Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1999 PC Minutesass{e.-c: 2 ~- O(). (~. ;;;. 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange July 7. 1999 Wednesday - 7: 00 p.m.PRESENT:ABSENT:STAFF. PRESENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Pruett Commissioners Romero. Smith Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner.David DeBerry, City Attorney.Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin. Recording Secretary q C. -c.> y:,:>, r:J J, T,': J -CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of June 21, 1999.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton. seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAINED:IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton None Commissioners Romero. Smith Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2283-99 - GREAT CIRCLE FAMILY FOOD. LLC (KRISPY KREME RESTAURANT)A request to allow a doughnut shop including a drive-through lane. The site is located at The Block at Orange on the northwest corner of The City Drive and Shoppertainment Way.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions 01 the California Environmental Ouality Act per State CEOA Guidelines Section 15332.Chris Carnes. Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a doughnut shop with a drive-through lane. It is located within The Block at Orange on The City Drive midway between the existing TGIF Restaurant and the EI Torito Restaurant. The zoning ordinance requires conditional use permits for restaurants with drive-through lanes because of the potential adverse impacts drive-through lanes have and noise associated with outdoor reader boards and ordering food outdoors. In this case, the applicant has designed the drive-through lane to wrap around the restaurant and it has a capacity 0114 cars from the pick up window to the end 01 the drive.through lane. The parking lot has also been designed with stamped concrete to delineate pedestrian walkways within the parking lot and drive through area. The applicant is proposing that the restaurant be open 24 hours a day. Staff is recommending nine (9) conditions of approval.The public hearing was opened.The applicant was not present.1 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 Public Comments: Barbara DeNiro commented there was no environmental evaluation. She said the City needs to be concerned with drive through noise and exhaust. She is concerned because 28 parking spots are removed. She wanted to know how many vehicles could be stacked in the drive-through lane without creating traffic congestion. She observed the La Habra store having more cars in line. She wanted to know what sort of area the doughnut shop is situated in at the La Habra site. How will this affect the future expansion plans at The Block? How much indoor dining is provided?The public hearing was closed.The applicants walked in at 7:10 p.m. so the public hearing was re-opened for their comments.John Tarlos. 17802 Mitchell North. Irvine. is the project architect. Their doughnuts are freshly made and the building meets all of the City's requirements. The lot is very difficult to work with because it is extremely narrow. They have read the conditions of approval and concur with them.Richard Escalante is the project manager for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. They have obtained approval from The Mills Corporation, the developer of The Block at Orange.Mr. Jones explained the environmental documentation was accommodated in the environmental document before The Block at Orange was constructed. The square footage and type of use was anticipated for this kind of development.Chairman Bosch said in regard to the drive-through lane. although noise is addressed as one of the areas to be reviewed by the Commission relative to the surrounding impacts. another concern was the vehicle exhaust fumes. There was also a question about the length of the queuing distance and the number of cars.Mr. Escalante responded the store in La Habra is very unique because it is the only one. However. they have an aggressive development plan and hope to build 41 more stores in the next five (5) years. At The Block at Orange they have a very large queuing area. and it will be contained on the property. He does not anticipate a problem with traffic congestion. The traffic report reflects that there is some overflow beyond the length of the proposed queuing. Doughnuts will be prepared and served within two (2) minutes of a customer's order. Exhaust fumes will not linger.Chairman Bosch wanted staff to explain how parking was determined in terms of it meeting code. There are 15 outdoor seats and 35 indoor seats shown on the plans.Mr. Carnes said parking is based on the gross square footage of the building. The building is approximately 4.000 square feet and the site has 41 parking spaces. This use is treated as a restaurant,which has a parking ratio of 10 per 1.000 for the first 4.000 square feet. In this case, the majority of the restaurant is for preparation and storage.Ms. DeNiro asked what type of center their other doughnut shop is in -- is it similar to The Block?Mr. Escalante said their only other store is in a large center. similar to The Block. They are beginning to look at sites that are stand alones, that are basically a parcel.The public hearing was closed.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA Planning Commission Minutes July 7. 