faith effort toward meeting the concerns of the community, as seen by City staff with regard to the impacts of Peters Canyon Regional Park. Staff works to try to gain all viewpoints represent the ordinance, represent the General Plan, represent the impacts on the community and still recognize the developer has a right to come in and try to get the best they can from their viewpoint. It doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with it. There is always one or two more steps (i.e., Planning Commission, City Council and Design Review Board). In his opinion, he doesn't see it working unless there is some reduction in the density for this type of lot to provide for neighborhood open space, and a provision for a second access way. Policing it after the second access way is provided is a difficult one because parking would be poached by other people using the regional park. Maybe permit parking will be introduced in Santiago Hills; that's the price people will have to pay for allowing this kind of density with small lots. That is one of the trade offs to mitigate that, in addition to the shared open space. He didn't know whether the applicant was willing to go back and review how to solve the lack of open space within the neighborhood, and how to solve the secondary access. He felt it was worth a try; he would rather have 93 or 94 units on the parcel, rather than 147 even with the slightly additional private open spaces if they could get the public open space with it. He couldn't ask for a continuance without the agreement of the developer that they are willing to go back and look for a way to make the project work better. If they were not willing to agree with that, he was willing to take action at this hearing. He was willing to look at a slightly higher density project that does provide community open space and solves many of the problems, including parking along the way. He asked the applicant if they were desirous of undertaking a look to see if they could provide some neighborhood open space, solve the access and parking problems, as they continue to massage the lot sizes to try to get more consistency, or did they want to come back with a multiple family project within the density limits? Ms. Tabas agreed to revise their plans to find a way of making it work. They were willing to stipulate to a continuance. They would need at least 30 days; staff would then need to rewew and analyze their revised plans. Chairman Bosch advised the applicant it would be in their best interest to speak to the community along the way to resolve the many problems voiced at this hearing. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Tentative Tract Map 15398 to the meeting of February 3, 1997. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2168-96 -ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The applicant is proposing to locate a new building on the southwest portion of the Orange Unified School District property, near Katella Avenue, to be used as an instructional media center. The site is addressed 1401 North Handy Street. Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 NOTE: Negative Dedaration 1515-96 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, to address the potential environmental impacts of this project. There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Apalicant William Flory, 1401 N. Handy Street, was the Director of Facilities & Planning for the Orange Unified School District. He had a sample of a product they are proposing to use as a substitute for condition 3, where the building review has recommended that they use stucco or "dryvit" finish on the exterior of the building. The issue of the parapet wall still continues to create some consternation for the District. When they originally submitted the color board that was given to City staff and the various groups who looked at their project, they were trying to meet some deadlines. Concept drawings were made and that is what the color board represents. The community focused on open space and how the District would use the school site and still meet open space requirements within the community. Last week, the City Council adopted a Joint Use Agreement which had been approved the prior week by the Board of Trustees for a joint open use space agreement to deal with all the school sites within the community of Orange and support youth activities. That was one of the major hurdles in getting the project approved. To summarize, they have sold the Glassell site. The proceeds from that sale are being used to relocate two operations. One is their instructional media center; the second one is the district warehouse. The warehouse operation will be moving to 726 West Collins, where they have their maintenance and transportation facilities. The instructional media center will be moving to the 1401 Handy Street address. They have proposed that it be made of a modular building, consisting of about 10,000 square feet of pre-fab construction. Because of the nature of the building, which will require an educational process, teachers will be coming in for instructional purposes and the conference room will be used for educational review of student disciplinary issues. The building must go through the State Division of Architect. This will require far more review than what the City requires under condition 4. The State will require a full review of their path of travel on the campus itself, access issues, fire and seismic issues, as well as the foundation and structure of the building. One of the issues that surfaces at that level is a spin off of the Northridge quake. Outside covered walkways, suspended canopies above buildings, and parapets do not move very easily through the State Architect's Office. In fact, the estimates they have received from the mod tech, who gives them the best price for doing modular buildings, adds $100,000 to the cost of the buildings. When they looked at stucco and drivit, that added $200,000. The project will be done from the proceeds of the sale, which will be $750,000 for the job. They expected the cost per square foot to be in the vicinity of about $35/square foot, considering upgrades for the infrastructure that they need to support the District with fiber optics, computer networking, storage and media facilities. The live loads will be in excess of 150 pounds per square foot. It's going to be a pretty sturdy structure. To add stucco and the parapet drove the cost out of their range. There are no tax monies or public monies being used with the project. They need to ask what can they do to meet the community's needs? They've addressed the open space issues. It really comes down to the recommendation of the parapet wall and stucco finish. What they are recommending is consistent with what exists in the neighborhood. Chairman Bosch said their elevation shows a flex tex finish and the rigid frame painted to match the walls, and no bricks at the corners. However, he was looking at a drawing that has brick panels at the corners. Which one is proposed? Mr. Flory responded his architect has not had a chance to put the color panels in, but they agree to put the brick veneer on the corners of the buildings to match the existing style. That would be part of the plan. The only thing they are questioning is the parapet wall requirement at the roof, and the requirement for stucco or dryvit that was forwarded in the form of a condition. They are comfortable with the other conditions and terms. Commissioner Smith asked what the material of the existing building was? Mr. Flory told her they had a combination of surfaces. There were glass walls with aluminum trim and fiber panel inserts at the base. There were stucco surfaces, brick veneer, some brick, ceramic tile, roofing materials with open equipment that is visible from all sides of the site. They do not have buildings with plywood siding. The public hearing was opened. 