Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/17/1985 - Minutes PC ~' . City of Orange Orange, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 17, 1985 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Master at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, hlason, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF .John Lane, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secre- PRESENT: tary; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Toba V. Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 1436 -JUBILATION BIBLE MINISTRIES Proposed church and elementary school on nine acres in the R-1-7 Zone west of Magnolia Avenue and north of Buena Vista (site formerly occupied by Olive Elementary School). NOTE: Staff recommends that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 1, 1985. Mr. Lane said Staff requests that this be continued to the July 1, 1985, meeting because additional material is necessary before proper evaluation can be made. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason,--that this matter be continued to the July 1, 1985, meeting. ~` AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason,-Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMLT 1438, VARIANCE 7763 - OAKVIEW HEALTH CARE Proposed -150-bed convalescent hospital and reduction in the required number of parking spaces on 1.5 acres in the C-1 Zone on the north side of Chaptman Avenue, approximately 418 feet east from Rancho Santiago Boulevard. NOTE: Negative Declaration 993 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval subject to the 23 conditions in its report. He said the third condition on the variance, which relates to the question of whether or not there should be visiting Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1985 Page Two hours during weekdays after 4:00 p.m. or not allow visiting before 4:OQ p.m., seems to him to be rather questionable in terms of its enforceability and he thinks this condition is unrealistic. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Applicant Charles Hargas, 5061 Briar Hill, Yorba Linda, said he runs a 342-bed facility in Glendora and doesn't have fixed visiting hours there as most families visit after working hours and on weekends and there are rarely any visitors during the week. He said he has seen the Staff Report and has not objections to any of the conditions therein. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Both Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Greek commented that limiting visiting hours is not necessary. Moved by Commisioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that ® the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 993. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Scott, Mason NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commisisoner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1438 for the reasons stated in the Staff Report and subject to the condi- tions in the Staff. Report, and approve Variance 1763 subject to Conditions 1 and 2 but eliminating Condition 3. Commissioner Greek said he is not sure what the dimensions are by looking at the plot plan and wants to be sure the applicant can satisfy Condition 18 of the Conditional Use Permit regarding providing adequate roadway turning radius to access roadways for Fire Department apparatus. Chairman Master reopened the public hearing. Don Sullivan]-the architect for the proposed development, said he spoke to the fire marshal and was told the arrangement in the parking area was adequate and because of the depth of the driveway a turning radius would not be required, Commissioner Greek asked if that meant Condition 18 would not be required and Mr. Sullivan said that is the way he understands it. Commissioner Greek asked for the dimension of the parking spaces on the easterly side of the property. Mr. Sullivan said they are the required compace parking space size. He said there is a 25' driveway that goes the fu17 depth with standard parking on one side and compact parking on the other side. Chairman Master asked Mr. Lane and Mr. ,Johnson if they had a comment on this. Mr. Johnson said if the Fire Department had wanted to delete this condition they would have informed the Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1985 Page Three Planning Department prior to this hearing. Mr. Lane said he would assume this is a condition that is being recommended for approval if it's in the Staff Report. He said if the dimension lengthwise of the accessway is of such!~a length that the Fire Department thinks the turnaround is not necessary, then he would .think they would not require it. He said there is a stall at the end of the property which could be used for turnaround purposes but whether or not that would satisfy Fire Department requirements he doesn't know. Commissioner Hart asked what the procedure would be if the Planning Commission approved this with a turnaround and then the Fire Department decided it didn't need it, i.e., could it be removed as a condition. Mr. Lane said in his opinion the conditions of approval are just that--conditions of approva l--and he can't see that Staff has the prerogative to ignore them. Mr. Hargas said this is confusing to him also, but in looking at Condition #19 which reads, "Dead-end Fire Department access roads in excess of 750 feet shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around of Fire Department apparatus," the driveway was purposely designed so it doesn't exceed 150`, so it`s a moot point.. Chairman Master said Mr. Hargas' statement cleared up the matter very nicely. Mr. Lane said he suspects what the Fire Department had in mind is that they wanted to cover both alternatives and if the plan was adjusted the Fire Department wanted to make the point that if there is an~a~ccessway over 150' then conditions would be different. Commissioner Mason asked how the parking spaces would be affected if a turnaround would be required. Mr, Lane said that won't happen because the plot plan presented at this meeting is the one that wi11 be used; he said what the Fire Department was concerned about was that the plot plan might be revised in the hearing process after it had written its conditions so when the conditions were written, which was probably three or four weeks ago, the Fire Department was covering both ends. Commisiioner Greek pointed out that the driveway on the east side is in excees of 200`. Commissioner Hart said it is his understanding that if it's over 150' a turnaround wi11 be provided, and Commissioner Greek said that was right. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed and the vote on the motion was taken. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart.,-Mason,-Scott NOES:. None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: VARLANCE 1766 - CITY OF ORANGE Proposed reduction in landscaped setback areas,-and a reduction in the number of ..required parking spaces on .67 acres in the C~1 Zone at the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Chipman Avenue. NOTE:. This project is exempt from environmental review. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1985 Page Four Mr. Lane .made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends. approval subject to the 14 conditions in its report. He said the Planning Commission also received a letter from Philip Korn of Rutan & Tucker, representing the owner of the larger shopping center that abuts this property to the north and the east, indicating his concern about the off-street parking reduction and the impact that might have on his property. The letter also requested that the corner site have a perimeter wall around it and stated the owner is concerned about the appearance of the proposed building as it relates to the north and east elevations, which will face his property. The letter also asked that the owner of the .adjacent property be notified of a71 future meetings and discussions on this application as it relates to the Design Review Board. Commissioner Scott asked what consistency there is for the ten-foot ® landscaped area on Chapman and- on Tustin. Mr. Lane said this varies considerably from much less than ten feet to even more than ten feet ' along Tustin, and pointed out it is developed for commercial and office use from the south City boundary all the way to Lincoln at the north. As for Chapman, he said Leo's Stereo has a setback but the building is set right at the 10' setback line so a1 though there is landscaping there,- the building being right on the rear landscape line makes the landscaping much less in terms of what it was originally intended to be in terms of the ordinance; Selman Chevrolet has consid- erable landscaping but also has some flat cement circular paths out front. where cars are occasionally displayed. He said the large shopping center adjacent to the proposed development does not have a 10` landscaped setback on the north side of Cha man, but Midas ~~~~~~ Muffler, further east ~. does have landscaping alt~ough he is not ~, sure what the depth is. Mr. Scott asked if there is any provision on the plans calling for additional landscaping other than-this 10' frontage on Chapman and on Tustin. Mr. Lane said it is his under- standing that there is other on-site landscaping called for. Com- missioner Scott said it doesn't seem to be the width of the area to be landscaped that is the problem as much as how well it is landscaped and how well it is maintained. Commissioner .Scott questioned the distance from the east property line on Chapman of the proposed development to the driveway entering the larger shopping center; also the distance from the north driveway of the proposed development to the driveway going into the larger shopping center; he wondered if the two driveways weren`t too close together. He said he was concerned about someone picking the wrong driveway and going into the wrong shopping center without realizing it. Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer., said in one of the early renditions of this plan the Traffic Department had requested that the developer secure reciprocal access rights to the parcels to the east and north of his property; subsequently he made application to the owner of these parcels and was denied. Consequently, the Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1985 Page Five locations of the driveways are in his opinion the best locations that are furthest from the corner that they can get. He said that the best situation would have been to utilize the existing driveways on the adjacent property,. but unfortunately this couldn't be done. Chairman Master asked about the treatment of the perimeter and if there would be a fence. He opened the public hearing for comments from the developer. Terry Klingen, C & H Development Company, 1421 North Wanda, Orange, said the building is held off the .north property line with some architectural treatment for about one foot. in order to provide architectural elements that stand off from the building as well as to pick up any drainage that-comes off the mansard roof that will ~~ face the larger shopping center, There is also some landscaping on that side where the building stops at the front of the site. ® On the east side of the property there is a strip. with a minimum three feet of landscaping widening to five feet along the side of the building. Chairman Master asked if he was proposing any access doors on the east side. Mr. Klingen said they were on the north side, again for esthetic reasons, and were proposing to house in the very northeast corner of the building a rolled-down door so the trash would be completely out of view. For this they intended to seek the permission of the owner of the adjacent property to access. his driveway. But since that can`t be done, they plan to move the trash enclosure to the northwest corner of their building and use the first parking stall. There will also be a utility enclosure completely screened within the building, also in that area. He said he had advised the City Engineering Department about the trash enclosure plans ,and the need for using a parking space. He .said he had brought the site plan that met the conditions of the City to the City .for approval last July 16 at the Environmental Review Board prior to closing escrow on the property and the further dedication requirements-that came along were subsequent to his original plans and the approved site plan. Commissioner Hart asked what type of use was anticipated for the proposed development and if there might be office use. Mr. Klingen said they anticipated small retail usage and although office use had not been contemplated there could be quasi-retail office use. Commissioner Mason asked if he had any concept about the wall around the perimenter and he said it was news to him. He said there is a 5' landscaped buffer strip that the larger shopping center was required to install when the Home Savings and Loan Building. was erected, on that site but it is a rather poorly maintained row of oleander bushes and trees and he doesn't see the benefit of enclosing it. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greek said he was disappointed to see a plot plan that changes setbacks and dimensions by words and would like to see a new plan s ~;~ _ _ ..__~. ...,_._ __ Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1985 Page Six indicating what they're really asking for as opposed to leaving it up to the imagination of the Planning Commission. He said he thinks Mr. Scott has valid concerns about the location of the driveways and he has trouble developing justification for hardship when this building could be designed to meet City Code. He asked what., would happen if the City Code was met for parking and landscaping. Chairman Master said he sees what perhaps has developed here is the wish on the part of the City for the variance as a trade for land dedication along Tustin Street. Commissioner Greek said he doesn't feel comfortable being in the position of making trade-offs, he can't see any hardship, and he can't see any reason for doing it except as a trade-off to get more street right-of-way, and he would not be comfortable doing this. Commissioner Hart said he agreed and thinks the Planning Commission should be looking at a plan it would ultimately approve, not one that has imaginary lines to be ® drawn in at a later date. He skid he thinks it is not fair to the developer to have had his project approved last July and then have the City change things; for tfiat reason he would be inclined to allow the variance if the dimensions were brought back to the Planning Commission correctly so it would know exactly what it was looking at. Mr. Dennis said the developer submitted an initial plan that for all practical purposes met the development requirements for that particularly corner. At the time Public Works was in the process of developing the enhanced intersection concept which has already been applied to certain areas in the redevelopment area. Although this site is not in the redevelopment area it has been identified as a potential enhanced intersection. Therefore he met with Mr. Klinger, talked about various options, explained the City's position and the fact that the first plan as submitted would not retrofit easily into a viable site at such time as the improvements would be made on this portion of Tustin Street. That resulted in two additional plans and finally a fourth plan,-which is the one before the Planning Commission now which, when the improvements are made,- the integrity~~of the site wil`1 be~;maintained. Pub? is Works. indicated to Mr. Klingen,-end he agreed,-that it would assist him in any way possible in regard to his plan if he would entertain conversely a redesign to accommodate its needs. So Mr. Klingen was very polite and very accommodating and did just that. However it was not incumbent upon him or mandatory .that he make the dedication, and still isn`t, Commissioner Greek asked who will pay for the cost of the improve- ments, Mr. Dennis said it would be paid by the City,-that the cost of the enhanced intersection. which is estimated to be well in excess of a quarter of a million dollars per quadrant will be borne in most part by the TSIP fees. He said that in this particular case they will evaluate the cost of the right-of-way as opposed tp the cost of the TSIP fees and he knows that the right-of-way has Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1985 Page Seven greater value so there would be no additional fee on this project. Commissioner Greek asked if that meant that Mr. Klingen isn't giving the City anything. here as a trade-off. Mr. Dennis said he suspects not, that having a good idea of what the value of the right-of-way is and of what the shell cost of the building is, the City is better off accepting the right-of-way. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission approve Variance 1766 for the reasons shown in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Scott said the variance the Planning Commission is looking at now is the reduction of two parking stalls, from 45 to 43. He asked~if Mr. Klingen would have to come back again if he goes from 43 to 42 because of the trash enclosure. Mr. Lane said he would. ® AYES: Commissioners Master, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lane informed the Planning Commissioners that each has received a copy of the Upper Peters. Canyon Specific Plan aswe11 as copies of material from a Mr. Mac Brown,~an attorney who is expert in the area of infrastructure financing for capital improvements and for maintenance of public property, topics which will be discussed at the joint session with the City Council on June 18. Mr, Lane also said there is a letter-from Don Cotton which attempts to respond to the Planning Commission's concern about the 'lack of any real definitive comments in the draft environmental impact report for Loma about the relationship of impacts between the Eastern Corridor and Weir Canyon if they are built on the Loma Street arterial highway. The letter says that the appendix material that is part of the Environmental Impact Report--basically Appendix E-- relates to two reports, one done by Wes Pringle and Associates and the other by Herman, Basmasian and Darne117-traffic engineers, who discuss in some detail the Eastern Corridor and the Weir Canyon relationship. Since the Planning Commission did not get copies of tie appendix material this doesn't really answer its question. Mr. Lane said he will see that the Planning Commission gets copies of the material; however that still may not answer the question.. Chairman Master said he was not pleased with this kind of inadequate response which doesn`t give the information requested, Commissioner Hart