HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1997 PC MinutesMINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
August 18, 1997
Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch Carlton, Romero, Smith ABSENT:
Commissioner Pruett STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Ted Reynolds,
Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum,
Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin,
Recording Secretary IN RE:
ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 4. NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 1526-97 - CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS An environmental
assessment of a proposal to widen The City Drive from SR.22 Garden Grove Freeway to The
City Way/Dawn Way, to create additional travel and turning lanes. This project is in conjunction with the implementation
of mitigation measures contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration 1497-96 (Mills Corporation. )
Staff
was requesting to continue this item for 30 days because the posting of the notice was not completed.
Moved .
by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Negative Declaration1526-97 to the meeting of September 15, 1997.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1997
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue the Minutes of
August 4, 1997 to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2178-97 - SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH
Proposed installation of a modular classroom building as an expansion of an elementary school in a
residential zone. The site is located at 6411 East Frank Lane at the corner of Santiago Canyon Road and
Orange Park Boulevard.
NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15311.
This item was continued from the July 21, 1997 hearing.)
1
Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1997
Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chair Smith conducted the
hearing.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was
waived.The public hearing was
opened.ADDlicant. Brian Dineen. 728 Lemon Hill Trail. said the Commission requested three additional itemsfromSalemLutheranChurchattheprevioushearing: The applicant was asked to present their plan totheOrangeParkAcresPlanningCommittee. That meeting was held on July 30, 1997 and the Minutesareattachedtothestaffreport. They discussed their project and clarified some distorted facts as it relatedtothenumberofstudentswhowouldbeattendingtheschoolonalong-term plan. They receiveda5-0 approval by the Planning Committee for the modular unit at this time, with a condition to sitdownwiththeCommitteeinthenextsixmonthsanddiscussthelong-range plans for theschoolandchurch. The second item was a landscape plan, which was delivered to Planning and copiesweregiventotheCommissioners. The third item was a brief discussion by City staff regardingtheadditionaltrafficandparkingconcerns, which is addressed in the staff report. He thanked theCommitteememberswhometwiththem; it was a good discussion and he appreciated the fact they took the timetodiscusstheplansforthechurchandschool. He also thanked the members of the community and
school for their support.SkiD Ravmond. 6016 Teton Avenue. said the Orange Park Acres Planning
Committee's primary concern seemed to be not the conditional use permit, but what the ultimate growth of thechurchandschoolwasgoingtobe. Salem Church agreed to present to the Committee within sixmonthsalong-range plan.There were questions about the ownership of Frank Lane. The Church ownstwo-thirds of Frank Lane; the other one-third is owned by each of the neighbors who abuttheChurchatthesouthernpropertyline.The Church and those neighbors are responsible solely for themaintenanceandcareofFrankLane. The street
is wider than a normal private drive.Craia Olson. 699 Creekview Drive, said they have been in
a long-range planning mode since 1994 when they recognized they had limited resources in terms oflandandtheywantedtoidentifytheirlong-term needs. They retained Nobles & Associates in 1995 toadvisethemonlanduseandtohelpthemprepareamasterplanwithrespecttotheirrealproperty. They're still in that process with respect to details of buildings, etc. and continue to use theirservices. Since January, 1995, they've had 18 meetings of the Master Plan Committee. Once in mid-1996andthenagaininJanuary, 1997, they met with the Orange Park Acres Association because they feltthecommunityshouldbeincludedintheirplansastheyweredeveloped. They view themodularbuildinQasanintermediatesteptowardstheoverallmasterplan. They
want to
be good neighbors and work With the community.Public comments Bob Bennvhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. OranaeParkAcres, submitted a petition signed July 25, 1997 by residents living next to the school. He felt itwasabsolutelyessentialatsomepointwithinthesixmonthperiodtosetacapontheexpansionoftheschool. A sizable school enrollment could grow over the next fe~ years to
842 children based on the school's current enrollment projections.Commissioner Smith stated a number of lettersweresentinsupportoftheproject. Photos of Frank Lane were also submitted by Mr. Bennyhoff. At the previous hearing a number of letters were submitted in opposition and all
of this correspondence would be entered into the public record.PhiliD Duerr. 2537 East Collins Avenue, clarifiedsomeofthenumbersMr. Bennyhoff spoke of. There will not be several hundred students attending Salem, butamaximumof224morestudentsbytheyear2004iftheyfilledeveryclassroomtoamaximumcapacity. The only increase this year by adding the modular building is 13 students. Hopefully, they will then add yearafteryearamaximumof13to20studentsperyearontheirprojectionstheyseeforthefuture. Their pre-school enrollment is frozen; their kindergarten cannot grow any more. The
only
thing that will grow will be grades 1 through 8.Rebuttal Mr. Dineen thought their calculationsshouldbefairlysimple. They were adding eight classrooms and their goal is to enroll about25
students
in
Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1997
Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Dineen to explain the landscape plan, which he did.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith asked for an interpretation of the traffic analysis from staff.