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett. seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2283-99 with conditions 1 through 9, as listed in the staff report, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and shopping center. And,it is subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero. Smith MOTION CARRIED The following item is a verbatim transcript 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2292-99 & MINOR SITE PLAN 97-99 - SHEPHERD ACADEMIC OAKRIDGE PRIVATE SCHOOL)A request to allow the construction and operation of a private elementary school and the use of modular structures. The site is located on the northwest corner of Spring Street and Prospect Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1599-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Chairman Bosch: Thank you, and is the applicant present? The applicant is present. "We' ve received a letter from the applicant. which I'll read for the record. dated today. It states. "Please take this letter as a request by Shepherd Academic to continue our public hearing that was originally set for tonight for one (1)month. I've had countless calls by residents in the community asking me to continue this until the issue of whether the City is going to do an eminent domain is decided. It seems pointless to put you and the other Commissioners through our testimony with the general public when it is really not an issue that can be decided until the City Council has decided whether they are going to take the property by eminent domain. Theretore. as stated above. I respectfully request a one (1) month continuance until the Planning Commission Meeting to be held on August 2. 1999. Signed by George Adams as Agent." In a verbal communication prior to the meeting. Mr. Adams requested that the date for the continuance not be August 2, but August 16. Is this correct. Mr. Adams?It is the policy of the Planning Commission, I know there are people here...wehave cards present...people who desire to speak. certainly in opposition to the proposal that's before us. And. we like to allow people that right to speak. We'll note also though that we typically. if the Commission concurs, grant the applicant's request for a continuance. On that basis, if the Commission elects to continue this item. and you still desire to address us tonight, we will provide you with that opportunity under Public Comments at the end of the hearing. Hopefully. not a long hearing tonight. We hate to drag you out but you can do that. However, since it will not then be on the Agenda, I have to state. if you do speak to us tonight.because without the opening of the public hearing. you're testimony would not be on the record on this item. And. for the record. it would be best to have your testimony at the time this comes forward again,and is open as a public hearing. So. it's part of the overall body of work going forward with this project.informing the environmental impact action and going forward to the City Council, if necessary. But. again.you will have the right to speak tonight if you desire to do so. Because we want to be sure we entertain that right.So. first we do have the request from the applicant for the continuance. What's the desire of the Commission?Commissioner Pruett: Mr. Chairman. I'll move that we continue the item to August Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 Commissioner Carlton: I'll second. Chairman Bosch: We have a motion and a second, please vote. Motion carries. This item is continued to the 16th and again. we welcome you to bear with us for a little while, if you desire to address us tonight. We certainly look forward to you coming back, and appreciate everyone who does have concerns to come back to speak to us when the hearing is brought to the opening so we can get your testimony. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett. seconded by Commissioner Carlton. to continue Conditional Use Permit 2292-99 and Minor Site Plan 97-99 to the meeting of August 16, 1999. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 4. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 2-99 (RE: MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 94-99 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 99-08) - CSK AUTO STORES (KRAGEN AUTO PARTS)The applicant is appealing the Design Review Board's denial of a proposalto construct a 5,400 square foot retail building on a 22.275 square foot parcel. The site is located at 910 North Tustin Street.John Godlewski, Principal Planner, reported the applicant has proposed to construct a 5,400 square foot retail auto parts store. The existing lot is a little over 22.000 square feet; however, there will be substantial dedications required on Tustin and Collins. with a 12 foot dedication on Tustin and a 5 foot dedication along Collins. Because ot this. the applicant's original design proposed an Administrative Adjustment to the front landscaping. There is a 10 foot landscape setback required and the applicant presented 10 the Zoning Administrator a request for a 20% reduction. which allowed the 10 foot landscaping to be reduced to 8 feet. There was also a request to reduce the overall parking from 26 parking spaces to 25. Both of these requests were within the purview of the Zoning Administrator and were approved. and then thE3 plan moved forward to the Design Review Board.The Design Review Board did not like