Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/19/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California June 19, 1989 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Acting Senior Planner & Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Administrator of Current Planning.; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Minutes of June 5, 1989 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-89 - CITY OF ORANGE: A memo was distributed to the Commission from Jeff Arehart , the Assessment District Coordinator, regarding the landscape g~fidelines. Chairman Bosch read the memo, which requested a continuance to clarify some outstanding issues. Cora Lee Newman, Director of Resource Entitlement for the Irvine Company, asked for a continuance to be able to meet with staff regarding the grading ordinance, which they have done. They feel comfortable with the ordinance; all concerns were addressed by staff. They have just received the landscaping ordinance re-draft last week and there were a couple of concerns. It would be most productive to sit down and go through the concerns with staff. A two week continuance would be appropriate, but because of the holiday, the July 17th meeting would be biter. t~ioved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission continue Ordinance Amendment 2-89 to July 17, ].989. AYES: Commissioners Bosh, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES• None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 - Page 2 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1766-89 - YORBA PARR MEDICAL GROUP: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a four story building, 52 feet in height, at a distance of 125 feet from the R-1 zone. Subject property is a 3.65 acre parcel located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, east of the 55 Freeway and south of Santiago Creek, at the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Yorba Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1297-89 has been prepared for this project. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The request is for a 4 story building. The height within the C-1 zone, where the project is located, could be 31 feet without a Conditional Use Permit. The restriction contained in the zoning ordinance is that a building height may reach one-quarter of the distance from the base of the building to the nearest R-1 zoning boundary. The proposal is for a building of 58,000 square feet, proposing 311 parking spaces and the use proposed is a medical office building. The nearest residential zone is 125 feet from the location of the building; however, the nearest residential development is approximately 300 feet from the property boundaries. Santiago Creek is situated between the project site and the residentially developed area. Major issues to consider are the use and proposed height of the building. Related issues, which are more site specific in nature, include the Yorba Street special study area. It has been recommended by the upcoming General Plan Update. Another issue is reciprocal access between the project site and the adjacent parcel. A third issue to be discussed is an interim site condition, which has been proposed. A memo was forwarded to the Commission from staff which discusses the traffic study, recommended as a condition of approval. It was noted that until a traffic study is prepared, the Commission may not have enough information to fully understand the impacts of the project. The Commission should consider two options of either to defer consideration of the project until a traffic study is completed, or to go ahead and proceed with the project and use the condition to ask for a traffic study at a later time. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Ben Harper, Medical Doctor, 2501 East Chapman Avenue, recognizes their facility is inadequate for their needs. They plan to replace the building with a new improved model. M arming Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 - Page 3 They are opposed to some of the conditions in the staff report and would like modification. They think the easement to the east of the property should be approximately 60 feet rather than 100 feet. It would be slightly over 25~ of the property. (This is in reference to the extension of Yorba.) They understand they will lose some parking if they dedicate that amount of the property. In return, the City has a triangular shaped piece of property to the west. If the parking they lose could be replaced and improved to an useful state, they would consider it. He questioned the zoning of the Orange County Flood Control Channel. He feels it is unreasonable to dedicate additional property along Chapman Avenue other than the 60 feet. They do not intend to remove access to Chapman General Hospital. Additional staff people were present to answer questions. Commissioner Master questioned the parking study. He had difficulty with a study being done after approval of a project because he would not know what the impacts are. It's a very critical area along Chapman Avenue and the intersection of the 55. Dr. Harper believes the traffic impact is a figment. They plan on doing business just as they are today. There will not be a major influx of patients. He assured the Commission they are not planning to have a surgi-center. Commissioner Hart questioned a new building twice the size of the present, but they do not expect the use to increase substantially. Dr. Harper felt they have been living in cramped quarters and would like to expand. They hope to grow over the next several years; it's not going to happen over night. Chairman Bosch questioned the revised site plan of the dimensions not adding up between the property line and the dimension string across the property. He would like some input as to what is correct. Douglas Rigby, 4731 84th Avenue S.E., Mercer Island, Washington, explained the survey. A preliminary drawing was used, but they have been revising andconfining it. They are still working from survey plans, which are not officially ALTA, but preliminary ALTA. They do have a title report and survey to back it up, and they are closely related to what has been submitted. Chairman Bosch asked him if the potential range and dimensional difference will negatively impact the site layout in terms of lost parking or further dimension of setbacks? Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 - Page 4 Mr. Rigby stated it would be very minimal. Chairman Bosch said the primary reason for the Conditional Use Permit is because of the proposed building height with regard to distance from the residential zone. He hasn't heard or seen in the staff report a strong rationale for the granting of a C.U.P. on that basis except for the perceived unusual condition of the R-1 zoning in the creek bed. Why do they want this particular height in this part of town adjacent to the R-1 zone? Mr. Rigby responded the initial reason for the 4 story building is to minimize the site impact of the footprint on the building. As they proposed the 58,000 square foot building, they've got a 15,000 square foot footprint vs. spreading the building out over a larger area on the site. It maximizes their site use; they can do more landscaping and get more parking. The prominence and architectural features of the building, as well as the owner's request, were also considerations. The R-1 zoning is the biggest problem area, but in their opinion it was the only problem. A 4 story building is not a great impact on the residential neighbors. It was not out of character with the