Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/5/1984 - Minutes PCr ,~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California March 5, 1984 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning-.and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and 7oba Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CONDITION N0. 13 OF VARIANCE 1085--CITY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. Request for relief from Condition No. 13 of Variance 1085 requiring reciprocal access between properties. Chairman Hart stated that staff has recommended approval of the deletion. Commissioner Greek announced that he would abstain from acting on this recommendation or leave the room if there. would be discussion, because he does quite a bit of work for City Management Corporation. Moved by Chairman Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve the request to remove the reciprocal access between the parcels as shown on Variance 1085. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SP 2481, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #831: Construction of the Loma Street/Imperial Highway connection, City of Orange. A proposal to extend Loma Street northerly across Peralta Hills fora distance of 8400 feet to join Imperial Highway in Anaheim Hills. (This item was continued from December 5, 1983, and January 16, 1984. A study session was held on January 4, 1984.) Mr. Johnson presented the staff report and said that at the January 16 Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Two meeting, the proposal for alternate alignments was authorized by the Commission. He said staff had discussed the possibility of proceeding with the EIR amendment based on the revision., had submitted a letter to the County requesting that it analyze the alternative alignments and, after some delay, had received some correspondence. At the time this was reviewed on January 16, staff had not had a lot of information as to alignment, the amount of cut and fill, the actual configuration that would comprise the alternative, rates of grade, etc., but since that time the staff, primarily Helmut Stolpp, has done a considerable amount of design work on this., and he suggested that Mr. Stolpp discuss what had been done. Mr. Stolpp presented two sheets representing the original projects included in the EIR, which showed the proposed project with the big "S" curve of cuts and fills involved, missing the Edison station. He said the draft EIR included two more alternates, "A" and "B," one of which came in a more straight direction along the sub-station and across the ridge, while the other swung to the east around the sub-station. Asa result of discussion on those, he said, two more alternates, "C" and "D," were looked at, which put an impediment in the Imperial/Coma alignment either by teeing Imperial into a Via Scola/Coma alignment or by teeing Loma into a Via Scola/Imperial alignment. He stated that as a result of this they were able to move this roadway further to the east away from the residences in Villa Park and also utilize the natural draw or canyon that goes up and points to the two ridges which are traversing on either side of the Edison easement as they are approaching the ridge. Mr. Stolpp further stated that as far as the construction of that particular roadway-would be concerned, there would probable be lesser movement involved, especially in the area of the Edison Company property. He said there would not be an appreciable difference in construction costs. He then showed some slides of the area. (At this point, 7:45 p.m.., Commissioner Vasquez arrived.) Mr. Johnson commented that in looking at these alignments, it can be seen that there can be some definite benefits realized from the alignments. One benefit would be to reduce the amount of fill material that would have to be placed and another is that the grades would be closer to the natural terrain because they would be going up the natural hillside. Mr. Johnson explained that the rate of grade, which was on the order of 10-12% before, is now 9.2%, which is not that different from the 8.8 on the original, which is called the preferred alignment. He said the roadway goes up through the canyon, .which somewhat hides the road, and one of the concerns that was voiced was the =~~" Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Three from this road affecting Villa Park residents., but that appears not to be a problem in this particular alignment. However:, he said, even though there may be some benefits, it is his opinion that the EIR will have to deal with all aspects of the proposed construction. He stated that at the time the City Engineering Department met with the road group on Thursday, the County's evaluation of the proposal, which was expected to include some idea of the effect of the discon- tinuous roadway on the traffic increase or decrease, had not been received, and when it did arrive is said only that there is a demand for north-south/south-north traffic and putting a discontinuous roadway in the path of that demand would create some operational problems. Consequently the City Engineering Department recommends proceeding with an amendment to the EIR which will look at the proposal and both the traffic aspects and the environmental aspects in more detail. Mr. Johnson said he knew the ROAR group would like to present some of their concerns but first he wished to call upon Jill Sterret, the Engineering Department consultant on this project, to speak on how much is involved in amending the EIR. Ms. Sterret said it would be difficult to give a firm handle at this ® point on what would be involved because it would be better to wait until ROAR had an opportunity to present its additional comments regarding the amendment to the EIR. Chairman Hart called upon members of ROAR who wished to spebk. Jack Parker, 1429 East Chapman Avenue, Villa Park, asked if this is a public hearing and was assured by Chairman Hart that it is. He commented that there seemed to be a very sparse crowd and wondered what notice, if any, was given for the hearing. Chairman Hart responded that this meeting is a continuance of the meeting of January 16. L. T. Barber, resident of Villa Park, asked Mr. Johnson what will happen to Via Scola if this goes through since it was supposed to be routed to the east across the top of the ridge. He said it now looks like it has disappeared and wondered if that means it is going to be abandoned. Mr. Johnson responded that Via Scola is not on the master plan in this area as a secondary but is shown as a commuter.. He said he believes the City of Anaheim is incorporating it into their project but nothing has been submitted to the City of Orange as yet. He explained that he assumes the City of Anaheim is requiring it as a commuter-type roadway but there have been no projects in the City of Orange to require its completion, so he assumes Via Scola is not going to carry anything more than just the local commuter-type traffic. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Four Stuart Simons, 5501 Crater Lake, Orange, commented that at the meeting on Thursday an excellent presentation, containing more information thatn what has been presented at this meeting, was given by Gary Johnson, Helmut Stolpp and Frank Page. He said the meeting was very positive and a lot of good discussion took place between ROAR members and the staff, and ROAR was p1 eased that it showed some indication of movement and willingness to negotiate with a very positive attitude. He summarized ROAR's feeling about the "C" and "D" alternatives by saying they would have significant impact on only a sma11 percentage of its constituents. He said the people who live along Mesa Drive and in the northwest corner of Villa Park would definitely be included in that condition and taking out of their line of sight would give them some visual and sound improvements, so they are very pleased about that. Mr. Simons explained. that ROAR consists of people from Orange, primarily, and from Anaheim Hills and Villa Park, as well as some living in the unincorporated areas. He said the initial organiz- ation was put together with the idea of finding a solution that would help everyone in these areas and ROAR feels that alternatives "C" and "D" would have very little impact on the Anaheim Hills and Orange residents or any Villa Park residents not in the northwest quadrant of that city. He said that the County analysis shown to ROAR by Mr. Johnson indicated that the discontinuous route defined in alternatives "C" and "D" dial not appear to have much impact so if it is assumed that not much is done to deter the traffic (and ROAR agrees with that), then those alternatives would not be a great deterrent, perhaps a small percentage if some traffic backlog and back-ups were created, but little effect upon the residents of Orange, Anaheim Hills and those in the southeastern part of Villa Park. He said ROAR feels that there is movement to 'reduce traffic but not nearly enough and its members feel that only the reduction of freeway bypass traffic would help them in the long run. He asked if there would have to be an amended EIR and a study of the impact of the changes it would make if ROAR were to consider those changes, and was told that this is correct. Mr. Simons stated further that ROAR members think it would be a good idea to amend the EIR because they have some other concerns that could then be addressed at the same time. One. concern is that ROAR feels the freeway bypass issue was ignored in the initial EIR and they realize that is a difficult issue to analyze, but what with the traffic situation now and in the future, ROAR members feel there should be some magnitude of bypass through Loma down to the east/west streets of Katella and Stanton, and it is important that an analysis be done to determine what the magnitude should be. Another concern is that they feel an EIR takes a rather micro- scopic look at the immediate area around a project instead of also studying all the surrounding streets in the area that also might be affected by the traffic on the one street under consideration. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Five Mr. Simons stated further that another concern of ROAR. is Via Scola. He said if Via Scola is not going to be built further east than Imperial Highway then there is a limit to what can be done with alternatives. However, if there is a plan to continue the develop- ment of Via Scola further east, then there are some other possibil- ities for alternatives that Via Scola would open up. He said ROAR's objective in this project is to consider alternatives, which may not be an element of the EIR but rather appropriate staff work. Mr. Simons stated that probably the most important concern of ROAR members is the element of property damage. He said they have worked with some EIR experts regarding the impact of property damage on homes adjacent to major arterial highways, which in some cases is as high as 30-40% reduction in the value of the property, especially if it is rather expensive property such as those homes in the Somerset Development at the corner of Taft and Loma which could have a loss of maybe $200,000 to $400,000 in individal home values. Also they would like to have an analysis made of the possible reduction in value of the homes on Canyon Drive, which was outside the scope of the original EIR, as well as what homes in that area might have to be removed. They feel the cities of Orange and Anaheim should study potential property damage to homes in that area and understand the unusual magnitude it could reach. They feel the cities are liable for this damage and should be aware of the magni- tude of that liability. They also feel the EIR should address the problem of ingress and egress in connection with the homes in Cresta Villa because of the curve to the south of that development which makes a fairly blind corner; this being a safety issue more than a property damage issue. It is also not clear to them where the 100-foot right of way discussed in the public hearing will be on that roadway and which property will be taken and what public facilities like bike trails, horse trails, etc., would have to be taken. Mr. Simons alto stated that at the meeting on .Thursday it was divulged that there would not be a limitation put. on truck traffic on the road because it was not possible to stop truck traffic on an arterial highway; however, ROAR members had been under the impression that truck traffic would be limited in order to help with the noise level. Mr. Simons said ROAR feels all these problems, and possibly some other problems not yet discussed, should be addressed by the amended EIR if possible, or at least studied in one form or another. He said ROAR members would be very happy to work with the Planning Commission or the City Council or staff to come to an understanding of these problems. They feel that it is immatereal as to which alignment is chosen, either the original or any of the four alternatives, but that it is important that the impact of the one Imperial connection on all of the surrounding streets .should be studied, something which they feel was not done in the original EIR. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Six Dick Wright, 19081 Valley Drive, Villa Park, stated that the proposed roadway is only a block from the area that will be most affected by the proposed project in its original context. He said he .thought Thursday's meeting was truly positive and he very much appreciated the Orange City staff, and Mr. Johnson in particular, for thecir commendable attitude in attempting to find a resolution of the problem at this level rather than later in court. He felt that those who live in the northwestern area of Villa Park, where he lives, prefer alternatives "C" and "D" to what was originally contemplated, but agreed that what meets their needs does not necessarily meet the needs of other residents who will be affected by the roadway:, and said there are additional considerations if the whole picture of the impact of this roadway is to be seen. Mr. Wright said the residents of the area have been advised that if the 1¢ sales tax currently at issue goes through, then among the contemplated improvements is a $69 million improvement of Imperial Highway north of the 91 freeway. He said it is the conception of those at the northern end of Imperial that the improvement will generate additional use of that roadway, and certainly there would be little point in spending the money to improve Imperial if that was not contemplated. Mr. Wright said it was their understanding initially that Via Scola was to be a roadway which would extend from Meats extension~~to Via Cambria and that a portion of it which now extends from the old Imperial connection eastward has been, if not abandoned, at least appears to be impractical. He thinks the effect of that on the entire circulation plan warrants consideration; in fact, it is his understanding that Via Scola in either direction was not considered at the time the EIR was prepared and if, in fact, the western extension of it is to be present, then certainly the effect of that with regard to the production of traffic should be considered. Mr. Wright stated that there have been a number of developments of late, including litigation involving the City of Orange with regard to Texaco's interest and apparently their reluctance to be involved in the cost of completing Serrano. He said that ROAR at one time suggested the completion of Serrano as an alternate route to this project and that was found wanting, and certainly if Serrano is not to be completed, then that is another facet in the entire circulation of traffic that should be considered since it was not, he believes, considered in the original EIR. He said he believes that if the Planning Commission will look at the entire system of roadways as a whole pattern of roadways designed to accomplish a purpose, if in fact various arms of that complex are being deleted and only one remains, then the effects are certainly going to be considerable and are certainly subject to study. Mr. Wright said that another rumor, which may or may not have any Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Seven basis in fact, is that there has been some concern expressed by the contractor responsible for the completion of Loma southward from Villa Park Road--the so-called Cannon extension--that what was originally called the central core and then the LomaJImperial extension would, in fact, end effectively at Villa Park Road. He thinks this is a matter that should be studied. He said it is one thing to speak in terms of .the traffic that would be generated being dissipated to both Chapman and Villa Park Road and another to shift that entire amount of traffic only to Villa Park Road, and he feels that should be clarified. He suggested looking at the figures for the ImperialJLoma extension as an individual entity, then as a part of a completed entity to Chapman, and then as one of three parts of a completed entity to Newport should the Crawford Canyon issue again become viable. Mr. Wright said he thinks there is a great deal of consideration given to the noise factor in the EIR; however, one factor that was mentioned briefly and has come to the attention of residents in that area is that the initial effect was leaving people on the Anaheim Hills side with a roadway with a 12% grade open to truck traffic which would require the use of a Jake's brake, a device which utilizes the power of the engine to provide braking compression and power; consequently a truck going downhill on a steep decline will make essentially the same or greater noise as it will climbing the same road. He said he is not sure that th is aspect was analyzed and there was certainly no great concern shown for the residents of Anaheim Hills exposed to that noise who are not satisfied that the Anaheim City Engineer has given consideration to it, especially -after learning that there are at least two other roads in Anaheim Hi11s which are 12% grades, although neither are roads that would attract truck traffic, nor do they in fact have any truck traffic as part of their basic use. Mr. Wright expressed appreciation of the general attitude of the City staff, and for Mr. Johnson's presentation, and said he thinks that it offers at least a possibility of a compromise which, if fully explored, could be the basis of some kind of agreement. Jack Parker reminded Mr. Johnson that at the January 5 meeting they discussed what impact the extension of Loma Street would have upon .the short stretch of road known as Stump Shell in the city of Villa Park and if indeed he had expressed the opinion that Stump Shell would not be a desirable connection with Loma Street. Mr. Johnson replied that one of the problems encountered there is that the westerly edge of the road would have to be moved over be- cause as it is now ~t has to be close to 20%; also that he knows that Villa Park has considered alternate access points along Sierra Villa Drive. He said that just from a safety standpoint there should be an attempt made to get an alternate or substitute connection to the road, preferably further to the north. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Eight Mr. Parker asked Mr. Johnson if, in his opinion, that road would probably have to be closed if the ImperialJLoma connection were made. Mr. Johnson replied that Villa Park may want to live with it; however, in conjunction with the portion of the road that would be build initia.ly, which would be just a two-lane road, it could remain as is. He said that only the old condition would present any problems,, so he wouldn`t say that with the initial two-lane installation of Loma, that road would have to be closed. Mr. Parker said that at the close of the December meeting he inquired of the traffic engineer who had been the advisor as to what impact he flet the Loma Street extension would have upon the access to the Cresta Villa tract and that engineer expressed "ignorance" as to where the Cresta Villa tract is. He said that if the proposal is to consider either alternate "C" or alternate "D," those two items should be given careful consideration by the writers of the EIR, and he would also like the EIR to address an alternate Loma Street connection that would replace the closure of the road in question, and if that were to happen he would be interested in knowing the impact it would have on Mesa Drive, Canyon Drive, Valley Drive, and Sierra Villa Drive in Villa Park. Chairman Hart pointed out to Ms. Sterret that there were a number of reports made regarding additions to the EIR and asked how she would like to have them transmitted to her. Ms. Sterret replied that she thinks the best approach so she will understand what those