Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Smith STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 1993 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of December 6, 1993 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1167-93, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2038-93 - R.F. HERRERA A request to establish a child care center on 2475 Santiago Boulevard. In order to establish this use, the applicant is requesting City approval of a zone change from R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential), and a conditional use permit to convert the existing house from a residential to a commercial use and allow a child care center in the R-3 zone. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1443-93 has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of this project. Joan Wolff of the Planning staff presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this project. The proposal is for property located at 2475 North Santiago Boulevard. The parcel is the most northerly of three properties facing Santiago Boulevard, these parcels being otherwise surrounded by properties oriented toward local residential streets. It is in an area which is zoned R-1, all surrounding parcels zoned R-1-8, 10 or 20 (the numbers referring to the minimum lot sizes permitted in each respective zone). Further to the northwest, along Santiago Boulevard, there are properties zoned OP and CTR developed with office and commercial uses. The application has two components, one to change the zone of the property from R-1 to R-3, and the second, to establish a child care center. The applicant has stated that his sole objective is to build and operate a child care center. However, because child care centers are not allowed in the R-1 zone except when incidental to a church, the applicant has also requested approval of a zone change for the property. If the zone change is approved, then any use allowed in the R-3 zone would be permitted on the property. Uses allowed in the R-3 zone include apartments and condominiums. The city's General Plan limits the density on this property to a maximum of three units. Any proposal to build more than three units would require the City to approve a general plan amendment, which requires public notice and public hearings. The Planning Commission determination on this project should address the zone change. If the zone change is acceptable, then the use and site plan should be considered. There have been a number of phone calls as a result of the noticing of the project, and the number one concern seems to be traffic safety. In staff's evaluation of the project, safety was the first concern also. The project location on the curve, the limited visibility, the traffic volume and speed are all significant factors to consider in approving any new use and site plan. The plan before the Commission is the result of approximately two months of prolect revisions. The applicant understood staff's concerns, and revised the plan several traffic. He designed a one way circulation pattern that loops the driveway around the rear of the building, and provides what staff feels is adequate stacking area for cars, and orients the parking lot in a manner that provides maximum separation between the parking lot maneuvering (backing up, etc.) and the traffic flow on the street. Given the site constraints and the applicant's objectives, staff feels the site plan will work. With the pro1'ect modifications that are indicated on the final site plan and the mitigation measures recommended in the Negative Declaration, the staff Environmental Review Board concludes that the project will not have a substantial impact on the environment. The Commission must first take action on the Negative Declaration, then the zone change and conditional use permit. The Commission should note that a recommendation to approve the zone change goes forward to City Council for final determination. However, a Planning Commission vote for denial is final unless appealed. Mr. Godlewski stated two letters were received from Edward Howard 111 and Jeff Lawrence expressing their concern about the project. The letters were distributed to the Commissioners for their review. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Rick Herrera, 2569 Robinhood Place, said his wife has been in child care for about 18 years and it is their desire to operate a child care facility. His wife would run the operation. They propose to care for approximately 60-70 children. They would expand the existing building 1,000 square feet . Hours of operation would be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years. He saw the letters that were addressed to the staff and Planning Commission. The letters inferred he may have an ulterior motive other than the child care center. His proposal is to obtain a zone Change in order to build a pre-school; not to build apartments. The second issue is the traffic and safety and he thought that was addressed very well in the staff report. They have made about 18 different changes to their plan design since submitting it to the City and the revised set of plans will meet the traffic/safety problem. Peak hours would be 6:30 to 9:00 a.m. and from 2:30 to 5:00 p.m. He thought the streets could handle it. There would be no weekend traffic or late night traffic. During the summer limited enrollment would reduce traffic as well. To the west of the property is a 400 foot high slope which separates them from the existing homes. That's a distance that mitigates certain problems with noise for the children and homeowners. Santiago to the east is bordered across the street by a six foot high wall in the back yards of other residents who take their access on Robinhood, which is approximately 300 feet to the north; thus, there is a lesser impact. The person that is impacted is Mr. Howard who lives directly to the south and they want to meet with him. They think they can work something out with him. Mr. Howard will be affected in much the same way as homeowners who might live next to a school. These are conditions that exist in the City, but they're not conditions that are so detrimental that it makes life impossible. Those speaking in opposition Grace Howard, 2459 Santiago Boulevard, will be directly impacted by the construction of the child care center. Her son wrote a letter and she wanted to touch on a few things. They were never notified of the meeting by Mr. Herrera or the City, which has upset them very much. They have lived there since 1976 and it has been a positive experience (and it has changed). She's for change, but the