the site plan aspects of the proposal. They were concerned that the zero setback of the building on the back portion of the corner parcel did not give a good appearance to the existing commercial center that is there. They were of the opinion that the site is over built. and to further emphasize thaf. they brought into play the Administrative Adjustments, requesting a reduction in landscaping. The DRB felt the design of the building was of minimal design and that the facade was too large and overbearing. It was felt that the architecture was too plain and industrial-like for that corner.Ultimately. the DRB passed a motion denying the presentation from Kragen, and included in their motion a desire to relocate the building to the south end of the lot, and to put the parking towards the north. add more building articulation and detail. and relocate the transformers and trash enclosures. These are all included in some detail in the DRB Minutes. attached to the Commission's staff report.The applicant is requesting an appeal of this action. primarily because the lot is a separate parcel. The building setback and placement on the lot. as proposed by Kragen, does meet the code requirements.Kragen is very concerned that they do not have to redesign the building to the point that it is relocated on the lot in such a manner that it is contrary to what their original design concepts were. The building that is proposed is what they call a proto-type Kragen Auto Store. It's finish and size is consistent with their corporate desired appearance.David Abernathv. 6409 Independence Avenue. is the architect for the project. Their biggest concern with the DRB was the building back in the corner of the lot. The DRB thought there would be circulation problems with the lot behind this one. The new plan shows buffers on the back side of the buildin[1 from the adjacent site with planters. They are willing to work with staff on their landscape plans. They are also concerned with the aesthetics of their building. They have over 150 stores in Southern California that Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 Mike Leonard. 2421 West 205th Street. Torrance. is the Director of Real Estate for CSK Auto. They have a current month-to-moth lease and they've been looking to relocate their facility for some time. Their main concern is with the site plan. They need access off of Collins. What has been proposed does not circulate well and it is not customer-friendly. Having one (1) curb cut would allow people to make an illegal left turn into the site. Also. there is no left turn out so people will be making U-turns at the signal. They are open to landscaping suggestions. Regarding the facade of the building, they don't use a lot of glass.They use all four walls to maximize their product. They are open to some reasonable and minor aesthetic changes to the facade.Chairman Bosch understands the City may not have the ability to cause the applicant to have reciprocal access to the adjacent property. Obviously, if such a thing could occur, it would allow for through circulation and other access.Mr. Godlewski stated he has talked with both property owners and neither one is interested in sharing reciprocal access.Chairman Bosch wondered if this building were the same proto-type he saw in Bishop. (It is exactly the same color scheme and building.) He was concerned on the site layout with the line up of the loading dock, transformers. trash enclosures and the potential impacts on how that might be handled on a key circulation element into and out of the site. There will be impacts backing traffic up onto Collins He wanted to know if they have looked at alternatives to take care of that.Mr. Leonard replied they had. but unfortunately the buildable area of the lot is just over 19,000 square feet; it is very tight. They are open to suggestions. but they have not come up with an alternative solution.Public comments: Barbara DeNiro. address on file. B. Heinleim, 448 North Swidler. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer.They were concerned with the access. tree placement. vision problems. and signage. Apparently the parking requirements are met. They object to putting in another ingress/egress closer to that corner than the one that is already there. Many pedestrians use that corner. They asked what the feasibility is tor putting an auto parts store in where another auto parts store has gone broke. The parking area is quite full and it is a small site.Applicant's Response:Mr. Leonard believed that any tenant occupying that corner would need two (2) curb cuts. They have a very successful store just down the street and they anticipate a healthy growth by better positioning this new, larger building. They acquired Track Auto through a multi-store acquisition two years ago.Commissioner Carlton thought one of the objections of the DRB was the fact that it was a very industrial-looking type building. She asked what kind of architectural changes were envisioned as practical to enhance the outward appearance ot the building.Mr. Leonard said they have a fully executed lease and they are open to changes as long as there is not a lot of glass. They prefer to keep the gray building and red signageAogo. They need to be careful with the design elements because there is not a lot of room on the site.Chairman Bosch would like to have the reciprocal easements to the adjacent property. but that is something that cannot be forced on the other property owners. He shares the concerns about people cutting the corner with traffic. This is a separate piece of property though and it follows the development standards. Whatever the use is. they might still have the same problem. Planning Commission Minutes July 7. 