Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-1997 PC MinutesC..:?500_&.:2. ~ MINlJTES Planning Commission City of Orange February 3, 1997 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2170-97 - ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL The applicant is requesting a permit to allow shared use of parking for three office buildings, If approved, individual tenant spaces within any of the three office buildings could be converted from general office to medical office use. The three properties are addressed 505 South Main Street, 1140 and 1120 West LaVeta Avenue,NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a).A letter was received from Jim Beam, on behalf of the St Joseph Hospital. They have requested a continuance to February 19, 1997,Chairman Bosch said he may have an economic conflict of interest with regard to Sf. Joseph's Hospital and would abstain from discussion or action on this item, He turned the Chair over to Vice-Chairperson Smith in terms of the continuance request Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero. to continue Conditional Use Permit 2170-97 to the meeting of February 19. 1997, AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED:Commissioners Carlton. Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINlJTES FOR THE MEETINGS OF 1/6/97 and 1/20/ 97.Moved by Commissioner Smith. seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of 1/6/ 97 and 1120/ 97. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION Planning Commission Minu1es February 3, 1997 IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15398 - PUL TE 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 minimum lot size is approximately 3,000 square feet. NOTE: EIR 868 was previously certified for the overall Santiago Hills development, including this project sije.This ijem was continued from the December 16. 1996 hearing,)Mr. Jones presented a detailed staff report as there was opposition to this ijem. The initial proposal was to subdivide the 11 acre parcel into 97 lots for detached single family homes, The typical lot size was proposed as approximately 3,000 square feet, with the overall residential density at 8.8 units per acre.There was one roadway providing vehicular access from White Oak Ridge, and there was an emergency easement connection provided off of Old Camp Road. This tract map does propose public streets,with no recreation area or direct access to the paseo from the tract. The project site is within the boundaries of the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan area of the Santiago Hills. It does designate the property for medium density residential development of 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development complied with all of the development standards contained in the Specific Plan. At the December 16 hearing, there were a number of Santiago Hills residents who attended the meeting and expressed concerns with the proposed project. Approximately 14 people addressed the Planning Commission with a number of issues. Those issues have been outlined in the staff report. There was a concern about the lots being too small; no place for children to play; the tract should have at least two access points; traffic was identified as an existing problem and this project would increase neighborhood traffic; it was felt parking could be a problem due to the adjacent regional park; and that parking in the tract might be inadequate. There was concem the project might negatively impact property values of existing homes and might contribute to school overcrowding. The Planning Commission, after closing the public hearing, discussed this and had a number of concerns themselves, They continued the item to allow time for the applicant to address the concerns of the community, The Commission had four concerns: The lot size and open space; the tract was designed to attract families, yet the size of the homes would leave minimal yard areas for recreational purposes; a direct connection from within the tract to the paseo would be desirable; that the developer should consider decreasing unit density and provide some type of common recreational facility internal to the tract; and also the developer should try and massage the plan to achieve greater consistency among lot sizes. Some of the Commissioners indicated a preference for a second entrance into the site and asked the applicant to look at that There was some discussion regarding the adequacy of parking provided within the tract and they were asked to look at that as well. There was some concern about whether or not this tract related well to the community open space and surrounding area. The center of the tract was noted to be somewhat depressed with surrounding homes at higher elevations, The applicant was asked to look at that concern, The applicant did note there had been an error made on earlier engineering plans and that the grading concept would be revised to address that A letter was received from Pulte, dated January 24, 1997, which ou1lines a number of project revisions they undertook. In terms of the lot size, with the previous proposal they did have a few lots that were less than 3,000 square feet. Now, all lots are 3,000 square feet or greater. Most of the lots are 3,000 to 3, 600 square feet, with the average lot size at 3,500 square feet. In terms of open space, no common open space areas have been provided within the tract. It remains as originally proposed, There is no proposed homeowners association for this tract The