Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/17/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California April 17, 1989 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Sr. Planner & Commission Secretary; Joan Wolff, Associate Planner; Jack McGee, Administrator of Current Planning; Luis A. Rodriguez, Sr. Asst. City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of April 3, 1989 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-8$A, ORANGE PARR ACRES PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE 1084, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13833 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1594 - DASCO COMPANY, INC.. Commissioner Greek was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Consideration of the following proposals: General Plan Amendment 1-88A - To change the existing "Public Facility-School" designation to Estate Low Density Residential, or other designation as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Amendment to the Orange Park Acres Plan - To change the existing "Public and Quasi Public-School" designation to Low .Density Residential, or other designation as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Zone Change 1084 - To change the existing PI (Public Institution) zoning classification to R-J.-20 (Single Family Residential, minimum lot size 20,000 square feet), or other designation as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1969 - Page 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13833 - To subdivide the property into 45 lots; 41 residential, 1 equestrian facility and 3 open space lots. Conditional Use Permit 1694 - To develop the property as a Planned Unit Development with a private street system. Subject property is located at. the northwest corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Windes Drive. Note: EIR 11.91 has been prepared for this project. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The project is being proposed by the Dasco Company to develop a site that is approximately 30 acres in size. The request is to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development, which consists of 41 single family residences, detached, on lots with a minimum of 20,000 square feet in size. Also included with the proposal is one lot to accommodate a common equestrian ring/recreational facility. There are also open space lots which contain an equestrian/recreational trail. Several applications have been submitted by the developer and approval is needed for all the applications to develop the project as proposed. A General Plan Amendment has been submitted. The existing General Plan designation on the site is Public Facility- School. The property is currently owned by the Orange Unified School District and was previously proposed for development as a school site. The School District has decided that the property is surplus property and has entered into an agreement to sell.. the property to the applicant. The applicant is requesting to change the school designation to Estate Low Density Residential. There is also a proposed amendment to the Orange Park Acres Plan. The existing Orange Pa.r.k Acres designation is a Public and Quasi Public-School. designation. The request is to change this to Low Density Residential. It should be noted that the Orange Park Acres Plan was adopted in 1973 by the City Council. Although the title of. the document is Orange Park Acres Specific Plan, it was adopted as part. of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It is the General Plan for the area; not a Specific Plan as defined by the California Government Code. A Specific Plan would contain much more detailed development standards. A Zone Change is requested to change the existing PI (Public Institution) to a classification of R-1-20, which is Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1979 - Page 3 The next application is a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property into 41 residential lots, 1 recreational lot and open space lots along the perimeter of the property. A Vesting Map is a little bit different than other Tentative Maps because it conveys to the developer a vested right to proceed with development which is in substantial conformance with the rules and regulations that are in effect at the time the application is determined to be complete rather than the rules and regulations that would be in effect at a later time than when the final map came before the Commission and Council. The last application submitted is a Conditional Use Permit. The request is to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development with a private street system. The primary issues being considered are: (1) Should the Orange Park Acres Plan be amended to permit this development to occur, and is the proposal consistent with the policies contained with the Orange Park Acres Plan; (2) Is the proposed development compatible with the surrounding area and is it appropriate for the site. Staff would suggest modifications to several of the conditions of approval if the Planning Commission recommends approval. The first suggested revision is Condition 8: "to construct storm drain in Santiago Canyon Road as required by the Department of Public '~Iorks in lieu of paying the Area Drainage Assessment Fee." The next change would be to delete Condition 19, which had previously required the payment of the Drainage Assessment Fee, in addition to the construction of the storm drain. A revision to Condition 23, as a result from correspondence received from