Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-1997 PC MinutesJ c;'(\/) // -73e.' 1-. . L.(,:?"..,MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange January 6, 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;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer. and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON FOR 1997 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to re-elect Randy Bosch as Planning Commission Chairperson for 1997.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR 1997 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to elect Tita Smith as Planning Commission Vice Chairperson for 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 12/16/96.Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES:NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smilh None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 2. CONSIDERATION OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF MEETINGS. The Planning Commission will consider a new policy limiting public input to a maximum of three (3)minutes.Mr. Jones explained the "3 Minute Rule", which would limit public comments on issues before the Commission to a maximum of three minutes to ensure good public order at the meetings. This rule would apply to people speaking for or against a project; it would not apply to applicants or their representatives when presenting their project or responding to questions about the project. This rule is 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1997 intended to be a general rule to which exceptions may be made, particularly when due process requirements may dictate that more than three minutes would be appropriate. The policy is authorized under Municipal Code Section 17.08.020.B.3(a) which allows the Planning Commission to "adopt rules necessary to the conduct of ~s affairs". There were no public comments. Commissioner Romero saw the need to act in a similar manner as the City Council. Because this is a general rule, to which exceptions can be made, he didn't see a problem with complying with the 3 minute rule. Commissioner Carlton agreed with Commissioner Romero's comments. Commissioner Smith thought there were only a few occasions when this would need to be enforced, especially at very large meetings where a lot of people speak for or against a project. Those evenmgs tend to go very late and she was opposed to the very late meetings because their decision- making ability diminishes as the hour grows later. She was willing to try this new 3 minute rule if the Commission could evaluate it in three months. It should also be clearly stated for the public with a sign or announcement that this is a new policy.Chairman Bosch also agreed with all the comments. II has to be a carefully followed rule in that everyone has the opportunity to express an opinion, and not be cut off by others who may utilize the time to prevent others from voicing themselves before the Commission. There is a sign on the podium.Mr. Jones read the sign: "Please limit your comments to three minutes." There are also cards for people to fill out if they choose to speak.Chairman Bosch thought the '~ools of order" (i.e., speaking cards) has helped the process along. It is when people choose to abuse the process that it will be become difficult.Commissioner Romero asked about uniformity and compliance with the "3 Minute Rule". Would the Commission need to abide by the new rule at every meeting?Mr. Soo-Hoo's response was that the Commission should attempt to be as consistent as possible through every meeting. But enforcement of the rule will be up to the Chairperson and will be invoked as necessary. The rule is intended for the purpose of good order when it is necessary.Commissioner Carlton asked who would be the time keeper?Chairman Bosch believed there was a clock and the secretary would be the time keeper. He requested that the cards state Planning Commission on them. And that the Planning Commission Agendas state up near the top of the first page what the new policy will be regarding the "3 Minute Rule". At longer meetings, the Chair will remind the speakers to keep their remarks concise for the purpose of allowing others a chance to speak. He, too, would like to review this new policy -- maybe not in three months, but in six months.The Planning Commission adopted the "3 Minute Rule" as policy. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED 3. FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2064-94 - JERRY GREUBEL A request by the applicant that the Planning Commission find the revised plans for an 87 unit senior housing project in substantial conformance with the originally approved plans. The project site is located at 340 South Newport Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1997 Negative Declaration 1454-94 was certified at the time of project approval as having adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the project.A staff report was not presented. NOTE: Aoolicant Jerry Greubel, 340 South Newport Boulevard, said this was the same plan with the same number of units. It was a continuation process and they are fine tuning it with more information and detail. They brought in a new architect, who had new ideas and a better plan. It maintains the two stories at the rear elevation. It has the same density and the same number of parking spaces. The drainage has been better addressed. The public safety issues and horse trail are the same as before. They have improved on additional site storage. Trash was another area that needed to be nailed down as they progressed.They found a way to eliminate the retaining wall at the front, which is a big plus. The project is not one big mass of building. They have stepped up the buildings and added contours. They've also added a meter room and a few other things