concerns are and that she hasn't misinterpreted anything in her notes is to have those concerns submitted to her in writing. Chairman Hart suggested that she work directly with Mr. Johnson, and he asked Mr. Johnson how this should be handled. Mr. Johnson replied that he would have to see what the parameters of an amendment would be and that the Commission would have to tell him whether tt wants to incorporate all of the requests relating to the amended EIR or whether it feels that some of the requests are beyond the scope of the EIR. He said he personally feels that there are limits to the EIR; in other words, if there are certain conditions of construction and if they should go to Cresta Villa, to Cannon, and to Crawford Canyon. He said if the Commission wants the EIR to consider all those problems, then he feels the rationale should. be made to also go on to Yorba Linda and in that case he feels the problem would be expanded. He said he thinks the construction EIR has specific limits and his concern is that the line be drawn on those limits so only new facts within those limits are considered rather than extending to a point where it becomes Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Nine a gigantic thing that incorporates every problem that might come up later on. Mr. Simons said he agreed it could mushroom and go on forever and said he would be happy to draft a letter either to Mr. Johnson or to Chairman Hart or to Ms. Sterret on what he and other residents would like to see studied. He commented that the matter of traffic impact is the normal thing studied by an EIR., but the problem was how to draw bounds on what is traffic and how far out one should: , look. He said that since their concern is freeway bypass, he would suggest that the freeways be the boundaries, i.e., don't go any further north than the 91 freeway or any further west than the 55 freeway, but take a look at the two major arterials east/west which would be Chapman and Katella. Chairman Hart. suggested to Mr. Simons that since he has been working with Mr. Johnson he should continue to work with him. He asked Mr. Johnson if he would be getting together with Ms. Sterret. ® Mr. Johnson replied that once he knew what the problems and concerns of ROAR are, they would come up with a realistic time frame on amending the EIR and go on from that. Chairman Hart asked if Mr. Simons would suggest that ano~aher meeting be scheduled to discuss the time frame. Mr. Simons said he felt that would be in order and then they could get back to the Commission with information on the time frame as to when the amended EIR could be accomplished. He said it would be up to the Commission to tell them what it wanted them to do and they will react to what is desired of them. Commissioner Greek suggested that they submit a shopping list to the Planning Commission and the Commission in turn would evaluate or review and make a decision as to how much should be spent rather than put Mr. Johnson in the .position of thinking he should do what- ever anyone suggests, since it is the responsibility of the Commission. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the ROAR Committee submit their request for additional consideration ® of the EIR to the Planning Commission and then the Planning Commission would review the list and discuss it at a future meeting. Chairman Hart suggested that this matter should be continued to the April 2 meeting. Commissioner Master suggested it would be helpful to have comments from the staff to help the Commission make its decision. Mr. Johnson said he would like to have ROAR's comments within a week Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Ten ~"r or so, so the Planning Commission will be prepared by the first part of April to discuss them and by that time he would have been able to discuss with the consultant what the ramifications .would be on her work. The motion was voted upon. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master,, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Simons said he would provide a letter addressed to Chairman Hart within a week. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1013--DONALD R. BRANDY: Request to change the zoning from R-1-6 to R-D-6 on a parcel located on the east side of Lester Drive, north of Chapman Avenue (139 Lester Drive). NOTE: Niegative Declaration 891 has been prepared for this project. Mr. McGee presented the staff report and said the property is located at 139 Lester Drive and is presently zoned R-1-6, single-family residential, 6,000 square feet minimum lot size. He said the applicant is requesting a zone change to R-D-6, residential duplex, 6,000 square feet minimum lot size. What is proposed is that a single-family residence be built on this lot in addition to the one already there. Mr. McGee pointed out the exhibit on the wall behind the Chairman, with a blue line showing the boundaries of the property and the existing residence add proposed residence and garage shaded in brown. He said the site is surrounded on three sides to the north, east and west by R-1 zoning single-family residences, and to the south by R-M-7 and C-2 split zoning on one parcel that fronts onto Chapman Avenue. At present the property to the south is occupied by a large older residence. There have been applications in the past to use that property for office and other types of uses. The Lester Drive area was developed many years ago. The street is 50' wide which is a little narrower than most residential streets in the community. The lots on the street are all roughly 4500 square feet to 4800 square feet, which again are a little bit smaller than the 6,000 square feet minimum lot size zoning that exists today. Mr. McGee stated that there were two ways this particular type of application could be approached. He said staff did look into the possibility of allowing the applicant to apply for a variance and a parcel map to split this property into two pieces under the existing single-family zoning. that would have resulted in two lots Planning Commission Minutes March 5,.1984 Page Eleven of .less than 5,000 square feet each and it was their impression that that would constitute a use variance and it would not be a proper way to approach this problem. The other alternative was the zone change which has been applied for. Essentially what Mr. Brandt is asking for is very similar to what is on the rest of the street. .However, because of the change in zone and the fact that the property is surrounded on three sides by a fairly nice and stable single-family residential neighborhood, the staff has recommended that this application not be approved. However, staff suggests that if the Commission does determine that it wishes to recommend approval of this application, an intent-to-rezone procedure be used, in effect to insure that two single-family houses are being constructed prior to the time that the zone would actually be changed. Donald