applicant feit there was no need to create a facility fortheopenspacecomponent. The applicant has created a connection from Street A, identified in the sije plan to the paseo, which is just north of Old Camp Road cui de sac, to provide this internal connection to the paseo. It's proposed as a ten foot wide trail, identified as Lot C on the plan. The reason the applicant is locating it closer to Old Camp Road rather than more centrally between Old Camp Road and White Oak Ridge is that the grade or elevation changes as you proceed northwesterly,andtheylocatedtheconnectioninthisareatominimizethegradingdifferentialbetweenthepaseoandthe trail, In terms of vehicular access, they have created a second public access off of Old Camp Road and they have eliminated the emergency access easement. In terms of parking, they identified that each lot would have its own 2-car garage, which meets the parking requirement. They have provided a 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 minimum of 18 foot long driveways that will provide additional on-site parking spaces, The streets will be public and public parking spaces will be allowed on both sides of the street. They estimated that at 93 on-street parking spaces, In terms of the relationship to the surrounding community, the central portion of the tract, called Lot Street D, is no longer at a lower elevation than the surrounding lots. It has been raised and there is an elevation change now that gradually increases as you go from the west to the east,and from the south to the north. The density of the project has not changed.The Commission should also have a letter from the Santiago Hills Action Committee, dated January 21,1997, which summarizes the understandings they felt they had reached with Pulte Homes at a community meeting between Peggy Tabas of Pulte Homes and 16 representatives from the community.The public hearing was opened,ADDlicant Peggy Tabas, Pulte Home Corporation, 3 Corporate Plaza, Suite 203, Newport Beach, has reviewed all the conditions, including the two conditions from the Traffic Engineer, and agrees with each of them.Commissioner Romero referred to the community meeting that was held and asked what her position was with their comment on the relocation of the new entry?Ms, Tabas said the new entry was discussed at the community meeting. She explained the entry was in the most optimum location for the site plan, If moved to the north. it would interrupt the flow of the loop system and they would end up losing a lot to accommodate that entry, The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed location.Commissioner Smith said one of the concems that has remained unaddressed is the inclusion of open space, What was the applicant's rationale for not including open space in the project?Ms, Tabas provided additional information to the Commission. The burden of a homeowners association to maintain a separate open space within the neighborhood -- they saw it more as a burden than a benefit. They informally polled the people who attended the community meeting and they were opposed to a homeowners association for a tot lot. There is a great paseo in the community in which people can walk to the park and to the school site. The park has a tot lot and picnic area, It is very much used and enjoyed by people in the community, There are also a number of equestrian and biking trails -- many opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of open space in Santiago Hills, There are three other sites in the community that have developed with single family residential homes, ranging in size from 3,000 to 4,200 square feet, in which their sole open space is a connection to the paseo, One tract has a private street system and a homeowners association, She felt their project was very compatible with the community, and it has improved since their original proposal. It will be very successful after build out. Public Comments Gary Samaha, 187 South Shadow Pines Road, wanted to be clear that the elements in the letter they sent to the Planning Commission as a result of the community meeting with Pulte Homes, will in fact be taken into consideration and implemented as this project goes forward, They understand Peggy Tabas was in agreement with their concerns and would implement them, They also understood there would be subsequent meetings in which the community could address other concerns as the project moves forward, Mr. Jones explained the Planning Commission's motion would be a recommendation to the City Council for their final action. Following that, the approval process would include the Design Review Board reviewing the elevations and the landscaping and other elements of the project That's the next public process, but it is not the same format as the Planning Commission. Notices are not sent out. Staff does post the meeting and there is a DRB Agenda. The DRB will be looking at design elements and making sure that all of the conditions that relate to design will be followed and complied with. In the Santiago Hills letter Points 3 and 4 talk about the landscape walls and hardscapes, Those are accommodated by condition 3 in the staff report, The DRB will be reviewing and acting upon specific proposals, The first comment says you like the second access point onto Old Camp Road, However, you would prefer to see it located further away from Canyon View, That is an issue that will be resolved at this hearing before the Planning Commission, or at least a recommendation in terms of where that access point should be. 