23 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Public comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, supports the project and encouraged the Commission to approve the conditional use permit. The public hearing was dosed. Mr. Flory wanted to inform the Commission that Orange Unified was growing at about 3.4 percent a year. Last year 850 students came into the District under their open enrollment process. In addition, 400 students came in this year. There are six schools that are over capacity; next year there will be 15 schools. Within a decade, OUSD will be taking that same 3.4 percent growth and pushing 50,000 students. They need places for schools. The Katella site is a ready-made elementary school and can be converted back very quickly to support the educational process. Commissioner Pruett understood Mr. Flory has reviewed the conditions of approval and he was seeking approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions, with the exception of modifying condition 3 and eliminating condition 4. (Right.) In what way did he want condition 3 modified? Mr. Flory referred to the parapet wall requirement and the acceptance of another type of coating rather than stucco and dryvit. Commissioner Carlton asked where the facility would be moved to if it were needed to be converted back to an elementary school? Mr. Flory stated by it being approved, it would have an "A" number, meaning the State would assign it an application number. That qualifies it for consideration anywhere in the District. They do, however, envision it staying at this location. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if they would continue to store all those amounts of film at this location if it were converted to a school use? Mr. Flory said there are a variety of films they have collected over the years for every grade level. They are working towards decentralizing this as they look at digital electronics. They are also looking at their infrastructure throughout the District and how they can tie on fiber optics. They will eventually be able to change the nature of some of that storage and replace it with other equipment. Chairman Bosch asked if it were still a requirement that on an active educational campus they are required to have a certain percentage of modulars that are in the District? Mr. Flory replied yes. Part of the District's requirements is to find funding to build schools. The State can provide some assistance. Because of the resistance to pass Bond issues from the State level, the criteria can be increased, which is frustrating to them. There are a couple of conditions: The class rooms have to be loaded according to the State loading standards, which don't take into effect 1777, which gave schools the option of going 20 to 1. The Office of Local Assistance does the disbursement of monies. Then, there is the Governor's Office. They don't always agree on how things occur. Year round schooling meets some of the criteria to meet the educational needs for students. Thirty percent of the schools need to be on year round programs. New schools being constructed -- 30% of them must be in portable buildings. These modular buildings can then be moved as the population of students shift. Chairman Bosch referred to condition 4 in that the State will be permitting the building. It doesn't matter whether it stays or not; it won't hurt either way. Mr. Soo-Hoo understood there is still a "sorting-out" process with the Building Official, referring to condition 4. He encouraged the Commission leave condition 4 intact just in case it is needed. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1515-96 and finds the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 24 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2168-96 and Minor Site Plan Review 28-96 with conditions 1-9, modifying condition 3 to read: Building elevations shall include a sand texture and elastermic coating finish similar in appearance to the painted stucco walls of the adjacent building I; roof top equipment screens and red brick tnm at building corners shall be similar to the adjacent building I, as proposed by the applicant and represented in building elevations presented to the Planning Commission." The findings for the conditional use permit is that it is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. If granted, it will not cause a deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. The conditional use permit must be considered in relationship to its effect on the community in which it is located. If granted, it should be made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. The Minor Site Plan Review findings include that the project will not cause deterioration of neighboring land uses; that the project conforms to the City's development standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements; that the project will not cause a significant negative environmental impact; that on and off site circulation is adequate to support the project; City services are available and are adequate to serve the project; the project is compatible with the community aesthetics. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, asked if there was a legal way the Commission could require applicants to meet with the neighbors who will be affected by a proposed development? Or, could staff demand of the applicants they meet with the neighbors prior to a hearing date? Commissioner Carlton never got an answer to her question; he knows the applicant never met with the neighbors. Mr. Soo-Hoo suggested staff could "strongly" encourage the applicants, where projects are known to be sensitive, to interact with the community to try to get as much input as possible before a hearing is scheduled. But the bottom line is that it is up to the applicant to choose to proceed how they please. Chairman Bosch said very often it was simply a lack of information or miscommunication. The City can't afford to send a packet and staff report to every household and tell them what is going on. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn the meeting at 12:10 a.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None Commissioner Pruett thanked the Commission and staff on a fine year; he felt it was a good experience in working together and for the work they have done. sld 25