R. Brandt, 139 Lester Street, Orange, addressed the Commission and said all the standards are met in both the R-D-6 and the R-1-6 zoning. He said the 4800-square foot building site is actually larger than any of the existing lots on the street. As far as the R-D-6 zoning extending into what is now single-family residences, nothing really would change as far as the appearance of the area is concerned. Also, there are two, possibly three, properties that already have second units built in them; however, he doesn't know if they are legal or illegal and he doesn't intend to get involved in that situation. Mr. Brandt said all he wants to do is build a single-family residence so that at some point in time some of his family members can occupy that residence. The existing house is occupied right now by his sister and her two children. Mr. Brandt pointed out that the environmental impact analysis states that this project would have no adverse effect on the area. He said he thinks the addition of his new residence will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood because there is a vacant lot void that is sort of a nuisance-looking situation at the present time. He requested that the zone be changed in his favor. Les Linkogle, 168 North Lester Street, Orange, stated that this zone change will create an undue parking pressure in the area in conjunction with surrounding single-family units combined with the conditional use permit to the south. The particular zoning that is on Chapman and Lester, where they currently have a condi- tional use permit for parking, will be~,unfavorably impacted by this request, since the neighborhood has a general plan designation of low density. The zone change appears to be incompatible with the general plan. Mr. Brandt responded that as far as the impact of parking on the street is concerned, he doesn't really see that it would have that much effect. He said there are approximately 75 feet of vacent frontage on the street at the present time with no residence and no .overloaded conditions of parking. He said the plans he had drawn up would provide the required off-street parking for both existing and new residences and with the relocation of the existing V n Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Twelve AYES: NOES: AYES:. NOES: IN RE: garage on the property to the rear on the opposite end of the lot, there would actually be additional parking far in excess of what the two structures would require. As far as a deterrent to the neighbor- hood is concerned, the house itself that is proposed to be built is nothing more than just another single-family residence like those already there. Chairman Hart declared the hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the environmental review board and file Negative Declaration 891. Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek asked if the property had remained under the original lot subdivision, and Mr. Brandt would have had two lots, could he have gone through a lot line adjustment and gone back to his original two lots and if so, wouldn't have needed a zone change. Mr. Murphy indicated that this would have been possible except that those lots now would be substantially less than the minimum lot size, which was 6,000 square feet, and a variance for lot area would be required. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission approve this application-under the intent- to-rezone procedure provided the house does look like the other .houses in the area. Commissioners Hart,. Greek, Mason, Master Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart asked Mr. .Murphy to inform Mr. Linkogle, who had protested this project, as to the next step in this procedure. Mr. Murphy explained that this action by the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council; the City Council will then be required to hold a second public hearing similar to this hearing, and another notice will go out for that hearing at the City Council level. Chairman Hart told Mr. Linkogle that there would then be another opportunity for him to appear at the City Council meeting. MISCELLANEOUS ITEM--REFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL FOR REPORT: VARIANCE 1737, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-770--CALEB SWANSON Request to create two lots with less than the required lot frontage Planning Commission March 5, 1984 Page Thirteen Minutes on the east side of Kennymead Street, south of Santiago Canyon Road. NOTE: Negative Declaration 881 has been prepared for this project. This item was denied by the Planning Commission on January 4, 1984.. The City Council continued the appeal for a report from the Planning Commission 1984 meeting. The miscellaneous item was continued on February 22, 1984. Mr. Murphy said that the staff has a presentation to make with regard to information received since the last Commission hearing on this matter. Chairman Hart stated that there is a large display of parcel maps presented by Mr. Bennyhoff that pertain to the hearing. He asked Mr. McGee for a quick review of the matter. Mr. McGee reported that this item was originally before the Planning Commission on January 4. At that hearing the application for the variance was denied. It was then appealed to the City Council; there was a slight modification made to the intended parcel map which caused the City Council to return it to the Planning Commission. There have been some items of information supplied to the Commission since that time: a letter from Mr. Swanson, a letter from a Mr. Siebert of the Orange Park Association regarding lot sizes in that area in general and the zoning ordinance, and the packet of inform- ation that was mentioned from Mr. Bennyhoff, basically an inventory of lot sizes in the Orange Park Community. Caleb Swanson, 10302 Kennymead Street, Orange, apologized for not being present at the original hearing on January 4 and said he felt the denial had been because of the easement on the property. He said he would have removed the easement on that evening had he been present. His amended application has removed the easement and shows a different routing for the driveway, so he now urges the Commission to approve it. Chairman Hart stated his vote for denial was not entirely on the easement but also on the issue of the difference between the 40,000 square feet and the 43,560 square feet minimum lot size that the Commission understood had been imposed upon the Orange Park Acres property., first by the Planning Commission and then later by the City Council in 1973. Mr. Swanson said he was aware of the testimony at the January 4 meeting with regard to the concern over the 43,560 square feet; however, he would like to remind the Commission of the basis of "this particular little county island" that he has lived in. He said that this area had recently been annexed and the incentive Planning Commission Minutes • March 5, 1984 Page Fourteen that was offered