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 The Traffic Engineer has reviewed it and feels from a traffic circulation standpoint, it works fine as proposed, City staff did not have a problem of where it is located, The second point is about a pedestrian walkway to the paseo will be added, The developer has added that There was a requestforapaintedcrosswalkandcautionsignstobeaddedacrossWhiteOakRidgetomaintainsafetyfor access to the elementary school and parks, Mr. Hohnbaum responded to the request for the crosswalk, In reading their letter, it was not quite clear as to the exact location of the crosswalk, But he assumed it would be an extension of the paseo walkway, (Correct.) It's City policy not to put crosswalks in mid-block or at uncontrolled intersections,Vehicles are not intending to stop at those locations. A painted stripe does not provide the adequate form of protection, For that reason staff would not recommend placement of a white- striped crosswalk,Mr. Samaha asked if it were possible to implement a crossing guard there even if there was not a crosswalk?Mr. Hohnbaum replied that could be an option,Mr. Jones explained Mr, Samaha would need to send a request to the City Traffic Engineer for the Traffic Commission to consider a crossing guard,Mr. Jones addressed point 5 -- homes would be placed on lots that were approximately 3200 to 3300 square feet, with front setbacks of at least 18 feet and rear yards of at least 15 feet in depth, He talked with the applicant to verify this concern, He stated earlier the average lot size is 3500 square feet, with the primary range being 3000 to 3600 square feet The front setback to the garages is a minimum of 18 feet, or 23 feet from the curb (but 18 feet from back of sidewalk). The living areas are allowed to within 15 feet of the front property line, as opposed to 18 feet for the garage. The majority of the rear yards will be at least 15 feet, but the applicant indicated there will be at least a few homes that would probably be closer than 15 feet in terms of the rear yard, The Specific Plan does allow them to come within 10 feet of the rear property line. They indicated. however, most of them would exceed or be at 15 feet Point 6 talked about adequate parking for residential guests to be provided in garages, driveways and on streets in front of the homes within the development. Each house will have a 2-car garage, each will have a 2-car driveway and the applicant has estimated that the total parking on street is 93 spaces for the 97 lots. It is a .96 car per lot ratio provided for on-street parking. The community alsohadafinalparagraphthatindicatedsomeconcernsregardinglandscapingofbackyardswhichfaceontoor are visible from the paseo, Staff doesn't have any comments on that. It's not typically somethingtheCitywould !let Involved with in terms of requiring how somebody plants their rear yard area. He didn't think the SpeCific Plan addressed that either. In terms of restricted working hours for construction and hauling crews. the City ordinance exempts noise sources associated with the construction, remodeling, or grading of any real property so that they will not occur between the hours of 8:00 p,m, and 7:00 a,m, Another way of saying that is, construction hours are limited to 7:00 a,m. to 8:00 p.m, That is a citywide application, They also desire additional community meetings, Everyone will be notified when this project is to go before the City Council, There is no mechanism to notify people when the project will beheardbytheDesignReviewBoard, other than he would be happy to notify a representative from the Santiago Hills Community when that meeting occurs,Mr. Samaha said there was a reference earlier to the change in elevation,Mr. Jones said one of the earlier engineering plans showed a depression in thecenteroftheprojectThathassubsequentlybeenaddressedbytheapplicantthroughthegradingplansthat show more of a consistent elevation change as you move from east to west, and from north to south so there is not a bowl-shaped community, Jt sits in more consistent with the topography of the area,There was no rebuttal from the applicant The public hearing was dosed,Commissioner Carlton thought the landscaping of the back yards could be handled by the CC&R's. She has seen that in other developments where the homeowners are required to landscape whether they are open to a paseo or not She was concerned about people crossing thestreetShewalkedthepaseotothepark; it took about 15 minutes. She didn'f walk fast or slow; just at a normal pace, She was concerned about little children taking that long to get there, It looked like there was Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 little bit of vandalism on the paseo -- a couple of shopping carts were laying on their sides and there was some trash, She didn~ know who maintains the paseo, It ties in with the kids going from the proposed development and it's quite a distance, They have to cross a busy street. She knows people who live up in that area and that's a very busy street Cars go flying around those corners. What can be done to ensure the safety of children crossing the street in that area? The open space bothered her. She would like to see Lot 93 cut in about two-thirds and Lot 94 be made into open space. That would solve the problem, The applicant would only lose one lot initially and there would be a fairly decent size open space for recreation in the center of the tract The kids would not have to cross the busy street. If each homeowner were charged $10 a