Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/1/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California May 1, 1989 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Sr. Planner & Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Minutes of April 17, 1989 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None t40TION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1695 - CHAPMAN COLLEGE: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of two residential structures to college use as a child studies center on properties located at 485 and 489 North Center Street. This application was continued from the December 5, 1988, January 4, 1989 and February 6, 1989 Planning Commission Meetings. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1292 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The memo from staff to the Commission indicates that the continued operation of the child care lab school has been before the Commission several times. The application originally involved a number of uses proposed by the College for the residential properties in the neighborhood and those have all been dealt with except for the child study center, which was specifically taken out and continued until such time as the City Council could review the Specific Plan for Chapman College in assessing its acceptability as a use in the neighborhood. The City Council adopted the Specific Plan in January, 1989 and the day care use was listed as a permitted use in the Specific Plan area. However, the current location of the child study center is in an R-2-6 zone and was not included as a part of the Specific P].an. The Planning Commission Minutes PRay 1, 1989 - Page 2 Council members at that time agreed that the child study center should be allowed to operate for a period of six months at that location. The Planning Commission had continued its hearings in hopes that a study could be performed to find out whether or not the child care center was appropriate at this location; however, Council, it appears, took the action of allowing the child day care to remain for six months, which would basically preclude the Commission from taking any action other than that. Commissioner Hart noted that Dr. Beck was in the audience. Commissioner Greek stated that as long as Council has approved the operation of the child care center until July 10, 1989, the Commission could not take action. The Commission agreed not to open the public hearing for public comment because it would only be reputed at a later time. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 1695 to July 17, 1989. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None C90TION CARRIED Carole Tnlalters, 534 North Shaffer, said this issue was getting confusing. She asked if staff overrides the Commission's recommendation? How can the City Council vote on something before the Commission? t^7ho is the boss in the City of Orange? Chairman Bosch responded the City Council, elected by the voters of Orange, is the boss. The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council. All applications that are advisory to the City Council, the Council takes final action. Mrs. Frederick, 491 North Shaffer, stated this has been going on since 1988. All the neighbors are going on trips for about two or three months and they will not know what is going on. TN RE: NEW HEARINGS PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1110-89 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed pre-zone of unincorporated land to the City of Orange R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, minimum 6,000 square foot lots) prior to annexing to the City of Orange. Subject property is located north of Canyon View Avenue, 1,000 feet east of Chapman Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page 3 NOTE: Negative Declaration 1287-89 has been prepared for this project. -a nd- PRE-ZONE CBANGE 1111-89 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed pre-zone of unincorporated land to City of Orange A-1 (Agricultural) zoning prior to annexing to the City of Orange. Subject property is located on the north side of Canyon View Avenue, 1200 feet west of Newport Boulevard. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1288-89 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Godlewski suggested combining these two applications as both were similar. At this point, staff is dealing with the pre-zone of of two parcels. Each application is asking for different zoning. In terms of annexation, he believed they are being handled as the same annexation. Both annexations and pre-zones involve pieces of property that have frontage on Canyon View Avenue. Canyon View Avenue has been developed in the City of Orange to City standards and these portions cut across County pieces of property. The County has a different standard for street development. At this time in the street development, staff would like to get some consistency so that the street stripes are consistent through the City and County parcels. It is a matter of safety and consistency with the street section. The first parcel, Pre-Zone 1110-89, is the residential parcel. The surrounding zoning in the City of Orange is predominantly R-1-6, Single Family Residential. The City is proposing that this parcel fronting on Canyon View also be pre-zoned to the R-1-6 zoning. The other parcel, in Pre-Zone 1111-89, is currently an undeveloped approximately 3 acre parcel of land. It's mostly located on sloping property that drops to the north away from Canyon View Avenue. A few questions have been addressed in the staff report concerning the access rights from this parcel to Canyon View and a memo from the City Engineer has hopefully resolved that issue for the Commission. It may require further discussion. Staff is looking for a Pre-Zone of A-1 on the property, which is basically an agricultural zoning. They consider it a holding district until it can be determined what this property is ultimately going to be used for. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page 4 Richard Vining, 400 West Main, Tustin, owns a piece of property that is adjacent to Pre-Zone 1110, the lower section of Canyon View. He is not opposed to the development of the property, but would like to have some kind of understanding what would happen to his property. It will be totally surrounded by the City of Orange and he knows he is in the sphere of influence. He wanted some assurance that he would be left in the County. Chairman Bosch stated the action before the Commission was only with regard to the pre-zoning of properties other than his and does not affect him. Commissioner Scott said there was no way they could guarantee he would be left in the County, but gave examples of properties within the sphere of influence who have remained in the County. LAFCO has encouraged the City to annex these, but City Council's policy in the past has been, "If you don't want to come into the City, we don't want you." City Council's policy has not changed. However, Commissioner Greek, stated there has been pressure from the County to eliminate County islands because they have difficulty in serving them. Mr. Vining