to the residents was the rezoning of R-1-40, which the Commission had accomplished. At that time he was in the process of proposing a variance to the County so he could separate those two parcels. When the City annexation request was made and the meetings were held., the R-1-40 zoning was the enticement for him to agree to join the City. He said he has lived in Orange Park Acres for over twenty years and is well aware of the Orange Park Acres specific plan as well as the attempt to keep the lifestyle of that community which is afforded by a minimum density situation. But his particular lot is constrained by its odd shape and there is very little he can do with it. He feels that~if he creates two lots out of his property it will not affect the overall density in that area and there will be no impact on the lifestyle of Orange Park Acres. Mr. Swanson said the original criteria for one acre was 40,000 square feet in the City and 43.,560 square feet in the County and when the plan was made for Orange Park Acres, which was at that time County property, the 43,560 square feet was specifed as the minimum lot size. He said he understood there was concern expressed at the recent hearing with regard to the fact that if he~was allowed to split his property into two lots, neither of which would have 43,560 square feet, it would set a precedent which would change things in Orange Park Acres. But he feels that now that he is in the City it is all right to have only 40,000 square feet since the precedent for 40,000 square feet in the City was set on the same day as the 43,560 square feet was set for the County, and he believes that the enticement to enter the City on the R-1-40 was clearly put to the residents of Orange Park Acres. He said this is .what he was offered to come into the City and he's simply asking to have that which was offered to him. Mr. Greek commented to Mr. Swanson that he dwells so much on the fact that he "was offered" and that he "was enticed" and that he "was offered incentives" and all kinds of good things to come into the City, and asked who made those offers to him. Mr. Swanson responded that he believes this particular committee prezoned the area R-1-40 in anticipation of annexation. Mr. Greek said he felt Mr. Swanson had been referring to someone specific who had made the offers and he wondered who it might be. Mr. Swanson said there was no one specific, just that the annexa- tion was proposed by others with the promise of the R-1-40 zoning and the other City features, including the availability of City fire and police services, and that primarily the incentive for him particularly was the R-1-40 zoning. Commissioner Mason asked Mr. Swanson if he wasn't concerned about the 125' frontage. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Fifteen Mr. Swanson replied that he was concerned but he asked for an additional variance and that was approved, and since he had not asked for an additional driveway he felt it fell within the general criterial for this sort of a variance. Commissioner Mason asked Mr. Swanson if he wasn't planning to add an additional driveway. Mr. .Swanson replied that he would just put a driveway on the other part of the property by moving the driveway that is there now.. He explained that basically his driveway right now is where he proposes the easement and that would be a constraint. He said he just didn't want to move the driveway but if that's a problem he would put a driveway on his property rather than the other property because it is really immaterial to him. Chairman Hart said he had been asked by some of the opponents of the proposal to be given an opportunity to speak. George Rach, 20151 Rogers, Orange, stated that he is chairman of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee, a group of six people-- two from the City, two from the County and two members-at-large. He said his purpose for being at the meeting is to clarify their points about acceptable lot sizes in the area and he would read parts of a letter sent to the City Council in February, which he hoped would clear up some matters for the Commission in their review of the present one-acre standard for the east Orange area. Copies of this letter as well as the recommendation from the City planning staff that the existing R-1-40 zoning be changed to reflect the 43,560-square foot net minimum lot size which .has been the standard in Orange Park Acres, had been given to the members of the Commission. Mr. Rach pointed out that for the last ten years Orange Park Acres has accepted the one-acre standard that is specified in the Webb Plan and subsequently followed in several other specific plans which have specified that one acre in Orange Park Acres is a net 43,560 square feet. He feels that the City of Orange should specify that the estate lot size is a minimum of a net 43,560 square feet. He said the desire of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee is to establish an acceptable land area size standard that is satisfactory both to the Planning Commission and to the residents of Orange Park Acres., and it is their belief that the City already accepted the 43,560-square foot lot size in 1973. Mr. Rach read from the specific plan of Orange Park Acres regarding building site areas for the low density one acre: "The definition of building site areas shall conform to zoning code requirements for building sites; however, may include equestrian trail easements. One-acre lot sizes shall be 43,560 square feet minimum although they may include certain topography within the area." He said Planning Commission Minutes ' March 5, 1984 Page Sixteen they regard the 43,560-square foot lot size to be the standard in their area. Regarding the 125-foot frontage requirement, Mr. Rach said the City does specify in its zoning of 17.24.030 that "The following uses shall be permitted in an R-1-40 single-family district: all uses permitted in the R-1-6 district and the R-1-20 district subject to the restrictions and regulations of such districts except that the minimum building site area for each R-1-40 single-family residence shall be 40,000 square feet and the minimum lot frontage shall be 125 feet. He painted out that the frontage shown for Mr. Swanson's property in the map submitted with the rezoning request is 83.20 feet, approximately 66% of the required 12~-foot lot frontage. He stated that the City is being asked to make two considerations, one for a lot size considerably less than the lot sizes the people in Orange Park Acres live. by, and the other for a variance in regard to the lesser frontage. Mr. Rach asked the Commission to look at the assessor's maps he had distributed, saying that the cover page of each packet shows that the Orange Park .Acres Planning Committee has gone through the various acreages in their community that may be affected by what they. believe to be a misinterpretation of the lot sizes. He said: "If you take this as an example, one 