month, that's almost a $1,000 and that would be enough to maintain that open space for children to play in their tract. She thought this plan was much improved from the first time they reviewed it. Commissioner Smith thought this was a much improved plan over the first plan the Commission saw, She complimented the community and developer for their great efforts at communicating and meeting each others' needs. She still held the concern about not enough open space, but she asked the developer not to feel singled out because she always presented this concern, She thought of taking a couple of lots on opposite ends of the site, but she liked Commissioner Carlton's idea of one larger lot She didn't like the way people would have to cross the street to get to the open space areas, She drove the entire Specific Plan area with the map in hand, She was really struck by the lack of open space in all the developments, Just because they are not there doesn~ mean that is okay, They have learned a lot of things from the development out there, She saw some driveways that were two feet long; maybe not even two feet. That will not be allowed again. She was concerned about the proposed tract not having open space because it is a distance away from the park. She was looking at the young families with babies in strollers, toddlers -- that's too far to walk for tiny kids, She would be very much in favor of accepting the plan as it is, but with development of one lot as an open space or tot lot. She appreciates there is a paseo, but it is a limited stretch on this border. Old Camp Road takes a considerable amount of space there,Commissioner Romero also thanked the developer for the changes on the proposed tract His concern was with the ingress/egress being too close to Canyon View, He understood the developer's viewpoint of a homeowners' association, even though he felt the development should have some open space,Commissioner Pruett was very pleased with the plans and the work that has gone into making these changes, It has come a long way, He had some questions which needed to be directed towards staff,He also expressed the concern about open space at the last meeting, but he saw the Specific Plan that also includes open space, His question relates to the issue of the Specific Plan, of which this tract is a part of. And the open space has already been provided for in the SpecifiC Plan, The condition that is being discussed for additional open space -- he would like clarification and understandin\l ofwhat is being looked at and what they're able to do in terms of looking at the proposed project This IS something that has not been dealt with before,Mr. Jones explained the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan was put together in 1984 or 1985, The land owner/developer was the Irvine Company. He was not present at the time, but has read through the Minutes and talked to other staff, One of the issues dealt with the open space and density components,The Specific Plan was quite unique in the City in the sense that most of the City was built out with probably 6, 000 square foot lots or larger in terms of single family detached homes, Here was a request to build smaller detached lots, which they had already previously developed in the City of Irvine. One of the major trade offs for that was a creation of a open space and park system throughout the community that then exceeded typical standards the City would apply to a similar size tract that was building traditional, 6, 000 square foot lots. Some of the trade offs included the creation of the paseo. the Handy Creek Greenbeltareathatrunsthroughtheproject. as well as the eight acre park, That was conceived and envisioned back then. He could not find anything in the Specific Plan that specifically says you can't have homeowner associations or common recreation areas, That is something that falls within the purview of the Planning Commission, In general, this 230 acre site was built out to create more open space areas, which has been done, And, at the same time, it allows a higher density and unique product types that the Specific Plan allows to go down to 2400 square foot single family lots, That's the basic concept of small lots being allowed as a trade off for the greater open space that is provided overall.Mr. Soo- Hoo touched on the legal aspect He did not recall enough of the details of the Specific Plan,but what it boils down to is, if the Specific Plan does not preclude it, then certainly the City of Orange has the ability to impose certain design criteria on the subdivision, which would include a certain amount of 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 open space element. That's with the understanding that it is not specifically precluded by the Specific Plan itself. He deferred a great deal to Mr. Jones' observation regarding the overall perception of open space for the entire Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan. and the apparent attempt to address the open space need on a general basis. As far as lEl9al authority is concerned, unless there is something specifically to preclude the Commission from dOing it in the Specific Plan, the Commission has the ability to incorporate open space into the discussion, Chairman Bosch started with the open space issue and explained the history of it. Again, the Specific Plan was developed before he joined the Commission, but he followed its development and a lot of activity since in this area and other Specific Plan related work in the City and