appreciated notification of the public hearing and asked if he would receive similar notification if heard by City Council. The Commission responded in the affirmative. Fred Youngdoll, 3822 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, represented the Baldwin Company. He asked that the City Engineer's memorandum regarding access to Canyon View be incorporated into the Commission's findings. Commissioner Greek commented that Commission's action would be a recommendation to the City Council, and with the recommendation this is not the action to get your access rights returned to you. The Commission's action is not a guarantee until City Council takes final action. Tom Lofton, 1601 East Lincoln, spoke regarding Pre-Zone 1110-89. He is currently working on that parcel and would like to go with the R-1-6 zone for single family residences. David Williams, 7120 LaCumbre Drive, spoke regarding Pre-Zone 1111-89. He wanted to know if there was another agenda item or planned zone change for this property. Is development planned for the property? What is the access issue? Chairman Bosch stated the Commission was not aware of any other application other than the Pre-Zone to A-1. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page 5 Staff affirmed they have not received any applications for other proposals on the property. There is a proposal on the first application, which Mr. Lofton was representing. On the second application, staff was concerned with getting Canyon View into the City in order to maintain street consistency. Mr. Johnson explained the access problems. When the tract was created, the County has a policy of requiring all adjacent properties to dedicate their access rights. Therefore, this particular triangular shaped parcel was created without any access at all. The issue is they have to have access to a public street. Until it is in the City, staff cannot consider giving them the legal right to access the property properly. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1287-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Pre-Zone Change 1110-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1288-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Pre-Zone Change 1111-89, and that the memorandum submitted by the City Engineer be included. (At such time the access point is granted, the Planning Commission should review the site development so it would not be in conflict with traffic circulation.) AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page 6 IN RE: NEW fiEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1750-89 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-442 - RCO ONE: A proposed Tentative Parcel Map to allow the creation of 9 parcels of land, and a Conditional Use Permit to permit 5 lots without direct street frontage. Subject property is located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue (Koll Center). NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1018 has previously been certified for the Koll Center. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Steve Layton, Koll Company, 4343 Von Karmon, Newport Beach, agrees with the staff report and conditions. His consultants were present for questions. Commissioner Greek was concerned with the narrow throat and asked how wide that strip was (Parcel 6 configuration). P4r. Layton stated one of the reasons is the parcel that is set aside for the hotel in order to accomplish a 3 acre sale to them, actually goes to the mid part of the street, coming into the driveway and it carries across. The actual street part is wider than what is shown as the parcel. In order to get some things done with the hotel, they needed to sell them exactly 3 acres of that site. The hotel ovans a part of the street. Commissioner Greek asked why they needed that strut as part of the parcel? Mr. Layton said they had parcelled the rest of the site to keep it common with the other common areas of the project. The two parcels will essentially be one in the same. It's just to keep it consistent with the site plan. Mr. Johnson commented the narrow strip is not going to be the final parcel configuration. 6Vhen the road is abandoned, then that southerly property line of the road disappears and that parcel will become a part of the southerly parcel. Commissioner Scott asked if there will. be a future vacation of the street that would eliminate the narrow throat? Mr. Johnson understood the road will be abandoned. It has been requested and needs to be set for public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes clay 1, 1989 - Page 7 Mr. Layton pointed out on the map where the abandonment of the street will take place. The vacation area is actually on Hollister, which is to the south side. The purpose of the lot was to create a parcel to which taxes could be attributed to -- a common area of the whole project. Parcel 6 and Parcel 9 end up being common areas that are shared costs for the entire parcel. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 1750-89 and Tentative Parcel Map 88-442 subject to the conditions of the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1751-89 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 89-11 - PAC TEL CELLULAR: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an antenna 76 feet in height for use in a cellular phone system on a vacant portion of land located at the rear of a 12 unit apartment building. The applicant is also requesting an Administrative Adjustment to allow the reduction of standard size parking spaces from 20 feet long by 9 feet wide to 18 feet long by 8 1/2 feet wide in order to facilitate access to the antenna site. Subject property is located at the north end of Park Lane, addressed 180 South Park Lane. tdOTE: Negative Declaration 1285-89 has been prepared for this item. Commissioner Scott asked about the reduction in the parking space width and depth, 8 1/2 by 18: does that meet the new Code requirement that is currently being studied? Mr. Godlewski stated it was consistent with the latest proposal of the parking study. It is neither compact nor standard, but a uni-stall. The staff report was presented by Mr. Godlewski. The proposed antenna support structure will be of a pole design. It will be 2 1/2 feet in diameter at the base tapering to a 1 1/4 at the top. The structure will hold up a three sided antenna typical of the cellular antennas seen along the ~'lanning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page 8 freeways. It is 12 feet wide and has vertical antenna elements 23 feet high. The total height of the antenna will be 75 feet. The antenna will b~ located 50 feet from the nearest residences to the west and 65 feet from the apartment building to the south. Associated with the antenna will be a ground base structure. It will be a small building approximately 12 1/2 feet in height and it will house the automatic equipment used for the antenna. Access to the Pac Tel site at the rear of the apartment building will be via a 20 foot wide access easement. The request to reduce the width of the parking stalls across the back of the apartment building will facilitate a full size access to the site. The development of the project does not affect the existing density of the site and the existing apartment building appears to meet all the requirements in terms of adequate parking on site for the apartment portion. Staff has received indications from people in the neighborhood that perhaps an added condition limiting the hours that Pac Tel people could work on the structure, except for Emergencies, would be appropriate. Commissioner Greek asked staff the height of the temporary tower. Mr. Godlewski believed it was stated in the staff report as being approximately 52 feet, but was not sure. Commissioner Greek wondered what kind of permit was applied for since it has been there for six months? (Staff was not aware of existing permits.) Commissioner Scott asked if there was concern regarding the hours of operation? Mr. Godlewski stated Planning staff had received phone calls from the neighbors relating to workmen on the antenna at late hours in the night creating noise and disturbance in the surrounding area. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Dennis Lowry, 3100 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, represented Pac Tel Cellular. They have familiarized themselves with the conditions of approval and fully agree with all terms and conditions recommended. There was one point of clarification: Item 11. It refers to concrete construction. Rather than concrete construction, it should be that the exterior will be stone aggregate finish. With regards to maintenance, it is a test facility. In a permanent setup, Pac Tel would schedule 4 to 6 service planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page g maintenances per year. Those would occur during normal business hours. He was not aware of interference in the community. This facility is part of an earthquake preparedness program, which Pac Tel is actively participating in. Commissioner Greek asked what the height of the existing pole was? (60 feet} Who issued the permit to install it? (There was no permit pulled.) Chairman Bosch explained to the applicant that he is at some risk operating without proper permits and advised he should contact Planning staff to make sure it becomes a legal installation. Commissioner Scott commented about the criticism of work being done in the off hours. He asked what hours were being worked at the site? Mr. Lowry stated during a normal situation, it would be between normal working hours, 8 to 5. If there is a failure in the system, emergency crews would respond to provide continuous service. In reference to the interference or irritation to the neighbors, he assumes it had to have been because of the fine tuning that had to be done in order to set the facility in proper working order. Commissioner Scott was of the opinion the interference was not related to VCR's or TV's, but was a detriment to the living conditions of the people. Chairman Bosch questioned emergency power generation or some other type of back up power system? Mr. Lowry stated there were batteries inside, not a generator. Chairman Bosch and Mr. Lowry discussed the grid spacing requirements for an urban area. Chairman Bosch asked how many of these types of installations the City of Orange would see? Mr. Lowry stated there were two competitors -- Pac Tel Cellular and L.A. Cellular. The safety factor of the citizens was discussed at length. Commissioner Scott asked how the height of the structure was determined? Why must they have a 75 foot antenna? Mr. Lowry stated the lowest height would be 60 feet. Height is determined based on line of sight, trees and buildings. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page 10 Commissioner Hart Discussion ensued within the system. towers. had some problems with the application. regarding co-location of two competitors He did not want to end up with a sea of Those speaking in opposition: Peggy Roberts, 215 South Park Lane, disagrees about the interference with their TV's. She thought the antenna was installed on the Midas property. Where is the antenna installed? Chairman Bosch explained the temporary installation is on the Midas property, but the proposed permanent antenna would be installed on the Berkshire property. Ms. Roberts stated several neighbors have noticed interference with their TV's. There is not enough parking space now in the apartment complex. She was concerned for the safety of the small children living in the complex. She had hoped they would make use of that vacant lot by adding parking spaces for the tenants. She also commented on the storage bins being an eye sore. Gordon Howie, 137 South Wayfield, explained that the temporary installation parallels his property. He said one of his tenants had complained about being awakened late at night. The main complaint is the general noise at such a late hour. He was concerned about the congestion and high density already on Wayfield. He wondered if emergency services would be able to get back in to those residences. Rebuttal: Mr. Lowry indicated if there was interference with someone's TV, they might want to notify the F.C.C. The F.C.C. issues frequencies and it's the first kid on the block. If something is amiss, he would recommend someone contact Pac Tel. If there is a problem, they will come out and test it. Pac Tel wants to be a good neighbor; they can't afford to have people having interference. There will be no traditional truck traffic. The service maintenance vehicles used by Pac Tel personnel are Jeep Cherokee's. He will relay to Pac Tel the concern of interference in normal living conditions. It is his understanding that the property will be brought up to existing code standards. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1751-88 for 60 days (the first meeting in July, 1989) until such time as the existing tower is either taken down or legalized; a study be undertaken by staff and Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 - Page 11 Mr. Lowry indicating the maximum number of units that should be allowed in the City, and recommend City Council pass an ordinance limiting the total number of units allowed in the City of Orange; request staff to write a letter to the P.U.C. complaining about Pac Tel's methods in establishing an illegal unit in the City. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch seconded the motion with the condition of a report back on a positive intervention by the Public Utilities in question relative to determining what electrical interference does occur within a reasonable radius of their installations and positive mitigation measures they would take with residents so interferred to eliminate their problem. Commissioner Scott further added they should be looking at the zoning on where to place these towers with restrictions applied to the application. The Commission and staff discussed the issues of the towers: maximum height, zoning, certain requirements/conditions, etc. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner that the Planning Com meeting May 15, 1989: Hearing at 7:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, mission adjourn to their next regular Study Session at 6:30 p.m.; Public Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. /sld