Mr. Hohnbaum briefly recapped the study, which focused on the two roads, Santiago Canyon Road and
Orange Park Blvd. Currently on Santiago Canyon Road there were approximately 37,500 vehicles per
day as the capacity of that roadway. The current traffic is approximately 18,000 to 20,000 per day,
depending on which direction one would go from Orange Park Blvd. That would relate to a vehicle
capacity ratio of approximately .54 to .48 and both of those numbers are consistent with the level of
service (LOS) A. The vehicle capacity ratios are basically a ratio of the total capacity of the roadway
would be to the amount of traffic that is currently on that roadway. He explained the different levels of
service. Orange Park Blvd. is a two lane roadway and can carry approximately 12,500 cars per day and
they are currently looking at about 2,900 cars per day. It has a very low vehicle capacity ratio of .23 and a
level of service A. And, it will probably remain that way for quite some time. There are no reportable
traffic accidents during the last three years, nor does the County have anything to report. This doesn't
mean there haven't been occurrences, but damage was insignificant. There was also an attempt by staff
to try to equate the total number of trips that is being generated by the school today, and they used the
basic ratios that have been provided to them. Currently, the school should be averagin9 about 1,144
trips per day. With the additional classroom and 25 students, that would add an additional 35 trips,
bringing it up to just about 1,180 trips per day. Frank Lane should easily accommodate 1,180 trips per
day.
Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Dineen if he was aware of the conditions of approval attached to the staff
report and was he in agreement with them? Mr. Dineen replied yes.
Commissioner Romero thanked Salem Church for going through the process of meeting with the Orange
Park Acres Planning Committee. He felt it was very important to work with the local residents and to be
able to come to an agreement. He was willing to approve the request for a modular unit.
Commissioner Carlton felt the same way and wanted to move forward with approval.
It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review.
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2178-97 and the Minor Site Plan Review with conditions 1-7 as presented In the
staff
report.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to
the meeting.3. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-97 - CITY
OF ORANGE A proposal to amend City sign regulations and to allow comprehensive sign
programs affecting commercial developments. Such programs might contain criteria that differ from the
standards contained within the City sign code. subject to review and approval by the
Planning Commission.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.This item was continued from the May 5 and June 16,
1997
hearings.)NOTE:Mr. Jones stated as a result of the previous two meetings, staff focused away from
large scale developments of 25 acres or more and orened it up to commercial uses in general. At the
July 16 meeting. the Commission had a number 0 suggestions on how to revise the ordinance and
staff has modified the existing criteria presented earlier to attempt to address the Commission's
concerns
Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1997
issues. Specifically, the proposal in front of the Commission contains the following elements: This would
be a sign program for commercial centers which deviate from the City's sign code. Applicants may
request a conditional use permit, subject to a number of criteria that would help guide the decision-
making process. Detailed plans would be required for the sign program that would specify the construction
and finish materials, fabrication methods, letters, styles, logograms, color and lighting. The sign
program would be subject to review and recommendation by the Design Review Board. As requested, staff
has clarified that projects in Old Towne would have to comply with the Old Towne sign regulations.