elsewhere, He had a bit of a hard time on both ends of the spectrum, One, he was a strong advocate of open space, but he sees open space ranging from the patios and private open spaces adjacent to a dwelling unit up through the connective links to more neighborhood and community sized open spaces, As had been planned and implemented in Santiago Hills through the paseos, through the Handy Creek corridor, and the community park itself, as well as the school. All of these have elements of open space. And, also the element of the regional park, although certainly a different category of usability and risk, But again, part of the overall open space concept that set this plan into place, That's one of the items he recollects or at least felt good about in seeing Santiago Hills develop -- the park itself was placed just north of center in the community with the school adjacent to it With the r~ional park to the south affording a different type of opportunity and the connected trails -- they afford an Incredible amount of open space to the area, given that the regional park's location was a given and it was a key consideration in the development of the community, He has seen and has participated in the approval of at least one previous development on this parcel which wasn~ built that had a hi~her density without community open space involved. There was a previous one with even a higher denSity with some open space because of the density and type of use, Through good design he believed private open space could be developed on a majority of the lots, He believed the plan meets all the standards of the City of Orange and the Specific Plan, which is the Zoning Ordinance for Santiago Hills, This doesn~ deny the right to require more open space, but it also doesn' t demand that it be included other than in this case, the private residences, When this was a condominium development, the private open space was virtually nil with small patios and balconies,There was a tot lot or community rec area within the neighborhood, When this became a slightly larger patio home type development, there was private space within the neighborhood that was larger than patios and balconies and it eliminated the need for a separate neighborhood park. Now, the developer IS proposing small, single family home lots that have more space for private use, They will depend on the community open space sY.Stem, includingthe park, for a variety of opportunities. He didn~ feel bad in that regard. He could justify for himself that they are okay because there is no requirement they do provide open space, It has been provided, in essence, by this property through the Santiago Hills Specific Plan. It's a considerable contribution made that affects the cost, it allows smaller lot sizes, it affects the owners forever with regard to the assessment districts that are involved; they're paying for that and have a right to use it To give up even more density to put a tot lot or something similar on the site would appeal to only one class of homeowners and put in a position where it would negatively impact the surrounding houses because it's not separate from them, It would not afford good accessibility or visibility from the major part of the community, He liked the proposed project the way it was. He was concerned about traffic and particularly about how people cross at the paseo. The Handy Creek corridor ends at White Oak, but the paseo carries on through, Although it was outside the purview of the project,he would like the Commission to consider making a request to the City Traffic Engineer to analyze the potential and if warranted the implementation process for a crossing guard on White Oak Ridge at the paseo and how it relates to what the City can do and what the school district is involved in. A problem has been revealed and the City should try to resolve it. He thought something should also be done to look at traffic controls, signage, speed limits. etc, on White Oak Ridge. White Oak Ridge is a community serving street and it is not one serving the City at large, The paseo is a significant part of the circulation element of the SpeCific Plan, That also needs to be looked at by the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works, There is a serious problem with regard to the regional park across the street with the poaching of parking and traffic congestion that is caused by the placement of the entrance opposite Old Camp Road and the traffic controls there. As a City, they should look into that and try to help solve a neighborhood problem. He requested Traffic and Public Works staff to converse with the County Parks staff about signage, access requirements, placements of disincentives in terms of signage on Old Camp Road and the access street into the proposed project. With regard to the project itself, he was pleased with the lot size increases, He was concerned about the placement of the second access street closer to Canyon View, but he recognized that set further back in, it would affecl more homeowners negatively rather than minimizing the effect that placing it closer to Canyon View causes. He was worried about the 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 placement of the connection to the paseo, but he looked at the grade differential as a limiting factor. It would do less good if it was placed too close to White Oak Ridge with the road differential. The paseo is about three feet above the general elevation of the lot pads at the location proposed for access Street A), He had a concern