agreed, saying that the Planning Commission cannot act on inform- ation is is supposed to have and doesn't have. Commissioner Greek agreed.,-saying this is not the type of response expected from the consultant and if he has a problem preparing the response wanted by the Planning Commission, then he should answer accordingly. Planning Commission Minutes ,~ ~ June 17, 1985 Page Eight Commissioner Mason asked if Staff is familiar with the Pringle report and if anything in it would answer the Planning Commission's question. Mr, Johnson said he is familiar with the report and he thinks the information requested by the Planning Commission is beyond the scope of both the Pringle and Basmasian reports. He believes this information will not be available until the Eastern Corridor findings are completed and all of the traffic data is published. He said the Eastern Corridor study is going through an Environmental Impact Report which should give the answers on what's happening, what the benefits are, and what the impact will be on paralleling arterials. Chairman Master asked when this will be completed. Mr. Johnson responded that the first phase, which is just the determination of the various routes and the areas that will be looked at in detail, is just coming to a close now, that it is supposed to go to the County Planning Commission late this month and to the Board of Supervisors in early July, and that ® probably by mid-July the first phase will have been accepted and acted upon; however, the second phase, which is really the meat of the thing from the standpoint of the EIR and the traffic gener- ation studies,. won't be available for about a year. Chairman Master said that what the Planning Commission asked for, and what he believes is appropriate that it should have, is a qualitative .review of the impacts on the positive aspect of both Weir Canyon and the Eastern Corridor. But what is being told to the Planning Commission is to talk to somebody else or look some place else for the information it wants, and he feels that is not an appropriate answer. Commissioner Scott agreed and said the Planning Commission is not in a position to expend City funds on reports and he feels the response to the Planning Commission's request is a very poor one. Mr, Dennis said there are two Pringle reports that were prepared for the City of Orange, One dealt with the possibility of various intersection configurations of Imperial and Via Escola, the object of which was to gauge or evaluate what would occur under various intersection scenarios, with five alternatives evaluated and ® reviewed. The second analysis was included in the Loma EIR and dealt with the potential freeway diversion of traffic from the 91 into the south county via Imperial, which entailed five or six different route alternatives and was predicated on diversion curves provided by the FHWA and also back-equated in respect to travel time along these various routes as compared to the freeway. He said these reports are available to the Planning Commission, Commissioner Greek pointed out that these reports do not really answer the Planning Commission's question, Chairman Master said the Punning Commission's question of Mr. Cotton was regarding what is the positive/negative impact of the proposed Eastern Corridor and Weir Canyon, and that the Planning Commission is aware that quantitative numbers are not available as yet and is Planning Commission Minutes ~~ June 17, 1985 Page Nine 1 ooki ng fora qualitative assessment; however the response received -~~':~"~~~~~~" in answer to the request fora qualitative assessment was to go look at some appendices. Commissioner Greek pointed out that according to Mr. Dennis' description of what is contained in the reports making up Appendix E they don't answer the question asked by the Planning Commission Mr. Dennis said that the Basmasian aspect of the initial Loma study was done under the scenario that at least the Eastern Corridor, and probably Weir Canyon, were in place. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Basmasian's report was done two years ago and at that time there was one corridor there that was looked at as being somewhat of an expressway as opposed to a multi- purpose corridor. He thinks some of the benefits of that may have been taken into account but he doesn't believe it was viewed as a full-blown transportation corridor or as to its impact upon Loma. Mr. Dennis offered to verify that and let the Planning Commission know prior to its next meeting, i.e., he would ascertain whether ® or not the Eastern Corridor and Weir Canyon were included in the initial traffic scenario for Loma and see'if he could obtain an assessment of both positive and negative impacts. Mr. Lane said the Planning Commission received a letter from the Orange Park Acres Association asking that the Tentative Tract Map for Upper Peters Canyon not be acted upon at this meeting, as well as a letter from The Irvine Company indicating that it has concurred with Staff on the recommendation-that it request a continuance of that map.. Tentatively the map is ~fet four hearing at the July 1 meeting. Commissioner Hart asked for clarification of the location of the meeting on June 20 and Mr. Lane said. it would be at the Grand Hotel in Anaheim. Chairman Master asked for the date of the General Plan update and Mr. Lane said it is scheduled for June 24 at a 5:30 p.m. Study Session. He said also that the joint session with the City Council is scheduled to be between the City Council's 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p..m~ sessions on June 20, so will probably be around 5:00 p.m. Mbived by C~hai~rman Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason that the ® Planning Commission recess to an executive session for the purpose of meeting with the City-designated representative, Susan Trager, regarding possib"]e pending litigation on .the proposed Loma Street) Imperial Highway connection. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The Planning Commission recessed to executive session at 8:50 p.m. It returned to the public meeting at 10:34 p.m. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to reconvene ~t a regular meeting on Monday, July 1, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.