they didn~ think of at first. Richard Hanson is his new archnect and was highly recommended for the project. His previous architect, Craig Smith, accepted another position that he could not refuse.Chairman Bosch explained it was the Commission's purpose to identify whether the project was in substantial confonnance or identny any concerns they saw.Commissioner Romero was a bit concerned the building height and crib wall were slightly higher than first proposed.Mr. Greubel said there wasn't a condition of approval regarding the crib wall, but there was a number placed on the plan. Because it was put on the plan, statt had a concern if the wall were adjusted, it was an absolute number. They felt they could build the project with a 16 foot crib wall, but then the walls in front would have to get bigger. The back building hides the crib wall. They're talking about a 23 foot high crib wall and this would reduce the walls in front.Commissioner Romero's other concern was the height of the building; it was 2 1/2 feet higher (pitch of the roof).Mr. Greubel said that was a judgment call on the part of the architect. With respect to the wall issue,Cowan Hills focused on the front crib wall. They were asked to improve that if they could. He has talked with their association and they have not voiced any opposition. The overall height will be lower with the higher crib wall. The overall building height would not be attected; it will be less.Commissioner Smith's concern was with the usable open space. The plans show patios and balconies for a total of 4,350 square feet. The statt report says all of the patioibalcony areas have been eliminated from each unit. These are multi-story units for elderly people and the proposal of the open space is limited when on a sloping property. The depth of the largest piece of open space shown on the plans is 20 feet. There is not enough usable open space. Where has the 4,350 square feet been made up?There needs to be a trade ott.Mr. Greubel has found from experience the residents are wanting storage over patios/balconies.Balconies break up the architecture, but the residents arenot usin!l the balconies. The other areas residents are using are the common recreational areas inside the buildings. Many times the balconies are used for storage and that's not good.Mr. Hanson said they have doubled the size of their recreational area. Some of the units have also been increased in size.Chairman Bosch also shared the concern. The ordinance requires 150 square feet per unit of outdoor open space, whether by balconies or on the site. The previously approved plan had an outdoor open space area that had a pool, but the design changed over a period of time. There is not a detailed site plan showing the site design that is available to the Commission. Where on the site is the ordinance requirement at a minimum, or in addition to that, for usable open space on the Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1997 Mr. Hanson replied it was going to be outside the four units designated on the ground noor for recreation. He was hoping the interior space would account for some of that open space requirement. He knew he was stretching it. Chairman Bosch told him he would have to demonstrate, in terms of getting a permit, that they meet the ordinance, or ask for a variance from the ordinance. The Commission didn~ have enough information to see if that requirement has been met. The balconies are a key part of Commissioner Smith's concern, but the other part is, where is the required open space? A reasonable living environment is needed for this project. Mr. Hanson pointed to the map on the wall to show where the open space was proposed. In reviewing the old submittal, his open space is much larger. It was also oH by Itsell; it did not relate to any1hlng. They have incorporated the open space with the revised plans. Commissioner Smith would like to have the applicant consider patios or balconies at least on some units. People could then have an option to choose or not choose that unit. The views are always nicer from a balcony than from inside a window. For older people, growing plants on a balcony can also. be something that is very good for seniors to do. II pets are allowed, sometimes people put their birds out on a balcony. She personally did not like apartment units that don't have an access to the outdoors In some way. She stressed again they must meet the requirement or exceed it for the usable open space, especially on this property where there is so much slope to it. People would want to have access to the outdoors. Mr. Hanson said patios will be built on the ground noor level. A mix would be a good compromise. Commissioner Carlton said the balconies were an issue for her as well. On the revised plans it shows a rental oHice that is quite large; almost as big as the recreation room. Mr. Hanson replied the rental oHice will be more defined; it is not as large as the recreation room. Commissioner Carlton asked for the rationale on eliminating the pool area on the revised plans? Mr. Greubel said they were not showing a pool because the senior citizens will not use it. They would rather have a jacuzzi. Commissioner Carlton agreed a jacuzzi would be much more readily utilized by senior citizens. Did they plan to build a jacuzzi? (Yes.) Mr. Hanson said they propose to build a jacuzzi and exercise room and pointed to the map of where that would be located. Commissioner Carlton asked if the Commission would see another more defined plan? Chairman Bosch didn't know that yet. The Commission needs to take under advisement whether they feel the plan is, or is not, in substantial conformance with the approved plans. And also, give direction on why they believe it is, or is not, to give staH and the applicant direction with regard as to how staH addresses the