about the construction traffic and he would like to limit construction traffic access by condition to the Old Camp Road entrance only, rather than off of White Oak Ridge. He didn't know if they could limit it further via Jamboree, but certainly to the Canyon View access, Commissioner Carlton had a question about the access to the paseo, She understands it is 10 feet wide with a four foot wide sidewalk, Who was going to maintain the landscaping on either side of the paseo if there is no association? Mr. Jones understood it would be incorporated into the Landscape Maintenance District that exists for all of Santiago Hills, which was formed in 1986. Commissioner Smith always learns from Chairman Bosch's expertise and experience on the Commission. Given the rationale from Chairman Bosch for the open space, she would drop her request for the added open space in the proposed project. At the same time, she supported the other requests by Chairman Bosch, She felt they were more serious in terms of safety for the community --that of a crossing guard at the paseo and White Oak, She would like to see the construction traffic access limited to via Jamboree instead of going through all the streets in the area, Also, to give special attention to the parking problem at the regional park. When she was out there, she wondered how they would control the snakes in the regional park. She supported the project; a lot of good work has been done. She wished some things had been done earlier on to make it even a better project. The lower density of this project deserved recognition,Commissioner Carlton still felt the open space could still be accomplished in the way she mentioned earlier. She had a different perspective on this. At the first meeting they heard a number of homeowners stand up in opposition to the small lots, She did a brief survey at her office -- this last year it took an average of 163 days to sell a property in the Santiago Hills community. Some of those were over 1 1/2 years before they sold, She was looking at two or three years down the line. The more desirable you make a community, it's an advantage to the people who buy there and houses would sell faster.Commissioner Pruett thought with the changes made in the project and taking a look at the Specific Plan that includes the open space (the big picture), it answered a lot of his questions, He didn't have a problem with the project. It's greatly improved. He asked about the issues of the crosswalk and crossing guard on the paseo, Would that be handled in a separate motion?Chairman Bosch believed so, The construction traffic relates to the project, but the rest should be a separate motion, Mr. Hohnbaum said if there were going to be specific haul routes for materials. that would have to be reviewed by the Traffic En9ineer and approved, There is a possibility of designating other access points during the construction penod.It was noted that ErR 868 was previously certified by the City Council in 1984,Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 15398 with conditions 1 through 37, modifying them by adding conditions O and 21 (a) and (b) as per the January 30, 1997 memorandum, and adding condition 38 that reflects the Ingress and egress for construction traffic, Construction traffic shall be limited to access from Old Camp Road, which comes off of Canyon View Avenue and via Jamboree Road subject to the review of the 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 City Traffic Engineer and subject to existing City ordinance and policy regarding haul routes, The Commission based their approval on the following findings: The proposed Map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision IS consistent with applicable general and specific plans, The site is physically suitable for the type of development and also the proposed density of development. The desi(ln of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor Injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, And, the subdivision will not conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, the property within the proposed subdivision. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Carlton MOTfON CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch. seconded by Commissioner Pruett, that the Planning Commission request the City Traffic Engineer to analyze the potential and, if warranted. the implementation process for crossing protection at the paseo intersection with White Oak Ridge. including, but not limited to, traffic controls, crossing guards, or other devices. Include in this report the costs and procedures for implementation, for review and decision by the City Council. Speed limits and speed controls on White Oak Ridge shall be reviewed in the same study, Traffic and Public Works staff shall undertake discussions with County Parks staff regarding control of access and proper signage directing patrons of Upper Peters Canyon Regional Park to proper parking; and review the potential for signage and traffic controls at Old Camp Road and Canyon View Avenue to minimize the impact of off-site parking on the Santiago Hills community. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Mr, Jones announced this item will be heard by the City Council for final action, It will be forwarded to the City Clerk's office, along with the Planning Commission's action with the conditions of approval. The typical time frame for this item to be heard is approximately 30- 45 days,IN RE: NEW HEARING 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2169-97 - CAREER NETWORK INSTITlJTE The applicant is proposing to establish a trade school in an existing office building and to allow the shared use of parking, The site is located at 980 Town and Country Road,NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a),There was no opposition; therefore. the full presentation of the staff report was waived,Commissioner Romero asked why there was a shortage of six parking spaces?Chris Carnes, staff planner, explained the center presently has a surplus of six parking spaces, About four years ago there was some work done at the center. They remodeled the parking lot and it resulted in some increase in parking, Presently they have 743 parking spaces and the code requires 737,Commissioner Smith needed to abstain from this item because the company she works for is located within 300 feet of the project. It might be a possible conflict of interest She excused herself from the meeting,The public hearing was Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 Aoolicant The property manager at the proposed site was assisting Mr. Buffington of Career Network Institute with his application. She would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have, Jim Buffington, President of Career Network Institute, 980 Town & Country Road, was also willing to answer any questions the Commission had. Commissioner Romero asked if any of the adjacent tenants have voiced concern about the proposed use? The property manager sent notices of this hearing to the adjacent business owners, She has not received any comments, Commissioner Romero asked about the overlap of students from each session? Is there a maximum of 25 students per session? Mr. Buffington explained they structured their classes for a morning, afternoon and evening session. They are 4 hours in length and there is no overlap, They enroll students for a specific time period. Approximately 40% of their enrollment will be in the a,m, course, which is from 8:00 a.m. to 12 noon, The other 40% of their enrollment would be in the evening program, which they don~ have at this time. The afternoon session is the slowest, with 20% of their enrollment. It would not necessarily be a maximum number of students per session, They chose that corner location because of the bus site. Quite a number of their students ride the buses, They may have more than 25 students enrolled in a class, but their average daily attendance would still only be 25, Their ratio is one teacher per 25 students, Commissioner Romero asked if they had plans for the future expansion of their school? Mr, Buffington said they have a short lease. They feel they will grow in three years and they will probably have to move, They would like to buy their own lot and build their own school. The school currently has an enrollment of 18 students; they are very small. Commissioner Pruett needed some clarification on the number of students. That is going to be an important factor in terms of understanding what the impact is going to be, The development proposal indicated to have 25 students on site at anyone time, Mr. Buffington indicated 40% of the students would be there in the morning, 40% in the evening. and 20% in the afternoon, He was trying to figure out 20% of what? Because then Mr. Buffington indicated 25 students represented an average. He was real confused as to what is the total number of students do they anticipate to be enrolled? Not now, but what is the goal for this site before the school needs to rnove to another site? Once the enrollment has been established, how do they see their enrollment tracking with the morning, afternoon and evening sessions? Is it again the 40-20- 40 or...Mr. Buffington said if they had 100 students enrolled in a school and that specific day they counted all the people, probably only 75 would be there, The others would be absent. The other issue he wanted to bring out would be a percentage of those students would not even be using the parking spaces. They would be riding publiC transportation. Their goal is 25 students in the morning session; 25 students in the afternoon session; and he hoped for more than 25 students in the evening session,Commissioner Pruett said the issue before the Commission is: What is the maximum number of students the school would take? Not, what percentage may be there because of sickness or whatever.But, what is the maximum? That is what the Commission IS going to approve, When that maximum is exceeded, it's time to move, The threshold will be conditioned into the approval.Mr. Buffington explained they have one teacher and one teacher assistant for 25 students, They run three separate schedules: morning, afternoon and evening. There would be 25 students at anyone time,Commissioner Pruett asked if he would be willing to accept a condition that would limit the maximum enrollment in anyone of the three sessions to 25 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 Mr. Buffington did not like that condition. He would rather like to look at the impact of the parking spaces, Commissioner Pruett understood that's why they were requesting the conditional use permit. But to some extent that was going to be based on the attendance. If the enrollment grew to 100 people in the moming session, all of a sudden the parking requirement could be four times, Mr. Buffington said he could not accommodate that kind of enrollment in a 6,000 square foot facility, It's a very small location; it's a small school. The optimum would be 75 students divided into three