Some flexibility would be allowed in allocating a design area for wall signs within the specified limits, and
also some flexibility with regard to the height of free-standing signs. He referred to Pages 3, 4 and 5
of the staff report. One of the concepts is that the existing code allows a display area on each of
the four building elevations. This proposal is to allow an applicant, subject to a conditIonal use permit
process, to propose that they take the allocated area for each elevation and to have the flexibility to
propose that they be combined into use one, two or three of the elevations instead of just spreading it out
onto four elevations. One of the existing restrictions on commercial property is that an applicant is
allowed free-standing signs that are a maximum height of 15 feet within the front setback area. Anything
higher than that would have to be wall mounted. This provision would allow the applicant to propose up
to a maximum height of 32 feet, which is the maximum building height in a commercial zone. They
would be allowed to propose a sign that would be higher than the 15 feet, but not within the front
setback area.So the concept is to restrict the immediate streetscape to the 15 foot height maximum, but to
allow them back in the areas closer to the building to have a sign at the same height they might be able to
have now if they put a wall sign up. The proposal also talks about the number and spacing of
freestanding signs and alloyiing them some f1exibmty instead of based upon criteria where they are limited to
having the ability to look at adding more signs, as long asthey don't exceed the aggregate or
maximum display area or
structural height.Commissioner Romero referred to Page 4, Item d. regarding three-dimensional wall
signs may extend more than 12 inches from the surface of a wall without being considered a Projecting Sign.
He asked if there was a desire to have a maximum specifically stated (
more thanl1ess than)?Mr. Jones responded the code was clear that an applicant cannot have a projecting sign
that exceeds 12 inches. This was an attempt to factor in some flexibility because projecting signs are
not
allowed by code.The public hearing was re-
opened for public comments.Suzanne Dvells. 8520 Warner Drive. Culver Citv. represented the Mills Corporation
and was the Project Manager for the sign age design effort on City Mills. This process is going to
take several months and they wanted to show support for Planning staff's efforts to expand opportunities
for creativity within the existing sign code. They've attempted to propose some language that was
rather project specific in looking at the larger developments. They agreed with the proposed lanQuage
for a citywide ordinance.They have some fairly unique requirements on their site that do not fall Within
what would be appropriate for a citywide ordinance. They felt the proposed code amendment has taken a major
step in the right direction in terms of providing opportunitIes for the commercial efforts citywide.
They requested the City revisit the idea of providing an alternative for projects of a certain size whereby they
may submit a master sign plan and have those sign plans addressed and reviewed based on
individual merit without the restrictions as su~gested by the proposed amendment. They request this in
order to address some fairly unique situations on the site because of their size and project nature. They will have
a lot of tourists and one-time visitors. They have a two lane perimeter ring road on the
site that will require directional information in excess of what the code now allows. They also have some
traffic control issues that are extraordinary to the site. They are still in a concept design mode as the City
is moving ahead with the code amendments. They would really like to work hand 'n hand with the City
to make sure everyone ends
up with a successful
project.
Jerrv Enoen. One Citv Blvd.. West. was the Vice-President of
the Mills Corporation. Their intent for asking the Commission to possibly revisit the idea of the CUP process
for larger scale projects is not meant to be exclusionary or to play favoritism for large projects, but
projects of this size and dynamics do require signage different from what one would find at a typical strip
center or corner site. Their project is trying to create somethinliJ very unique to Southern California. A sign
program is needed to speak to the tourists and one-time Visitors. People need to readily see
signs and know where they are going.They were also looking at this from a traffic safety standpoint.
They
Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1997
entertainment center and it was important to them to have a vehicle that would allow them to have unique,
special signs.
Commissioner Romero asked if this project would be similar to the Ontario Mills project? Mr. Engen
replied no, not entirely. There would be similar signage in the way the ring road circulation pattern works.
But, this is a much different project and it will have a significant increase in the kind of themed restaurants
and entertainment components that is used to draw a lot of tourism. The total square footage of the
signs could potentially be a concern.
Commissioner Carlton commented the ring road signs at Ontario Mills work very well.
Barbara DeNiro was disturbed with all the discount stores coming in to Orange. She didn't look at
Orange as having anything "quality" any more. They always want something special and refer to cre~tivity,
want an alternative forum, individual merit without restrictions -- she thought they needed to live within the same
code limitations as everyone else does.Jim
Elmore. 2702 Rivertrail. attended the hearing because it was of interest to him since he was in advertising.
