Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/7/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California June 7, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice- Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Current Planning and Commission Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant Engineer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF.MAY 17. 1982 Since there were not enough Commissioners in attendance who had attended the meeting of May 17, 1982 to vote on approval of those minutes, it was agreed to hold them over to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 963, VARIANCE 1685 - ORANGE SURGICAL SERVICES: A request to rezone property from the M -1 to 0 -P zone and to vary from City code height requirements to permit the construction of a two -story outpatient surgical center and medical office building on land located on the south side of La Veta Avenue at the terminus of Lemon Street (302 West La Veta Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 765 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 0.7 acre of land located on the south side of La Veta Avenue at the south terminus of Lemon Street. The property is zoned M -1 and is presently vacant. A fertilizer ware- house facility was located on the site until destroyed by fire in 1980. The site has been cleared of all buildings but is completely paved. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from M -1 (Light Manufacturing) to 0 -P (Office - Professional) to permit construction of a two -story outpatient surgical and medical office building. A variance is requested to deviate from the City Code height requirements. The applicant proposes to use the facility to perform outpatient surgical operations that do not require hospitalization. Mr. Murphy pointed out that this is a revised plan. On May 4, 1981 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 1114 and Variance 1639 which permitted a 13,000 square foot, two - story, out- patient surgical office building on this site. The proposal exceeded the City Code height, compact parking ratios, front yard setbacks and landscaping requirements. The building was located on the northeast corner of the parcel. The present proposal increases floor space to 16,000 square feet from the original 13,000 square feet previously requested. The additional space is to accommodate x -ray and other support equipment required for outpatient surgery. The building has been relocated to the northeast corner of the property and has no yard intrusions. Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1982 Page Two The Staff finds that the applicant's proposal the surrounding residential land uses and the General Plan. That office use would be a more manufacturing. k is compatible with intent of the desirable use than The applicant's proposal to exceed building height limitations by two feet is acceptable due to the structural design of the building which indicates sloping roof lines adjacent to residential properties. I n addition, the additional two feet requested w i l l aid in the screening of the proposed roof top /mechanical apparatus and bring about a more pleasing esthetic effect. Therefore, it is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 765 be accepted. Staff also recommends approval of Zone Change 963 and Variance 1685 with 27 conditions, 7 of which are special conditions and the other 20 being standard. Mr. Murphy explained that Condition #2 should be dropped from the conditions in that the Staff's original proposal was to try and accomplish a common drive somewhere between the two drives shown on the map, the existing drive for the church to the east and the proposed drive for the medical office building. However, in looking at the configuration of the project, it was felt that the two driveways may work adequately to service the two properties. Commissioner Coontz asked whether there is an elevation for the western and southern sides of the property. She thought that both of these sides abut residential areas. Mr. Murphy explained that the west side is 10 feet off of the property line and the south side is 60± feet from the property line. In the Staff's opinion, the property to the south is an adequate distance from the building. The west side would be the only area of concern in terms of a two -story structure. Commissioner Coontz then asked if the circulation pattern could be followed of entry into the area and into the underground parking lot and back out. Mr. Murphy explained the circulation pattern in more detail on the map. Commissioner Hart asked, with no reciprocal agreement, what the purpose would be of the entry to the church property. Mr. Murphy replied that the plan shows the possibility of some ingress and egress rights with the church property. The applicant intends to seek as much cooperation from the church as is possible. Condition #5 which states that the CC &R's on the project state that the reciprocal access to all parking be available at all times would be assuming that the applicant can achieve an agreement with the church people. However, he pointed out that they had received information today that this might not be possible. Commissioner Master asked for clarification with regard to the parking problem being discussed, in that the Staff Report states that on -site parking of 80 spaces meets the City Code. Mr. Murphy explained that in studying the codes of other cities in this regard, they feel that required parking for such an establishment might be a little light, although in ithis situation,which is for an outpatient surgical center, parking could be lighter than in a center where there are various uses, such as a general practitioner, a pediatrician and other specialists, all in the same building. Staff, however, is concerned about long term use of the property, particularly the fact that it is isolated, not having any other commercial use in the area to provide flexibility on the parking. LIO Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1982 Page Three Commissioner Master then asked a question with regard to the setbacks to the right. Mr. Murphy explained that the Industrial zoning does not have a side setback. However, the Office- Professional zone has a 5 ft. si deyard setback and the applicants propose a 10 ft. setback on the west side of the property. Vice - Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Gary Lewis, development consultant on the project, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He thought he could clarify the parking situation a little more and went on to say that their firm is a national firm, who works specifically with owner - occupied medical facilities, such as this one, around the United States. He explained that in terms of anticipated parking problems the City of Orange's parking codes are about in the middle, leaning toward strict, when compared with national codes. He felt that the 5 parking spaces would be adequate for their use. He further explained with an out- patient surgical center like this, they don't have more doctors, they have patients staying longer, so that actually their parking require- ments are reduced when you look at the all day situation. He pointed out that they also have a great deal of control over how their parking is used because a substantial part of their parking needs represent their staff and physicians. They feel that they meet the City Codes and they can control their use of the parking facilities. Mr.Lewis then stated that they do have an agreement pending with the church to the east and that Conditions #3 and 5 are conflicting. He also felt that Condition #5 requires liquidation of their agreement with the church. He proposed that Condition #5 be deleted, but leave Condition #2 in, but delete the statement as to a common driveway, which refers to their previous proposal, but does not apply to this proposal. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice - Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 765. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Zone Change 963 and Variance 1685, subject to the seven special conditions listed in the Staff Report, deleting the words ..as well as common driveway with the church property to the east." in Condition #2, as well as deleting Condition #5; and also subject to the 20 standard conditions as stated in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 962 - CLIFFORD U. AND ELEANOR L. POTTER A request to rezone property from M -2 to C -1 to permit construction of a portion of a parking lot area for a bank proposed on the ad- jacent parcel; property is located on the west side of Main Street approximately 275± feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. (Note: This project is exempt from environmental review.) Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1982 Page Four It was the consensus of the Commissioners to dispense with the Staff Report. Vice - Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Carl Parker, representing the Potters, stated that he was the engineer on the project, resid at 1240 E. Orangethorpe, Placentia. He explained that they were proposing a zone change from M -2 to C -1' in order to have enough area to accommodate the parking space re- quired for the bank site on the adjacent C -1 parcel. He explained that the parcel to the north is approximately 7.5 acres and already zoned C -1 and by adding approximately .23 acres to this site, they would have enough area for required parking. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Hart brought up a memo which had been given to the Commissioners with regard to the Villa Ford sign, asking that Mr. Murphy bring them up to date on this matter. Mr. Murphy explained that the matter of the Villa Ford sign had been continued for eight months until the later part of this month. The building on the property is under construction and will be com- pleted later this year. He pointed out that the Commission had given no further direction at the time of the continuance of the matter, other than to review it in eight months. The only change that has taken place in the area is the fact that the building is actually under construction at the present time, which will house a number of office suites, possibly to be sold off as individual units later on. Commissioner Master wondered if there was already a commitment on signage, which might mean that the individual purchasers of office suites might feel shortchanged in that regard. Mr. Murphy replied that a statement had been made previously that only a monument type of sign would be desired on Heim Avenue for the office building. However, he did not know if this was a commitment by the landowner. Commissioner Coontz asked Staff is this at all deprives the in- dustrial parcel of necessary parking. Mr. Murphy explained that the industrial parcel is not fully developed at the present time so there is no restriction on the existing use. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice - Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master moved, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Lot Line Adjustment 82 -4, that the resolution for the Lot Line be processed and the documents recorded if the Zone Change 962 request is approved. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Zone Change 962 for reasons so stated by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Hart brought up a memo which had been given to the Commissioners with regard to the Villa Ford sign, asking that Mr. Murphy bring them up to date on this matter. Mr. Murphy explained that the matter of the Villa Ford sign had been continued for eight months until the later part of this month. The building on the property is under construction and will be com- pleted later this year. He pointed out that the Commission had given no further direction at the time of the continuance of the matter, other than to review it in eight months. The only change that has taken place in the area is the fact that the building is actually under construction at the present time, which will house a number of office suites, possibly to be sold off as individual units later on. Commissioner Master wondered if there was already a commitment on signage, which might mean that the individual purchasers of office suites might feel shortchanged in that regard. Mr. Murphy replied that a statement had been made previously that only a monument type of sign would be desired on Heim Avenue for the office building. However, he did not know if this was a commitment by the landowner. Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1982 Page Five Commi s s i.oner Coontz commented that since the building was already under construction, plans for it would be available for the Commissioners to look at if they so choose. She wondered if the signage was part of the plans. Mr. Murphy replied that he did not think this was so. He pointed out that usually the signage comes about later on, when a request comes in on behalf of the various owners of the suites. Upon questioning by the Commissioners, Mr. Murphy explained that the signage request would go to the Design Review Board, whereupon it would be sent either to the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission. Ordinarily it would go to the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Hart requested that this come before the Planning Commission for their review. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m., to be reconvened to a study session on Tuesday, June 8, 1982 at 5:30 p.m.; and thence to a study session on Wednesday, June 16, 1982 at 5:30 p.m.; and thence to a regular meeting on Monday, June 21, 1982, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. E EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 7, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice- Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjourn at 8:10 p.m. on Monday, June 7, 1982 to re- convene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 21, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, June 7, 1982. Dated this 8th day of June, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. f Oere P. Murphy, City QPl anne and Sec ary to the Planning C mmission of t City of Orange. CJ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on June 7, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on June 8, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspisuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of June 7, 1982 was held.