right change. They will be impacted if there is a child care center, by changing the zoning to R-3. She is in property management and has been since 1977. She is a supervisor of apartments in Anaheim (AIM) and they know that's where the problems begin. There is no guarantee that once the zoning is changed that it would stay a child care center. A child care center also has a lot of negatives for them. Traffic and the blind curves on Santiago is dangerous. The children's play area is right along Santiago Boulevard. It's not an area for children to be playing. Mr. Herrera never attempted to speak to them. They would have been glad to speak to him; they would have tried to save him a lot of trouble because it really is not a good place. She wants to live in a residential area -- not a commercial area. There are other commercial areas the facility can be built on or R-3 zoning is already in existence. It isn't fair to come into a neighborhood and change it. Robert Reoch, 2317 Robinhood Place, spoke for all his neighbors who were opposed to the project and he submitted a petition of 36 names to the Commission. They want to keep their single family residential neighborhood. Jim Robertson, 2287 Robinhood Place, addressed traffic safety issues as he recently retired from the Placentia Police Department with 28 years of traffic experience. According to the Orange Police Department, since January, 1990 there have been 8 recorded accidents at the corner of Denise and Santiago or thereabouts. That's two doors south of where the applicant is proposing the zone change. There have been many accidents and near-accidents that have gone unreported. Since January, 1990, 2 there have been 141 accidents between Meats and Nohl Ranch Road. There are 361 miles of streets in the City. Since that time frame there have been 7,500 accidents. That's a factor of .4, or a little less than 1 /2 accident per mile average in the City of Orange. There have been 141 accidents per mile in that mile. There is an existing problem. To change the zone to permit this kind of use would exacerbate an existing problem. Dave Carson, 2568 Ridgecrest Lane, submitted 57 names on a petition opposing the zone change. There are 4 child care centers already in the immediate area. It's not necessary for another child care center in this area, especially with the dangers already mentioned. Steven Lincoln, 2275 Robinhood Place, contacted 15pre-schools in the general area and all but two had openings for children. It's too much of a risk to allow a day care center at this location. The residents would like to keep the area R-1. Genieve Conner, 2295 Robinhood Place, bought her home in a residential area; she pleaded for them not to take away her home and turn the neighborhood into commercial. The traffic is outrageous and they don't need a day care center in the area. Rose Sorensky, 2354 Robinhood Place, was directly concerned with child care because she was a supervisor for a child care program at a school district where they have 72-90 children. Children make a lot of noise. You also need to consider the parents coming and going at all hours of the day. The area is not safe for a day care center. Rebuttal The applicant did not make any comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart thought the quality of life was very important and it was something the Commission looked at seriously in a consistent manner. Regarding the existing traffic problems, the neighbors have a real problem and he thought the Traffic Department and Engineering should look into it and find out if there is anything that could be done to change that dangerous condition. He's against spot zoning (especially one that doesn't fit). He's not against child care facilities. He would like the Herrera's to find a place for their day care center, but this is not the place. Chairman Bosch stated Santiago Boulevard is not a street that is a transitional street or transitional use. The area is residential with a very busy street serving the area. This particular site for any use other than a very low density is totally inappropriate, particularly with regard to the curve and to the concept, regardless of the zoning, of small children in a front yard situation in proximity to this degree of traffic. Also because of the impacts upon the neighbors. The residents were there first. This is not apre-existing condition where the neighbors move in afterwards. This would be a significant impact on the neighbors. He, too, is a strong advocate of good child care in the community and a good proximity to work patterns. But this is one that has far so many more negative impacts than positive that it simply can't be allowed to go ahead. The spot zoning is not in accordance with the sound principles of land use and is even marginally legally appropriate if at all. Commissioner Pruett said the point was made the area had changed and it has changed from the standpoint of traffic on Santiago. But he also thought because of the additional traffic it doesn't necessarily mean the neighborhood has changed. The community is still residential in nature. Re-zoning the property would be a mistake. Commissioner Walters is a long time supporter of day care centers and he helped build one, but he thought this one was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He couldn't support spot zoning in a residential neighborhood. The zone change requirement has failed so he will not support the application. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny Zone Change 1167-93 and Conditional Use Permit 2038-93. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny Negative Declaration 1443-93 and find that there are significant environmental impacts. There are conditions that cannot be mitigated given the potential use proposed for the property. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Mr. Godlewski stated the action taken by the Planning Commission, because it was an action to deny the project, means the zone change and conditional use permit will die at this point unless appealed by the applicant or someone else. He explained the appeal process to the applicant. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2045-93 -DAVE FREIMANN A request to allow the installation and use of a new lighting system to permit the night use of the country club's driving range. Subject property is an 8.8 acre site located west of Ridgeline Road and south of Coyote Lane (the northwest portion of the Ridgeline Country Club). NOTE: Negative Declaration 1444-93 has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of this project. Commissioner Cathcart excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Dave Freimann, 115 Harbor Island Road, Newport Beach, explained the purpose of his application was to establish a night driving range facility at Ridgeline Country Club in limited scope. They presently have three tier levels at Ridgeline and are requesting to be able to light the upper tier area. They would like to provide Ridgeline with the ability to teach night golf. This would allow them to provide the same type of classes as they do with their tennis academy. They have experienced some severe loss of business as a result of business and the number of night driving ranges that have opened in the immediate area. They feel this would be a tremendous benefit to the community. They've worked several months with the Orange Park Acres Association in designing a situation that would be beneficial to the community and feasible to them from a business standpoint. The immediate homeowners have been contacted, as well as the homeowners association. Everyone voices their support; no one has objected to the lights. They request the night lighting be terminated an hour earlier than their existing night lighting, which consists of 112 lights on the tennis court area. The applicant made one additional request regarding condition 3 -- he asked if they could comply with the existing City of Orange standards of 0.5 foot-candles at any property line around the perimeter of the driving range rather than 0.2. Commissioner Walters asked if the existing the 112 light fixtures on the tennis courts were shielded now? No, they're not.) How many feet from the nearest of those lights lies the new light structures? (The first light structure would be approximately 35 feet.) How many feet from there is the nearest adjacent neighbor? (Approximately 400 feet. The actual house would be 750 feet.} Chairman Bosch asked if it were Mr. Friemann's desire to use the lights until 9:00 p.m., 7 days a week? Correct.) He noted the proposed condition did not have a stipulation to that. Did the applicant have a problem with the 9:00 p.m. shut off time? (No, it was fine.) Those speaking in favor Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said the Association gave this project considerable study. The applicant came to them some time ago with three ideas. One was the additional lighting to allow more driving range capacity; another one, was a miniature golf course and the other was batting cages. The miniature golf course died a quick death, the batting cages died a slower death and they agreed to support the driving ranges. He has been hurt by the additional driving range capacity. Mr. Freimann has done a lot of good work with the children of the area and the community. As long as the people who live on Ridgeline, above the lights, haven't been complaining, they feel this will not add additional glare to the area (as long as they are shielded). The public hearing was closed. 4 Commissioner Walters said the problem he sees in holding a tighter than City code restriction on the 0.5 light as opposed to the 0.2, being a resident up there, he had to believe that the present tennis court lights on the adjacent property some 400 feet away probably push the 0.5. If he was correct, then the condition of 0.2 while that might be the technical plan of the additional lights, the over lighting of the tennis lights he suspects would raise that easily above the 0.2. He thought the key ingredient was to seta 0.5 City standard which exists as a classification because it has to take into consideration those other lights. The new lights will be over awed by the present light structure; therefore, shielding might be needed on the existing lights. Chairman Bosch agreed. If there was a motion to approve the project, he would support amending condition 3 to 0.5 foot candles and also adding condition 5 stating something to the effect that illumination shall be allowed seven evenings a week, from sunset to 9:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept Negative Declaration 1444-93 in that it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2045-93, with the conditions as stated in the staff report, but amending condition 3 to 0.5 foot candles and deleting 0.2 foot candles; and adding condition 5 restricting the use of the lights to 9:00 p.m., 7 days a week. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Cathcart returned to the meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2046-93 - CAREMARK INFANT CARE SERVICES A request for the conversion of an office building to a pediatric rehabilitation hospital intended to serve approximately 15 infants at a time. Subject property is an existing building in the Park Orangewood office development between the 57 Freeway (Orange) and Eckhoff Street, addressed 2211 Orangewood Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. Mr. Godlewski was approached by the fire department and building before the meeting and they were concerned that the applicant understand that such a conversion, as requested, may require some additional building and fire code construction standards. He thought the applicant was aware of their concern, but they should be questioned to see whether or not they understand the implications. There was no opposition; therefore, the public hearing was opened. Applicant Robert Le Winter, 12282 Menuda Panorama, Santa Ana, noticed the Commission was concerned about the landscaping of the property. One of the reasons they chose this area was really because of the lush landscaping. They originally planned to put the facility in Santa Ana, but found Park Orangewood, which had a residential feel to it, even though it was an office complex. The facility will be used as a 15 bed pediatric rehabilitation hospital, which will provide services for low weight and premature infants with various medical conditions of anon-emergency nature. The care rendered in the facility will permit parents to bond with their babies at a much earlier time and train parents so they will be able to care for their babies when they are discharged. Their facility is based on an unique program that they found in Pennsylvania. It has been in operation for about six or seven years. Over the last year and a half they have had many meetings with the Department of Health Services in California because they're very concerned about the high cost of care for the babies. And the fact these kind of babies are re-admitted to medical facilities approximately 2.8 times during the first year they leave the neo-natal intensive care unit of the hospital. The facility in Pittsburgh has been able to show by helping to bond