1999 potential problems by redesigning the site. He's concerned about the congestion that can occur with the adjusted position of the trash enclosure and the loading zone off of the Collins driveway. It's also pretty barren in terms of the streetscape off of Collins. Perhaps something should be done in terms of the orientation or location of the trash enclosure. Orange is not a proto-type city and they care very much what happens in the city. He concurs with the concerns about trees and planting, as well as vision cut- offs with the sign placement and plantings on the site. The building itself is a very crisp, hi-tech design. H,~ has seen it in place. although the context was radically different in Bishop. He concurs that it is a very cold.industrial looking building for this area of Orange. He looks forward to the applicants working with staff.and if appropriate. the Design Review Board is being re-formulated into a Design Review Committee, and it would be useful to have their input.Mr. Jones stated the Design Review Committee is scheduled to meet July 21,1999.Commissioner Pruett felt it was appropriate that the Design Review Committee understands that the site plan. as it was laid out and approved by the Staff Review Committee. appears to be satisfactory and the DRC should concentrate more on the design of the structure, landscaping, trash enclosures, etc.Mr. Leonard reiterated they were more than willing to work with the City on aesthetic appeal. They are primarily concerned with the site plan and hope to get the Commission's approval.The Commission and staff discussed the ORB's review of the project which included elevations.landscaping. sign age and those kinds of architectural details.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the appellant's Appeal No. 2-99 with regard solely to Item 1 of the motion of the ORB No. 3436- 99 action by the Design Review Board on May 19. 1999. and deny the appeal on Items 2 through 13, upholding the finding of the Design Review Board. and further refer the applicant back to staff and the Design Review Committee lor review of modifications to the physical design. landscape. and signage to reach an acceptable design specification.AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch. Carlton. Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED 5. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RELATING TO MASSAND VOLUME CRITERIA Jack McGee. Community Development Director, presented a referral from the City Council for the Commission's consideration. The City Council received a number of calls from area residents regarding a single family residence that is currently under construction for the expansion of the residence. Photos illustrate a very large garage addition that is being added to the property. The intent of the City Council is not to impact, slow down or stop this particular project, but simply to point out that this project. while currently being built per City standards. is perhaps something that is larger and out of context for the neighborhood than should be allowed by City ordinance.The City Council has asked the Commission and staff to address this issue to see if there are certain development standards which may be tightened up. or added to the code, which would protect surrounding single family residences from this particular kind of an issue occurring in the future.This is an informational item and staff intends to work on this over the next several weeks. Staff will n~turn in approximately 90 days to present to the Commission some ideas on how this might be addressed! and to create a Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 Chairman Bosch asked that staff research with other cities such as Irvine or Costa Mesa to see what they have done in this type of situation. Carole Walters. 534 North Shaffer, spoke about Old Towne Preservation controlling Old Towne. This problem is outside of Old Towne, and she suggested forming a committee of the adjacent residents to get their input about the large garage structure. No formal action was taken by the Commission. The following item is a verbatim transcript IN RE:PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Chairman Bosch: We've concluded our formal Agenda and have reached the point for public participation, which is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not listed on the Agenda. We have one (1) card, but before we introduce that, again I offer the opportunity for people who attended with regard to Item #3, the Shepherd Academic (Oakridge Private School) at Spring and Prospect again since that was requested to be continued by the applicant. If you desire to address the Commission at this time, with or without cards. we'll let you do that. Does anyone desire to address the Commission now? Anyone who is here, who desires to address the Commission is welcome to come forward. Please recognize that this will not go into the public record because the hearing hasn't been opened. Eddie Albrioht. 