hospital or other office buildings in the area. Chairman Bosch referred to the Design Review Board with regard to the mass of the proposed building. He wanted to know if this were a conceptual massing study or their intent for the project. Mr. Rigby stated the elevations were meant only to be a height study. They were very basic in their form. They are still in an on-going design process and it reflects the preliminary stage. Dennis Burch, 23922 N.E. 43rd, Remond, Washington, added they had not intended to pursue a Conditional Use Permit. It was a surprise to them after going through the preliminary E.R.B. review in January and thought they were given approval. In late April, they discovered they had a height problem. They still question whether the City will approve a three story or f our story building. It is difficult to proceed with the design until the building height has been determined. Dr. Harper provided some handouts to the Commission. Those speaking in opposition: Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said this would be the tallest building in East Orange. He felt they should be careful of what they are going to build. He suggested a brief look of what can be expected east of Planning Commission h4inutes June 19, 1989 - Page 5 Tustin in the high rise study. He also feels the City should be planning their traffic now for the worst possible case. The intersection of Yorba and East Chapman is really messed up. Rebuttal: Mr. Rigby commented on the traffic study. They could submit their traffic report prior to any grading or building application permit. They intend to do a traffic study and realize there will be somewhat of an impact. Their intent at this point is to determine whether a 4 story building meets everyone's criteria and is it reasonable. Commissioner Greek feels there is some misconception as to what was submitted and what a Conditional Use Permit is in the City of Orange. He explained a C.U.P. is an absolute blueprint of what someone is going to build. The applicant is asking for something that if approved, they still could not build. More decisions need to be made by the applicant prior to submitting the application. He was not happy with the Environmental Review Board not requiring a focused E.I.R. He prefers to postpone this until the application is realistic. Mr. Rigby responded the plot plan is reasonably accurate. His understanding was that the Conditional Use Permit was subject to conditions placed on the building. And, if in fact, there were requirements that they change some dimensions on the site plan, that could be conditioned prior to application. In response to Commission's question regarding the applicant's application, Mr. P4cGee stated staff has had several frustrations in regard to the special study street of the Yorba Extension North. They attempted to discuss land swaps in terms of property the City owns to compensate for that. *~4r. McGee felt they have not gotten too far in discussions. Some points of the application may not be as detailed as others, but he didn't see those filled out in any rapid pace. Commissioner Fiart agreed with Commissioner Greek. There are too many things left to chance later on down the line, which will come back to haunt both the applicant and City. Before making a decision, they need to be firmed up. Mr. Burch understood there were several different times in the process the Commission would have a chance to look at the project in more detail. They were told by staff to expedite their proposal, a Conditional Use Permit would need to be processed. They were not given requirements in a timely manner. Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 - Page 6 Chairman Bosch stated the requirements of the City are codified in the City Ordinances. The development standards are within the City Ordinances in a package that is available to applicants. He had to take exception to Mr. Burch's statement that he did not receive information in a timely manner. The Commission doesn't look at just height issues. They respond to the intensity of the use on the property relative to spreading of the building over the property, which may have the effect of either reducing the total amount of building area because you need to meet parking requirements or having an economic impact on the type of development proposal made. They both have alternative impacts on the surrounding properties. The vehicle of height is one chosen as a threshold to determine what impacts above that typically to be expected without a conditioned approval because of the sensitivity to the issue on the site would normally be undertaken. The Commission must be critically concerned with the accuracy of the plan and the traffic impacts of your property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek felt they did not have adequate information to make a decision. Proper information is requested and issues need to be resolved. He wanted to postpone any action until another time. Chairman Bosch said the line of site is critical and requested an accurately developed plan. Commissioner Hart would like to see whore there is a difference of opinion between the applicant and staff regarding the conditions. He requested those differences b2 outlined to show where the differences are. Commissioner Scott concurs there was a lack of information and therefore could not make a decision. Chairman Bosch asked the applicant how much time they would need to develop requested information? Dr. Harper did not understand the Commission's concern for additional information. The Commission discussed the reasons for not making a decision with Dr. Harper (i.e., parking, building not fitting on plot plan). The plot plan does not include specific requirements. Jack Gray, 19132 La Veta Avenue, Administrator, spoke in regards to the dimensions of the property. It is their position that they are not ready to give up 100 feet for the Planning Commission P~linutes June 19, 1989 - Page 7 extension of Yorba unless there is a good exchange. He met with Mayor Smith and discussed this in regards to the property the City has on the west side of their property. There possibly could be an exchange if the City was willing to contribute that section, as well as bring it up to code. Commissioner Greek said some technical basis was needed on which to determine what the width of the street should be -- that's part of the traffic study. The traffic study is an integral part of determining what the right-of-way will be. G~hatevvr dimension is used, it will affect what the applicant has approved. Fie would require more information than just a traffic study. Commission explained what information they needed in order to consider the application for approval. It was suggested they work with staff. The applicant was asked if they were willing to provide Commission with additional information and what time frame it could be provided. Mr. Rigby felt 60 days would be enough time to put the additional information together. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1766-89 for 60 days to August 21, 1989. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, MasMOTIONcCARRIED NOES: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, July 5, 1989 -- study session at 6:30 p.m. and regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.; then to adjourn to a study session at 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 1909 regarding the sign ordinance revision. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, PRasgOTIONCCARRIED NOES: None The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. /sld