He had done some signage work for the Mills Corporation in Ontario and at the same time had
done some work for City Walk at Universal. He thought the success for any project like this lies with the
visibility and direction of its signs. He felt the larger projects needed to be addressed differently.The
pUblic hearing was closed.Commissioner
Smith said the proposed sign code amendment was probably a good idea when they first
started to address the need of signage and advertising on larger projects. But, it has grown beyond the
magnitude of that and she was nervous to accept and approve this ordinance with changes that will undermine
in some way all of the hard work that was done on the existing sign ordinance. She was in favor
of not doing anything at this time and letting the process work as it does. If people want to come in and
offer something different than what the existing sign code allows, they could apply for a variance.This
amendment got too complicated with too many details with more things to disagree on. The fact this can
be accepted by any commercial center troubled her.Commissioner
Romero agreed with Commissioner Smith's comments. He was concerned that the Mills project
was the first large retail property that Orange will have. Orange is experiencing some changes that
are new and it may be wise to take things slowly.Commissioner
Carlton didn't want to be restrictive on something that is unique and potentially successful as
the Mills Corporation. She was willing to continue this or even leave it the way it is. How would applicants
address their signage if the code were not amended?Mr.
Jones explained applicants who wanted to deviate from the existing sign ordinance would have to apply
for a variance and the findings would be the same -- granting a special privilege or special circumstances based
upon size, shape, topography, etc.Chairman Bosch
said by allowing the ordinance to remain in place as it is might not allow for proper evolution of
the sign ordinance relative to changing the nature of land uses in the major commercial areas.He felt
they needed to bridge that somehow to allow creativity with some method of controls to protect the health,
welfare and benefit of the community as a whole. They started talking about size of the commercial property
vs. a zone, which has more legal background in terms of how one equally applies ordinances. He
shared the concern about getting into too great of detail, but at the same time he didn't want to
go too long without getting some more input that allows them to carefully construct a sign program that
is appricable to major commercial centers. He didn't know if staff had a plan to look at that in concert
with reaching out to the commercial property owners in the near future.Mr. Jones
said the difficulty from staff's standpoint is that they had a narrow focus when they started this process. Staff
was looking at this from the perspective that very large scale properties of 25 acres or more are
unique in the City. They often have special circumstances associated with their projects such as directional signage.
This directional signage. though, in the current ordinance is limited to 42 inches in height, five
or six square feet. This will not work for them and it will penalize their project. Staff determined in
their minds there is some justification for dealing with very large properties and unique 5
Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1997
situations. He felt the CUP process would still give the Planning Commission some control and ability to
review these larger projects on an individual basis.
Chairman Bosch felt they needed more time. They had several different sets of sign ordinanC?9s in the
City now or variations to them. He thought the CUP process would be appropriate to allow thiS type of
creative master sign program to work.
Mr. Jones thought the directional signage is an important area that has been overlooked at this point.Staff suggested adding this as an additional area to look at in the existing code to see if.th~re wa~n't
some way to create some flexibility for public safety and convenience, as well as good traffic circulation,
subject to the conditional use permit process. A minimum of 45 to 60 days was needed by staff toaddresssomeoftheseconcerns.
Chairman Bosch also wanted to flush out further the CUP process and how it relates to the requiredfindings, focusing on the zone type as well as size for application. He was concerned about setting a
precedent that is appropriate rather than those that may unravel the ordinance for inappropriate areas oftheCity. And, on the larger parcels, a little more focus on how they are special because of not only thesize, but the distances and separation from private properties and public right-of-ways
which dimension off-site impacts of portions of
the signage program.Commissioner Carlton asked about a specific site plan for the Mills project that would be
outside of the existing code? Would that be viable and how could
that be presented?Mr. Jones explained the Specific Plan process may be a cumbersome vehicle for a sign
program on
the larger projects.Commissioner Smith thought there should be some consideration of the contextofthesurroundings.These projects need to fit in the context of a particular area, neighborhood,
streetscape
and traffic patterns.Moved 'by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-97 for 60 days to the meeting of October 20, 1997, to allow appropriate
time for staff to engage in further discussion and receive input from members of the community
with regard to the proposed sign code amendment, and to respond to further inquiries made
by
the
Planning
Commission.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Romero, Smith None
Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Barbara DeNiro was shocked to hear there was a shooting at the Orange Mall
and there were two escapees from Theo Lacy Jail. She was opposed to the signage and color of thebuildingatthecornerofTustinandKatella. She still had a concern about the A-frame signs and wheretheyaresupposetobeplaced. She always notices the portable signs at Tustin and Collins on the weekendsand
she didn't like It.Chairman Bosch asked staff to report back to the Commissionregarding
enforcement of these
temporary signs.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, toadjourntothenextregularlyschedul~d meeting, Wednesday, September 3, 1997. The meeting adjourned
at
8:
20
p.m.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith
None