the parent with the baby, the baby is better taken care of at home and the added medical care is really not needed. Chairman Bosch had several questions. One is to find out exactly what this was. This is being put forward as a rehabilitation hospital. Is it their intent to receive approval of the Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development facilities planning section and Department of Health licensing and certification for this as a licensed facility? You will be receiving building permits through that organization rather than the City as a hospital. Mr. Le Winter said they had to have that. If this program proves that they can do what they say it can do, this program will be taken nationally. Caremark is a Fortune 500 company and they provided the funds for the program. Chairman Bosch asked if Mr. Le Winter was aware of all the conditions they mi ht place in terms of cost and construction that go with the health and safety requirements for a hospital? Yes.) Mr. Le Winter explained his background. He was a partner in this venture. On November 1 he retired from the University of California after 24 years with the University; for 14 years he was an associate director of the UCLA Medical Center. He was a pharmacist by educational training, but has been in medical and hospital administration for approximately 30 years. For the last two years he has been at UC Irvine working for the division of neo-natal medicine as a Program Manager. This facility came out of discussions about what they could do to take better care of the babies and help parents take care of the babies when they leave the hospital. He is familiar with the Department of Health Services and the difficulties they will face in getting the facility licensed before they will be able to use it. They plan to spend $700,000 in renovating the facility so that they can meet the demands of the Department of Health Services, the State Fire Marshal and the local fire department. Chairman Bosch asked if he would be opposed to a condition of approval that requires approval of their plans and construction by that Department prior to occupancy? (Not at all.) Chairman Bosch asked why Mr. Le Winter felt, in addition to the very nice environment that is present on the site, that he believes this is an appropriate use for the neighborhood/area? Mr. Le Winter said in looking for an area to place the facility, they did not want to impact a residential neighborhood; they wanted to have freeway access. He has a letter from the pastor of the church (next door neighbor) supporting the use, saying they would be a good neighbor for him. He submitted that letter to the Commission for the record. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2046-93 with the one condition listed in the staff report and add a condition stating, "Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, provide evidence of plan approval by Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development facilities division and California Department of Health, Licensing and Certification division. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2044-93 - INZONE SPORTS TAVERN, INC. A request to re-open a restaurant (formerly Cask n'Cleaver) that will include activities such as live entertainment, dancing, billiards, shuffleboard, and serving of alcoholic beverages. Also to allow for the live entertainment, dancing, billiards, amusement devices, and on-sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the operation of a bona-fide restaurant. Subject property is addressed 970 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental duality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. 6 Applicant Michael Brantley, 2111 Valley Road, Costa Mesa, said this was an existing restaurant that has been closed for 18 months. He was the General Manager for Spoons Restaurant on Tustin and that's how he found the building. It has been his life ambition to be an owner of his own restaurant. He has been in restaurant management for 10 years and was in operations for five years before that. Commissioner Cathcart asked Mr. Godlewski if the applicant was aware of the additional condition? (No.) The City Attorney has asked the Commission to consider an additional condition and he wanted the applicant to read it. (He did not have a problem with the condition.) Chairman Bosch commented that condition 10 interested him as a potential precedent and he was not for condition 10. This would require store front windows essentially into any business that sells alcoholic beverages or has pool tables to allow day time and after hours policing. He thought it was an extraordinary imposition as it is inappropriate for the clientele and atmosphere. Commissioner Cathcart concurred. While he thought the Police Department was well meaning, there is a right to privacy; an ambiance is diluted when you do that. He also would like to see the condition removed. Commissioner Walters understood the applicant to say he did not have amusement devices and/or coin operated games. (Correct.) He thought it appropriate to delete conditions 4 and 11. He didn't mind if condition 13 stayed, but he didn't understand the intent of it, nor did he grasp a clear vision of what its terms actually mean. Commissioner Cathcart thought condition 14 was to encompass condition 13 and any other elements. Chairman Bosch read the proposed condition 14 into the record: "Applicant shall not operate an "adult enterprise" as defined in Section 17.44.050 of the Orange Municipal Code." Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2044--93, deleting conditions 4, 10 and 11; and adding condition 14 as read into the record. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1446-93 -PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT This negative declaration evaluates the environmental consequences of installing a 30" diameter storm drain pipe on Maple Avenue, from Batavia Street east to the AT&SF Railroad right-of-way. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Johnson explained the storm drain will run on the north side of Maple, from Batavia to the west side of the railroad tracks where it will be joined by the restoration of an existing main that the railroad will install. The project is being financed from CDBG funds and will benefit the low-income target area. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board in that Negative Declaration 1446-93 will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 7 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting January 17, 1994. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. sld 8