642 North Glenrose. said he was back here. It seems like every time I come in front of the Councilor anybody else. it's usually about the kids, the parks and stuff like that. I would like to address... I was sent a legal notice a week and a hall ago. It's a legal notice of Planning Commission public hearing. This is the one that got postponed. And it says down on the bottom that if I don't address certain issues. that I may lose my legal rights to address the issues. I've worked on this property, this parcel, the Beazer property which is the old Conrock property for going on ten (10) years. Actually. Joanne and me and a bunch of other residents worked on this property. We actually gave them a higher density in lieu of this park. Okay. and the park was promised in the Council Chambers. We actually asked the builder, which is Beazer Homes, to build the park prior to an occupancy permit being permitted. What they told us was. they didn't have the funding at the time. They have to sell the units first. Two (2) weeks ago I get a notice like this that says now that Beazer Homes has now sold it to another gentleman, which is the school. Which the park, really I think there is. I don't know about legal terms. but it sounds to me like there's a legal contract between Beazer Homes, the community and the City. which we did not fight them on the density. and allowed the higher density in that area. That is one of the densest areas in the City of Orange. We do not have a park. a public park. in that area for these kids to play with. You can drive down anyone of the residential streets and you see kids playing baseball in the middle of the street. They have now raised the speed limit in residential to 35 M.P.H. These kids need a place. and that's all I'm saying. And. I'd like to know since I can't obviously address the issues that he was going to do at the public hearing. I would like to know if I can be notified by this Commission of any other future hearings on this issue. It that would be possible. Since I was notified now. I would like to be notified in the future of anything going on with this parcel. Because I have worked on it a lot and diligently. Chairman Bosch: I appreciate that and I think the staff has a mechanism for doing that. notwithstanding that we know this item is continued. but concern for the future. Mr. Jones: It is my understanding that there was a commitment made I think last summer that any future actions involving this particular site. those that wanted to be notified. would be notified and quite a list was created. I think we have a list probably including yourself... Mr. Albright: Yeah. because actually some of my neighbors that were on committees with Joanne and the other Council members were not notified. I was notified and they were not. So again. it's going to involve... and this promise was made not to the 300 feet, or the 100 yards... it was made to the community 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 as a whole. which doesn~ encompass that, but some of the property does. What I'm saying is, as the cui de sac, and that was a big issue, certain people in the way geographies worked, still have graffiti on the sidewalks that somebody put on our sidewalks. It's not the gang bangers that is doing graffiti. It's the people who want to put in the cui de sac. You drive down Walnut right now. we have graffiti all over the sidewalks that has not been removed from six (6) months ago. That somebody put on there to say, ''This is an Edison line, this is this." I walk my dog and my kids roller blade on it. Yeah, it looks like somebody graffiti'd it. What am I suppose to say, ''The City did it, or Beazer Homes did it, the developer did it." That's the condition I don't want the property left in. I would like to know if anybody. if we can notify the community that this was promised to? Mr. Jones: Yes, there is an expanded list and I believe this item was actually sent to the expanded list that was generated from a community meeting out there about a year ago. maybe a little bit longer. And everybody from that meeting that wished to be notified. were notified also of this one based on the information we had from that list. We're notifying beyond the 300 foot radius to include anybody else that was on that list. and we will continue to do that for any other meetings, public meetings, again above and beyond the one that has now been continued to August 16. Mr. Albright: Plus, there is one more consideration. We don't have much land. If the bean field or the strawberry field, it's been mentioned as different things, the one that is now a development...that was going to be a County park, which was going to give the kids their community park to go play in. Well. that was sold off to a developer and the money has been used at McPherson. I'm a former McPherson and I think it was a great deal. but again, we're losing all of the open space and pretty soon we're going to have to tear down houses to build open spaces. I just got a letter from the Redevelopment of Southern California which was an environmental letter that was a survey. And the first question they asked is. "Does your neighborhood have a park?" It's interesting that that was the first agenda item and if it didn't. "Would you like to see a park in your community?" The Irvine Company would not put a park in everyone of their communities if there wasn~ a vital. That's what I'm saying. You Commissioners, that's what you've gol to... 1 hope you guys dO... is consider the kids that can't come here and speak, or won't come here and speak. Because they just don't know the process. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Chairman Bosch: Thank you for speaking. We'll hope you continue to participate in the process. Mr. DeBerry: Commissioner Bosch, if I can just get a clarification from Mr. Jones. Normally, we don't send out a second notice when a meeting is going to be continued. Are you going to be doing that in this case? Mr. Jones: I think if the Commission feels that it's something we need to do. or the City Attorney's office. we can certainly do that. Normally, no. we would not do that. Mr. DeBerry: It sounds like the Commission thinks that is a good idea. Chairman Bosch: Yes, it appears that we think it's a good idea. Mr. Jones: Okay. we can do that. Chairman Bosch: Okay. thank you. I'm glad that was brought to our attention. Carole Walters. 534 North Shaffer: What is this? Every time we come to a Planning Commission or City Council. we get more notice what our freedom is, if you go to court. Why is that on there this time? I'd really like to know. I've never seen it on any other ones. Chairman Bosch: On the public notice? Mr. DeBerry, perhaps you can address that. Ms. Walters: Our City is getting really good at this. 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 Mr. DeBerry: Yes, if I could. I think the spin that you've put on this Ms. Walters is exactly the opposite of what it is trying to do. And that is to provide applicants notice that if they don't bring up the issue at the Council meetings, then they may have waived administrative appeals that they have, and in court they may not be able to bring those issues up. So, basically what the City is trying to do here is notify applicants and residents of their rights. And if they want issues and they want, at some point in time in the future, to litigate those issues, that they first have to bring them up during this administrative process before either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Ms. Walters: So, now we have to bring all of our answers and let it be brought up. But you know, the people out there have been shoved for years. Before the other houses was built, it was going to be a park. And, Beazer houses were built and they promised a park. But what is really happening and the people don't really know it, the gentleman that wants to buy the property for a school is a well known pomician in town. Well, he's in Anaheim. but he lives in Orange. That there's fund raisers from different people. Now, that concems me. And another thing. I was talking to one of the Planning people and they said the school is going to be on one part because the other part is not really that safe. So why would you want a school there any how? It's on the dump. Do we please someone that takes you to a restaurant in Anaheim. or do you really care about our kids? Look at L.A. They're broke. And I know our Planning Commission is a lot better than theirs. I hope. You know what, our City should be known as, "We give, but we're going to take if back as soon as you're not looking." Cause that's what they've been doing for a long time. They tell us they're going to give us this. but by the time it gets there. it's almost gone. if we're not looking. So, is this what this City is going to be known as? "We give, but we take back." So, I want every one to be notified, and I think there should be a community hearing before this even comes up at the City Council. And. why is it on today and this goes to Cify Council on the 13th, which will be denied now. But why was it so rushed? Mr. Jones: This item is not the item that is going to the City Council on the 13th. This item is only going to the Planning Commission. Maybe the City Attorney can speak to what is going before the City Council next week. But this project must go to the Planning Commission first before it would ever get to the City Council. Mr. DeBerry: It is somewhat complicated Ms. Walters, but the City does not have any ability to delay an applicant's project on the basis that it might (inaudible) the property at some future date. This project was not rushed. The City staff. I think on at least one (1) occasion. if not more occasions, sent the environmental report back for further information. So, I know it's kind of awkward from a timing standpoint, and I think that's why Mr. Adams requested the continuance until the City Council can determine next week whether or not it's going to condemn the property for park purposes. And that's the action before the City Council. And obviously, if the Council takes that direction, Mr. Adams' opportunities for building the school there are really diminished. So that will be the decision that's before the City Council. Ms. Walters: The people out there... I wonder if they know there is going to be another hearing next week on all of this. I think what the City should do is have community meetings before anything goes this high. It's there, but next week, something else. It's confusing. And. Chairman Bosch, have you been to Pitcher Park? Chairman Bosch: Not in a long time. Ms. Walters: Don't go. You know that beautiful barn. It's not there any more. It used to be pretty. Someone painted it and it looks ugly. We want it back. It's in Old Towne. Chairman Bosch: Thank you for your comments. I don't recall if you were at the hearings ten years ago, or so, when this Rock Creek came through. I was here. And. I