the County of Orange E.M.A. The condition would read: "Developer shall dedicate in fee a portion of Lot 22 to the County of Orange for regional park purposes. The area to be dedicated shall be that shown in the letter from the Manager Program Planning Division, dated April 4, 1989, or as otherwise approved by the County of Orange." Staff is looking for direction from the Commission regarding ownership maintenance of the recreational/equestrian trails. Should the trails actually be dedicated to the City or whether an easement should be dedicated over the trails to the City? A condition would need to be formulated based on the Commission's determination. Staff also suggests adding Condition 81 to read, "Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Orange to execute a written monitoring and reporting program in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The agreement shall be acceptable in form and substance to the Orange City Attorney." Manning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 4 Commissioner Master asked if it were the requirements for a Specific Plan when the Orange Park Acres Plan was adopted in 1973? Ms. Wolff researched the previous files and found an excerpt that was labeled Government Code as of 1971. The Government Code then was the same as now. In the staff report at that time it was mentioned that if it were to be adopted as a Specific Plan, then additional documentation would have to be put together; additional development criteria would have had to been added to it and come back to the Council to be adopted as a Specific Plan. Chairman Bosch noted for the record letters were received: a letter from the Orange Park Association, George Rach (March 10, 1989), Carol and Kerry Young, and Wesley and Kathryn Ferbert. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Camille H. Courtney, D&D Development Company, 711 East Imperial Highway, Brea, represented Dasco. There was a court reporter in attendance for the applicant. Transcripts of the meeting would be available upon request if anyone was interested. Ms. Courtney explained the background of the project which began two years ago. The proposal has been considered and reviewed by City staff through the Environmental Review Board and Design Review Board. They have made presentations to the residents in the area. Consistently, the project received positive comments to it's design and sensitivity to the community. The foremost issue is the half acre vs. the one acre concept. She shared their thoughts as to why they are proposing half acre lots. The Orange Park Acres Plan recommends three different housing concepts and four residential densities. To be consistent with the Plan, one could conclude to build a residential cluster subdivision from zero to three dwelling units per acre adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road and thus be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Plan. However, there are several reasons why they are not proposing a cluster subdivision. The most obvious is economics. There is a problem with Homeowner Association dues. They feel the half acre estate home lot is much more desirable. Renderings were shown of their subdivision concept and the site plan was discussed. She explained their project consisted of high quality estate homes, which is compatible with the existing surrounding land use. It incorporates the goals and objectives of the O.P.A. Plan as drafted in 1973. It buffers the single family homes on Oak Lane from Santiago. It will also generate revenue to the City of Orange. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 5 Commissioner Hart questioned the applicant as to D.R.B. approval. Ms. Courtney said D.R.B. has reviewed their proposal and affirmatively recommended the project for the next process. Mr. Godlewski clarified the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board as it is a requirement with the Vesting Map to get preliminary approval before being considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Scott questioned if 4 car garages were permissible under the Code. He thought the Code restricted development to 3 car garages. The rural streets are to be to City standards, which would require curb and gutter. Mr. Johnson stated staff acknowledged in the Orange Park Acres that they have used the rural curbs on publicly developed streets. They have no problems with the rolled curbs and would treat them as City standards. Condition 5 calls for minimum size of streets as being 36 feet. There was a misunderstanding between staff and applicant in that staff specified 36 feet with the understanding that there would be parking on both sides of the street (on all streets). The applicant says no, they want to restrict parking since it is a private community to one side. The Traffic Engineer has indicated that if there is proper documentation and assurance, in the form of a fool proof method of implementation, the City would accept a reduction on the cul de sac streets, but the back bone street must be 36 feet, curb to curb (rolled curb) . Commissioner Scott asked if approved to go with a reduced 36 to 32, would there be an enforcement problem? Mr. Johnson stated the only problem would be one of safety services being able to gain access if cars were parking illegally. Commissioner Scott did not recall who would maintain the parkway on Santiago? Ms. Courtney said it was her understanding that the --- conditions require a maintenance agreement for the entire parkway area, which include sidewalks, equestrian trails, landscape buffer, etc. It is to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association as to the landscaped area. The concrete sidewalk would fall to the purview of the City as it is a public sidewalk. Chairman Bosch noticed in Condition 56 that a six foot wall be built at the property line of public streets. He asked if the applicant was aware of the revised staff report and conditions and if there were any concerns? Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 6 Ms. Courtney received the revised staff report and had no concerns. The only question remaining is whether the Commission wants the equestrian trail as a public trail to be dedicated in fee to the City, or as an easement maintained by the Homeowner's Association? Chairman Bosch asked if the Association would maintain the easements, greenbelts, equestrian access and equestrian facility be one that all homeowners belonged to or limited to only those with equestrian access? Ms. Courtney stated there were two different thoughts on this. The equestrian trail is somewhat up in the air as to who would maintain that. They have not made a decision yet. Mr. Godlewski responded to Commissioner Scott's question regarding garage size. He stated there does not appear to be any mention in the Parking nor the R-1 zone concerning the maximum number of garages. Revisions have been made in 1982. At that time, if there was a section it may have been deleted. Those speaking in favor: Donna Blanchard, 6444 Joshua Tree Avenue, was originally opposed to the project. After doing research and listening to the objectives, she changed her opinion and is very much in favor of the project. She feels the homes would better the community. She questioned if this property were in the City of Orange? (Yes) Is Orange Park Acres a part of the City of Orange? (Portions of it; approximately 1/2 the area.) Is the Wilderness Area one acre lots or less than one acre? (It is a half acre lot, R-1-20 zoning, but they are clustered attached, so they have open space in addition to the half acre designation.) She could not see the difference between the Wilderness development and the proposed project. John Perry, Orange Unified School District, clarified the District's position. The District entered into escrow for sale of the property by selling the property at auction in September, 1987. They would very much like to see escrow close and the money deposited into the School District's account. Kerry Young, 20062 Santiago Canyon Road, thinks the development would help the less desirable road (Santiago Canyon) and is in favor of the project. Sally Voss, a school teacher, feels the project would be an asset to the area; it would help with the taxes and help to improve the area. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 7 Those speaking in opposition: Maree Brandman, 7319 Equitation 6aay, serves as President of Orange Park Acres community. They are an unique equestrian community and are very concerned with their preservation. O.P.A. cannot continue to exist in its present form if less than 1 acre housing is allowed to be built. She represents approximately 1,300 homes, which have been polled regarding this project. Ninety percent totally oppose this plan. She asked that the proposal. be denied. The proposal is not in keeping with the Orange Park Acres Plan and is a terrible disappointment to them. Their lifestyle would be in danger if the proposal were approved. George Rach, 20151 Rogers, Orange Park Acres, handed out a statement to the Commission, which he read. He is the Chairman of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. The Committee was an outgrowth of the Orange Park Acres Plan. He is of the opinion they (Orange Park Acres} have a Specific Plan. The land use for a large parcel is clearly defined in the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. He also referred the Commission to the section restricting the use of block wall. He felt the E.I.R. was not complete and explained his reasons. Ted Botens, 10802 Meads, Orange Park Acres, said the Plan provided for several types of densities. It hasn't been mentioned that all of the half acre parcels existed at the time the Plan was approved. The same facts are true of the medium density property shown to be lots of 10,000 or less. One of the major concerns of the community is if a piece of property is allowed to be re-zoned half acre, what effect would that have in the future on other people who own about 590 single acre parcels? If the City adopts a change to the Plan, what prevents a homeowner to request that his property be zoned half acre? They request the Commission stick with the flavor of the Plan and policies of the Plan to promote the rural nature of the area by keeping those 1 acre properties. Commissioner Master thought the Orange Park Acres Plan became effective either before he joined the Planning Commission or shortly thereafter. Subsequent to that, wasn't there R-1-20 zoning as a buffer zone on Kennymead subsequent to the approval of the Plan? Mr. Botens said if he looked at the map, it shows Kennymead and it shows 1 acre on one side of Kennymead and 1 acre on the other side. Then it shows on the Plan a darker color, which he can't read. All the darker colors on the map were other than 1 acre. They discussed the map and the Orange Park Acres Plan. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 8 Richard Siebert, 1388 N. Kennymead, addressed Commissioner Master's previous question and explained the different lot sizes. Orange Park Acres is a community of compromises and land uses that allow everybody to live there. Orange Park Acres has given through the years and have changed their values so that other developments could be built in the area. The School District's land lies within a mixed use area, but it is not fair to look at the area and say it blends right in. It does not blend in. It was understood that the School District property, when developed with anything other than a school, would be subdivided to one acre. There has always been that understanding. He mentioned how Dasco was awarded the bid. Brian Gwartz, 1537 N. Kennymead, recently moved back to Orange County. He has always loved horses and owns four now. The increase in density and traffic will be a danger in accepting the proposed plan. Lynn Sween, 7713 Apaloosa, Orange Park Acres, likes the atmosphere of the area, but does not live on a 1 acre lot or own a horse. The atmosphere should be preserved. Leonard Spielman, 6719 E. Oak Lane, is the most directly impacted by the proposed project. In looking at the scale, the houses are very close to the block wall; it is a very extensive change to their lifestyle. He feels the project would be detrimental to the area. He clarified for the record that he met with the developer and may have indicated his approval of homes being built rather than gas stations and mini-markets, etc., but he has never expressed a favorable impression of all half acres. Elaine Beyers, 6705 E. Oak Lane, said the property is public domain; it belongs to all the people in the Orange Unified School District. She feels it should be kept as public domain. She introduced a new concept in her letter to the City of the City having a vacant lot as a City park. Let the people use a vacant lot as is and she gave examples of how it would be used. James Jackman, 7346 Grovewood Lane, is a past Mayor of Orange and has been on the Community Planning Committee that developed the Orange Park Acres Plan. He shared his thoughts and memories of being involved in this process over a long length of time. Compromise is a key word when talking about Orange Park Acres and about the use of the land for the area. There is nothing wrong with the proposed plan except for perhaps a contract was made with the people that this area be developed in a certain way. He explained the rural environment of the area and gave examples of their lifestyle. The bottom line is that assurances were made for the area. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 9 Mary Ann Jones, 7124 Grovewood Acres Planning Committee. She they have assurances that when count on a continuance of what is a way of life. She objects not in keeping with the area. development; however, it's not Orange Park Acres. Rural does open and a way of life. Lane, backs the Orange Park feels it is important that a Plan is made, they can they have been led to believe to the block wall as it is I t 1 ook s l i ke a 1 ove ly in keeping with the spirit of not mean exclusive. It means Wayne Johnson, 7316 Equitation Way, said the reason he and his wife moved to Orange Park Acres is because it is an equestrian community. Dasco stated they were going to have a riding arena, but no stable area. By the time they put a 3,000 square foot home on a half acre lot, with 15 foot easements and side yards, he doesn't know where they will keep a horse. Dave Swoish, 6909 E. Oak Lane, moved here because it is zoned for one acre lots. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Piorada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said it was a nice plan, but it is in the wrong place. It would be nice in Villa Park. He spoke about the history of Orange Park Acres and the compromises that were made. City Council made a deal with Orange Park Acre residents in 1973. He read Resolution #3915, adopted December 26, 1973. Two things are important to the people in the City of Orange: Old Towne and Orange Park Acres. They do not want to lose their one acre lots in Orange Park Acres. He understands the need for block walls, but they are uncommon in Orange Park Acres. O.P.A. has kept their part of the bargain; they hope the City keeps their word. Anna Beal, 10502 Meads, Orange Park Acres, is opposed to the project based on the fact of the zone change. She felt the zone change from 1 acre to R-1-20,000 is a compromise. By changing that, you are changing the rural image of the area. Kathleen Vochelle, 20002 Santiago Canyon Road, is opposed to the inclusion of another equestrian arena. The Salem Arena has had 10 years of dust blowing all over the people to the east. Lynn Van Vorse, 10391 Randall, is a horse breeder and trainer. Spoke about the half acres with horses limiting them to one or two. They will be in small 12 x 12 stalls. Most of the people in Orange Park Acres have stalls with runs which allow the horses to run free. Most people are allowed to have arenas in their back yards. Also with a half acre there is a fly, noise and smell problem. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 10 Commissioner Master City of Orange. His geese, horses, etc. equestrian purposes Rebuttal: commented he lives on a half acre in the neighbors have raised pigs, chickens, There are lots that are zoned for as well as other farm use animals. Ms. Courtney stated the Commission had the difficult decision of deciding between perceptions and realities. Unfortunately the Commission has heard a lot of perceptions. Dasco has six months worth of compromises in their office. The varied nature and distinction of Orange Park Acres is the variety of land uses that are there today. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master commented the layout is rather attractive, but he thinks it is too much cookie cutter -- not appropriate for the rural setting. It is not in keeping with the intent of the equestrian or free style development. Commissioner Hart was pleased to hear Mr. Jackman's comments. He told the Commission was it was meant to be out in Orange Park Acres -- a one acre plan. Chairman Bosch commented on his understanding of the Orange Park Acres Plan from its inception. A special attempt has been made to preserve the character of Orange Park Acres. The proposal is not sympathetic to the R-1-40 to the north of it. Although extremely well crafted and designed, the proposal is inappropriate for Orange Park Acres. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council certify that EIR 1191 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental duality Act; and comments made regarding deficiencies become part of the record and that mitigating measures were so noted. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, blaster, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master prefers that the monitoring program not be part of the motion as it has not been discussed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 1-88A. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 11 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the Amendment to the Orange Park Acres Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch commented the proposal does not take into account the Orange Park Acres planning effort that has been very successful over time. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny Zone Change 1084. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13833. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 1694 as the proposal does not conform to the General Plan in terms of general location and general standards of development. It does not constitute a residential environment equal to or better than what might be accomplished under traditional development practices in the Orange Park Acres Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Mr. Godlewski explained that the proposal will be forwarded to the City Council for their review. The date is undetermined at this time. Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEL~ HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDA~IENT 2-89 - CITY OF ORANGE: Chairman Bosch was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 12 A proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code deleting certain sections within the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17) and adding Chapter 16.40 pertaining to grading standards. Adoption of a City grading ordinance is recommended under this amendment. Note: Negative Declaration 1286-89 has been prepared for this item. Commissioner Hart personally would like to have a more in-depth explanation of the Grading Ordinance and doesn't think it could be accomplished at said hearing. He asked if the Commission would be acceptable to holding a study session on the Grading Ordinance. Commissioner Scott concurred. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission continue Ordinance Amendment 2-89 (Grading Ordinance) to a study session on Monday, April 24, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - CITY OF ORANGE: Terri Cable, City Manager's Office, stated earlier this evening staff presented the proposed Capital Improvement Program to the Commission. They reviewed some of the projects for next year (1989-90) and are recommending $36 million dollars in capital improvement projects. Staff has submitted this annually to the Commission. The Commission's role is to review the Capital Improvement Program for determination as to its consistency with the General Plan. Questions were raised earlier, but they have been resolved. She recommends two things: (1) That the Commission take public action recommending to the City Council that the Five Year Capital Improvement Program be approved, and that the first year be included in the Departmental Budget for funding, and that you find it to be consistent with the General Plan; (2) The Chairman might want to follow up that action with a memo to the Mayor and City Council indicating the action taken. The City Council will be reviewing at a study session the Capital Improvement Program next week, Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. The meeting has been publicized and the Commission is welcome to join the study session if they wish. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1989 - Page 13 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Five Year Capital Improvement Program and finds that it does comply with the General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch asked staff to draft the appropriate memorandum for the Chairman's signature. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS 1. Commissioner Scott received notification of the fifth annual Transportation Partnership Award, sponsored by the Orange County Transportation Commission. It will be held Thursday, May 18, 1989 at the Anaheim Marriott Hotel, with breakfast from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. 2. Mr. Bennyhoff spoke about the Grading Ordinance. They have worked on this for two years and would like to get it implemented as quickly as possible. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission adjourn to a study session on April 24, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. /sld