project as it moves forward from this point. Chairman Bosch also had a few questions, which relate back to substantial confonnance. The density is in substantial conformance; it's unchanged. The unit types and sizes -- the mix and sizes of the units are a matter of market. He noted the 1 bedrooms are larger than the previous design, but the 2 bedrooms are smaller. But, they're still a good sized unit, presuming that in the applicant's search for additional storage the 2-bedroom unit, which by its nature has soma additional interior storage, isn't damaged further than that in terms of layout. This reinforces the concern for demonstrating a well planned and adequate outdoor open space environment. That doesn~ necessarily mean one chunk. They have found people will go for the one unit that are of interest to them, based on what they have not been able to enjoy in the past, or what they have enjoyed over some portion of their lives and want to continue to enjoy in a new residence. The choice of what goes into the open spaces is a market choice. That should be left up to the applicant, as long as the opportunities are there. A variety is that which best meets the needs of the seniors population. He had a concern about the building height and maybe it is misleading on the site section A-A. It is cut through the handicap or public accessible sidewalk from Newport Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1997 Avenue, which is being brought through at a low level in order to get the grade requirements for ADA, which probably could not have been met under the previous design. But, where the site section is cut, it shows a 4-story building vs. a 3-story building that was on the original approval. Is the intent that the section cut with the basement/storage there is only revealed to grade at that point and immediately adjacent to the point of entrance, or is the entire facade of the building exposed, in which case there IS now a 4-story facade facing the street, instead of a 3-story building?Mr. Greubel said he was right. The whole front became a ramp in the previous plan. Mr. Hanson suggested using the exception in ADA requirements. The intent is to bury it and build a tunnel just to get the people down to the last stop so they can walk out the front door and get to the market. There will be no units down there; it is intended for a basement and storage.Chairman Bosch said the plans stated a basement under three stacked units in that area and he presumed that was the intent, but the section could be very misleading. He wanted that stipulated. It was going to be challenging because they needed to make it welcoming for the residents as they go to and from shopping, and it was a security challenge. It's the front door in terms of public perception as seen from the street. But it's not the front door -- it's not where visitors come in. The challenge is avoid making it an attractive nuisance or security problem for the residents at that lower level that is unsupervised.Mr. Greubel said they plan to make many improvements to the front of the entrance with landscaping and the tunnel; that's something they forgot to mention earlier.Chairman Bosch's concern was that they don't want a 4-story building. It is for storage and basement area only. A minimal amount will be exposed as if it were an additional floor; rather it is an extension of the wall at that point. He noticed the pads have been lowered slightly in a couple of instances. They also have the steeper building pitch, which has to be a choice of aesthetics more than any1hing. That will make about a foot or 18 inch difference in the height (couple of feet at the most). It's not a radical deal because of all the oHsets that will occur breaking up the roof masses. He leaves that to the Design Review Board. Parking -- the number is not the problem. Part of the difficulties with the front of the site previously was the intent originally to have a guarded gate. One of the conditions of approval was no gate. The guest parking can blend in. He was concerned about the northerly dead end parking area in terms of how that was going to be handled. Would that be used for staH and maintenance? It' s a bit misleading in terms of people dead ending into that area. He wanted to be sure they have designed a turn around that may be adequate or they may lose a space there in order to provide an adequate turn around for people coming in and finding it full. They will need the same number of spaces. There is a need for sign age and identification of that parking so people go the right way and not get trapped into backing movements that will disrupt people coming up the slope on the drive to that point and cause physical danger. He felt it was something that could be resolved and not be substantially different in terms of the challenge that was in the previous plan. Crib walls were also a concern. He appreciated the elimination of the need for retaining walls at the front part of the site. The crib wall in the back -- the height went down to 16 feet on the approved plan. It's unclear what the height of the wall is going to be.He needed to get some feel for that. The argument for the previous approval was that the wall was primarily hidden by the building and very little would be visible to the surrounding neighborhoods. His concern was for the residents, as much if not more, than for the neighborhood in that regard. He didn't want the residents to be in a hole with the retaining wall. He didn't know if the wall was intended to be a keystone or earth stone wall, or some other type of wall that allows planting pockets. He didn~ want this to be a wall of concrete. He asked if they knew what the height of the wall was going to be? What was going to be the maximum increase that would occur on the design?Mr. Greubel said it would be approximately 