do have some recollection as to what the intent was and how the green belt and park lands might have evolved over time. as well as chagrin by the fact that the cities have to bring check books out now to buy park land. That's our duty as citizens. But. I think you've also noted more recently that this Commission has shown great concern for children and dump sites. Particularly when we're looking at the pre-school at Hewes and Santiago Canyon Road. which Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 we haven't seen back yet. Because we're terribly concerned about what might be occurring there. So. rest assured, we care very much about that and the time it takes to do that kind of thing right. I will be very interested to hear when this comes to a hearing the history of what transpired between the approvals on Rock Creek and the expectations for the recreation-open space land, and now when we're hearing of the kind of actions that mayor may not occur at this time. It's an interesting track of events that has occurred.and it does impact the property rights to some extent, as well as the way the Commission looks at future planned unit developments in terms of expectations, set asides, and the types of zoning that are applied to portions of it that the Commission might feel are intended to preserve and protect portions of the land for the community good. So. we'll be looking forward to that. Thanks for your comments on that.B. Heinleim. 448 North Swidler: Twenty-seven years ago I purchased my home on Swidler Street. We had grandiose plans. Where the water reservoir is, was going to become the spoke park. On the other side of the street was going to become a public park. Now this was a selling point of buying our land. So I know that is true whether you were here or not. When they tried to build the cui de sac on Walnut Slreet,we found out about it and by we. I mean anybody east of Prospect School. anyone east of there, lound out about it after they were already starting to construct it. And we found out about it because a neighbor who found out about it first. sent out notices to all of us. So, they were going to cut off several hundred homes in that area as far as traffic was concerned. Because that's what they wanted to do. They wanted to give Beezer Homes this private little enterprise street across the street from the school. They wanted to give the new homes north of Walnut their own private little entrance. So if you drove your child to school.you ended up going completely around this way, around that way. to Prospect and back down Spring Street to get back into our area. Okay. we got together on that, about 300 of us, and they decided they would not do that. The reason we were not notified is that we weren't 300 feet from the construction area.Of course, there is a school ground inbetween us that is more than 300 feet, but that put us outside the construction area. We managed to take care of that. And, then when we took care of that, we came in here to the City Council, and the land between Spring and Walnut, on the west side of Prospect, was going to...Beazer Homes was given permission to build "x" number of homes there, supposedly single family homes. The remainder of the property would be put into a park. Now we find out that Beazer Homes apparently found out the land is too unstable to build homes on. So we're going to dump that and sell it to a private school. Now, don't get me wrong. I have no objections to that private school, as lon!l as it occupies half of the land and a City park occupies the other part. And, I mean a park. I don't mean another sports center like they turned McPherson into. Where we have lights on 12 hours a day and the amount of noise and everything else. They say they want to put in five (5) soccer fields. The City of Orange proudly claims they have eight (8) soccer fields right now. They might have eight (8) soccer fields. but all day Saturday and all day Sunday I listen to screaming adults in the school immediately behind my home because that's where they are playing soccer. Why aren't they playing on one of the eight ( 8} City properties? We do not want a sports center. We've got one down at McPherson. There are no parks from Chapman. north at all. The closest thing that comes to a park is when you get over where the Y day facility is. They have land there; it's not a developed park or anything else. It's a day care center. But thl3Y do have land there. There is no park. If there is, please tell me where it is because I don't know. We need a City park. We do not need a sports center. We do not need anything that is lighted. We need trees and grass, and if the land is unstable, there's nothing that you can do with iI anyway. And as far as condemning it for public domain is concerned, if it is unsafe to build on. there's nothing else you can do to it. That' s alii wanted to say.Chairman Bosch: Thank you so much for your comments.Barbara DeNiro: I guess what I have to say is sort of to agree with these ladies. I've lived behind two (2)schools for 37 years. They've now become parks. So that's where our parks are. They're on our school grounds. And like she says, we've got noise day and night, weekends. And now we've got year round school. So, we've got problems. Thank you.Chairman Bosch: Thank you. I've no other cards for people desiring to address the Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED Isld 11