courses --moming, afternoon and evening,The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Carlton didn't see a problem here, There were more parking spaces than what was needed and she didn1 believe they would exceed the number of students for anyone session,Commissioner Romero did not have a problem with the request either. If the school expands and grows, then that is another problem and it could be dealt with at that time.Commissioner Pruett was not trying to express opposition; he was trying to tie some boundaries in terms of at what point is the project going to impact the existing parking? They are already 23 spaces over in terms of requirements. The issue is: As they add more students, they add more deficit in terms of parking spaces. He was not sure how to deal with the request At some point, the size of the classes will have an impact on the parking that is there, especially during the day, How will the parking be managed to not impact the project during the normal work day, which include the morning and afternoon sessions? Unless the 25 students are defined in the approval as to what is acceptable, then 35 would be acceptable. There needs to be some definition as to how the project is going to affect the overall site, The size of the school is something that needs to be articulated in any approval. It doesn't preclude the applicant from coming back to increase that size.Chairman Bosch agreed and thought legal counsel might tell them too that looking at the general condition of approval recommended in the staff report that says if approved. this would have to be implemented and operated in substantial compliance with the project description, It needs to be more specific in terms of setting forth the criteria of what that means, It's the resolution that becomes the defining legislation in this regard that governs the policing of what goes on, It provides a level of comfort,fairness and protection to the applicant and the land owner that is lacking if there is ambiguity in this, He personally did not want to set it so strict that people are having to count hairs on the site, He frequents the area quite a bit and has never seen the parking area full, It's one of those things where the parking ordinance, having to work from regional standards, as modified by the City's experience, and nothing ever exactly fits the mold. It's always one off from it It's the unique mixture of occupants on any given site that color his perspective of how something fits together well. He believed what Mr. Buffin(ltonwas saying in that it was rare everyone shows up, There has to be some leeway there, There IS space available so he was not overly concerned about the fit even if the school starts to grow; there won't be a major impact Mr, Buffington is regulated by his lease and the limitations on that and the desire to renew over time, The Commission needed to work on a definition for this particular use by incorporating the square footage, by setting the training sessions and hours of operation to assure there is no overlap,and in terms of the number of students, he didn't know where to set that number.Commissioner Romero added the trade school has planned to use 1,888 square feet of instructional area.which would require 54 parking spaces, Rfty-four parking spaces would potentially mean 54 individuals, If there are 23 spaces in excess, that 54 requirement leaves an allowance of 31 spaces to be used, He was trying to understand the logic with regards to the limitations for the project. The school is limited by the code requirement of one space for 35 square feet. Therefore. with 54 parking spaces it seems to be quite sufficient By limiting it to 25 students, that is very restrictive in light of 54 spaces allowed for the use, Chairman Bosch said there was a good amount of parking available for the school's use, Commissioner Pruett heard Commissioner Romero say the limitation is established by the square footage of the instructional space and the Commission should go by that. That's a good point. That does establish it and maybe that becomes the limiting factor, 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1997 Chairman Bosch was a little uncomfortable saying 54 because that is going to be stretching and impacting the other tenants, However, to have a comfort level, set 54 as a number to judge against vs, the 25, The Commission could go with the instructional area and the deficit it has, which is what the staff report goes by, and leave the number of students out of the condition, But. set the hours of operation and square footage of the instructional area. Commissioner Carlton was absolutely against setting the limit on the number of students. There was plenty of leeway, especially with the vacancy rate and other factors, She did not see a problem with this request. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review, Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2169-97 subject to the following conditions: There shall be three different training sessions during the day; mornings. 8:00 a,m, to noon; afternoons. 1 :00 p,m. to 5:00 p,m,; and evenings. 6:00 p,m, to 10:00 p,m, The instructional area of the trade school shall be 1,888 square feet in size. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith returned to the meeting.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith. to adjourn to the nex1 regular Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, February 19, 1997, AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at8:45 p. m. sld