23 feet in height (seven feet higher for some small portion of the wall). They were asked not to pin it down to a number.Chairman Bosch came back to the open space issue again. He agreed with the concept which is somewhat related to the land use issue because it led to considerations of approval on the previous scheme with regard to balconies. He didn~ see that all balconies necessarily make sense, but he strongly encouraged the utilization of some balconies to enhance the living environment. That makes sense architecturally to assist in the design of the buildings, as well as assist in the marketing Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1997 Public comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said their Association, in general, favors this project. He was a little concerned with some of the unanswered questions, but because of the history of this thing he suggested it could be legally done because the project was in substantial conformance. But the unanswered questions must be answered to the satisfaction of staH. StaH needs to review the plans very carefully for substantial conformance prior to the applicants starting the project. It's much better than what it was before. Ptannino Commission discussion Commissioner Carlton thought they should proceed with the project. Commissioner Romero did not have any negative comments about the project. Commissioner Smith thought the plan was improved and is in substantial conformance with the exception of the two areas that need to be defined and clarified in terms of the open space and crib wall. She had a question about the use of the front building. Was there any type of sitting room or recreation space in the front building for social contact? Mr. Greubel said there was no formal recreation room. They would like to put in a card room or sitting area near the elevators. It would be a public gathering area, but undefined. Chairman Bosch agreed the project was in substantial conformance subject to the applicant, as they continue to develop the design, proving out to the satisfaction of staH that the concerns the Commission has expressed are met. They were previously summarized but he would do so again: One would be to provide assurance through the development of the design in that the requirements of the City ordinance with regard to outdoor open space and usable outdoor open space be met. And, that the quality of the open space meet or exceed that developed under the previously approved plans. That balconies were an intrinsic portion of the comprehension of the Commission in approving the previous submittal, and that inclusion of some proportion of balconies is strongly encouraged, and staH review of adequacy of open space and building design to continue that area of substantial conformance through to the new revised project plan. With regard to the crib wall, that although the final height of the crib wall is not yet identified, that every eHort be made to maintain usable open space in the form of patios on that side of the rear building, while at the same time minimizing the necessary height of the crib wall while meeting the City's grading ordinance, recognizing that the crib wall height may be somewhat higher than that previously approved. He didn't want to set a specific height on it, but In the area of 23 feet, as mentioned by the applicant, be looked at as a guideline. He was hopeful the height could be lower without hurting the open space. That the crib wall design, not specifying brand names, but a product that allows landscape pockets and breaking up the wall so that it doesn~ have a monolithic, uniform line, including curved linear development of the crib wall that can be done with key stone or earth stone or similar brands and allow the inclusion of planting pockets. That will be the basis for mitigating any additional height of the crib wall in the guidelines that have been mentioned. There's a trade oH that helps that go forward correctly. Also, with regard to the forward street side building, the basement level access is not a public access way, but for residents only. It shall be designed to absolutely minimize any exposure of the lower level so that it is not identified as a floor of the building, and that while meeting Police Department security ordinance requirements for protection of the entry, the landscaping shall also minimize the public exposure of that area. In the parking area, the northerly parking bay - the dead end parking bay - it's continued design development shall provide sign age or design features which eliminate the need for backing out of that bay by providing adequate turn around space and adequate is not a cui de sac; it's not a full hammer head, but enough so that people can make a turning movement in it so they can head back out of it, rather than back into the specifically dangerous top of entry drive location. All of these directions to the applicant and staff fall under the presentation by the applicant and his architect, as well as from the plans presented to the Commission. Without changing those plans and demonstrate their capability ot being found substantially in conformance with the approved plan under Conditional Use Permit 2064-94 with modification to the conditions.6 Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to find that Conditional Use Permit 2064-94, with the revisions presented by Chairman Bosch, to be in substantial conformance with what was first approved by the Planning Commission earlier. The finding of substantial conformance holds, but that the Chairman's comments are meant to be attended to and built into the new design features, which are appropriate and essential to maintaining substantial conformance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p. m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED sld