40,000 R-1-40 lot size is equivalent to .9182 of a county acre or an acre that's looked upon as being 43,560 square feet., but the point I'm trying to make here is that you must understand, and I understand Mr. Swanson's comment about this is just one parcel, but I think what you must do is understand that this has much broader ramifications. An analogy I want you to remember is what I'm pointing out--one acre is equiv- alent to .9182 of the acres that are 43,560 square feet. Because what it boils down to is just in this one parcel size alone, if you take these maps you will find eight individual properties that are of 1.82 acres in size~up to two acres. Now, by just reading this definition by the proponent's standards versus what we've accepted, you come up with this analogy, it either represents eight acres or 16 parcels of land that can be developed. Now that's just the tip of the iceberg because you have to go one step further. Because if you now take two 40,000-square foot acres, you come up with 1.836, three is 2.755, four is 3.637, and so forth. So what you end up with is ten parcels that can be developed as either ten acres or twenty acres. Then you come up with another group of parcels that wi11 represent nine acres or eighteen acres. In just the three steps alone it represents 54 different points that I may be down here on a Monday night trying to speak for the lot sizes of 43,560. Mr. Rach said he is just asking that the City abide by what the Orange Park Acres Committee regards as lawful lot sizes and rules that were adopted by the City, something the residents of Orange Park Acres have lived by, have watched go through the normal City Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Seventeen and County processes, and have followed. In addition, he said, the request fora variance of a frontage of only 83.20 feet is a little bit shy of the required minimum of 125 feet. He said there are several pieces of property close to and/or contiguous to Mr. Swanson`s property. that adhere to the county size, and he feels that if this is enforced for some residents it should be enforced for all of them; otherwise, anyone in that area could ask for a variance and expect to get it. Norman Brock, 20351 Aiken Place, Orange, stated he has lived in the Orange Park Acres area fora little over 20 years and feels he has credibility not only because of that but also because he has served as president of the association for 22 years, as a representative of the association for longer than that, and as a member of the original planning committee, as well as doing development work in the area. He said that many times when people were about to leave the area and were selling their property, there were almost identical situations to this one, and each property owner seeking a variance said, "Mine is a unique circumstance, mine is such that will not affect the area, after all what is one little change, nobody will know the difference." Mr. Brock discussed the difference between precedents, standards and law. He said the residents of Orange Park Acres have stanchly adhered to the precedent being discussed, the establishment of 43,560 square feet as the net minimum acre--a precedent that became a standard, not just a law. He believes a standard has greater importance than a law because a law can be changed, and this is one case where a standard became more important than a law because a lifestyle is predicated upon that standard. The residents of Orange Park Acres have fought .very hard to maintain the 43,560 square feet standard and if someone obtains approval to change it, then anyone else can also obtain such approval. He said that during the developmental stage when the Webb plan was being followed and the "specific" plan was being formulated, there was an agreement that the City adopt the 43,560 square footage, and. that "handshake" agreement was to be codified at a convenient time when the developmental work was finished and the establishment of a specific plan was to be finalized. That never took place but that does not prevent it from taking place now. Mr. Brock urged the Commission to seriously consider the establish- ment of the developmental standard within the R-1-40 to be 43,560 square feet as was agreed upon by handshake some years ago. It is very important to Orange Park Acres because it is "another standard." He urged the Commission to deny Mr. Swanson's request on the basis of the lot size being insufficient, a condition that could not be remedied. He stressed the point that if Orange Park Acres collapses as a community it will be because of the breaking up of the 43,560 square feet standard. He believes that standard is so critical to them that "you .can eventually kiss Orange Park Acres goodbye without it." Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Eighteen Bob Bennyhoff (no address given) stated that the Swanson matter boils down to the one-acre issue. He quoted Mr. Swanson as saying, "Some people seem to have the impression that a specific plan was adopted many years ago which required that subsequent one-acre developments be performed using the 43,560-square foot dimension which was typically employed in county planning." ,He noted that on December 26, 1973, the Orange Park Acres plan was adopted unanimously by the City Council after being recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission, and that Amendment #6 adopted that same evening, according to the minutes, states: "Minimum lot size for low-density one-acre is 43,560 square feet and minimum lot size for low-density one-half-acre is 20,000 square feet." He wondered how anything could be more specific since it says in plain words, "one acre is 43,560 square feet" in Orange Park Acres. Mr. Bennyhoff said he has discussed this matter with City Councilmen Jess Perez and Don Smith, who were also on the City Council at the time the Orange County Acres plan was adopted, and they remember it well and said the matter was resolved only after a lot of argument and compromise. Mr. Bennyhoff said that Mr. Swanson didn't go far enough in his research, that the matters he cites are contained in a section that is entitled "alternate concept plan," which was a discussion of various alternatives prior to the adoption of the "specific plan." If he had gone a little further he would have come to the section entitled "proposed specific plan," which is the one finally adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. That plan spells out the compromise that was made during weeks of discussion between the City and County officials and members of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee, and provided for what is now Broadmoor, Desert Run, Saddle Hill, Wilderness, and Deerfield, which vary from low-density half-acre, medium-low-density and medium- density, as well as for 708 gross acres of low-density one-acre dwellings. The specific plan recommended to the City Council that "only one single-family detached structure is allowed per lot and it is recommended that the E-4-1 zoning described in the Orange County Zoning Code apply to this residential area." Mr. Bennyhoff pointed out that E-4-1 in Orange County is 43,560 square feet not 40,000 square feet, and it is the very heart of the Orange Park Acres plan today just as it was in 1973. Since this plan has been followed for over ten years in Orange Park Acres and by both the City and the County, why should it be changed now? 0 Mr. Bennyhoff stated that Orange Park Acres residents, are not asking the Commission to do anything more than respect the agreement the City of Orange made with the people of Orange Park Acres and make sure that one acre in that area remains one acre. He said that since Mr. Swanson came to Orange Park Acres early in 1963, ten years before the Orange Park Acres plan was developed, he knows about the plan. He said Mr. Swanson split his property in 1981, eight years after the Orange Park Acres plan was adopted and before the matter of annexation to the City came up. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Nineteen Mr. Bennyhoff said that the people in Orange Park Acres disagree very strongly with the staff's statement that "adopting 40,000 square feet is not going to set a bad precedent," because they know very well that if 40,000 square feet is passed once it will be passed again. And finally, he said the Commission is urged to act on the staff's recommendation that the R-1-40 zoning be changed so it reflects the existing law--43,560 square feet. He noted that Orange Park Acres is the only area that will be affected by that. Mr. Swanson rebutted the previous statements by saying that he believes his neighbors have made this impassioned plea when they were considering annexing his property. He feels that a lot of interpretation was involved in the specific plan which he thinks was only a general guide for development. He said he even recalls that there were four concepts that were studied by the original planning committee: an open space, the one-acre concept, the cluster concept, and the current development. He said there was such community concern at the time that a little election was. held to determine who was for which one of those alternatives and the votes were tallied at his kitchen table, after which they went to the City Council to present the views of the community, which were for the one-acre concept. He said he realizes now that another hearing was contemplated but wasn't held because everyone simply accepted the one-acre concept. Mr. Swanson said he still has his copy of the specific plan then adopted and it just says very simply that this plan can be imple- mented by zoning the entire area within the City of Orange R-1-40 and the unincorporated County area E-4-1. Therefore if his property is now within the City of Orange he should be allowed the R-1-40 zoning. He thinks that this zoning is not going to be detrimental to the character and lifestyle of Orange Park Acres, but if in fact it does adjust the area slightly, it will be all for. the better. Chairman Hart declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. Johnson for the size of the lots on the west side of Kennymead. Mr. Johnson replied that the lots directly across the street are one acre and he believes that area is zoned half-acre R-1-20; however, after looking at the dimensions, he said they evidently transition from 3/4 to the west side to 20,000 square feet. Some discussion among several pecr~sons, each. suggesting a different acreage, followed; then Mr. McGee stated that he did check this out earlier and the lot sizes on Kennymead range from 29,700 to 39,880--3/4-acre level, but the zoning is R-1-20, half-acre. Commissioner Greek asked for a tract map and afive-minute recess was set to obtain the map.. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Twenty After studying the tract map, Commissioner Greek stated that the size of the lots runs from 29,000 square feet to less than 40,000 square feet and that there are six lots of varying sizes yin that tract. Chairman Hart stated that the Commission is at a point where it needs some action. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Commission has already taken action on the negative declaration and this is an informal hearing for the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council as to whatever action it feels is appropriate on both the variance and the tentative parcel map. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance and the tentative parcel map. Commissioner Greek said the reason for his motion is that he has been confused about the area but he thinks Mr. Swanson is asking s and while he could probably live with either i f t on wo concess or one of them alone, he can't accept both of them. He said he has to agree with the other residents of the area that if the Planning Commission starts making concessions there will soon be a golf course there for condominiums and he thinks everybody is afraid of that. He feels that both the variance and the reduced size are items of too great a magnitude to overcome. AYES:. Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy asked if the Commission wishes to make any recommendations with regard to the suggestion to change the c;ty ordinance on the one-acre minimum lot size. Chairman Hart said he would personally like to_see that. change so there isn't a problem with interpretations of ten-year-old discussions and plans. He said if this Commission feels that the 43,560-square foot minimum lot size is the intent of the original plan, then it ought to put it down in some form that everybody will understand. Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that n the Planning. Commission recommend to the City Council that a ordinance amendment be initiated for the purpose of making the R-1-40 zones lot area standard, consistent with the policy- including the Orange Park Acres plan, that of 43,560 square feet per lot. Commissioner Master asked if there might be other areas where there is a transition problem such as the lots that are as small as the lesser sizes on Kennymead. Planning Commission Minutes ' March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-one Commissioner Greek said there may be a problem at the corner of Windes end Santiago Canyon Road where there is a school for sale -and there are small lots, maybe five or six thousand square feet, with houses on the south, essentially duplex zoning on the east, and one-acre lots on the north. Chairman Hart stated that this action may be a way of clarifying future problems of the same nature. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM Review of plans for proposed commercial development for the north- east corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue, pursuant to agreement with the landowner, Louis Kennedy (Zone Change 991). Mr. Murphy stated that the plan on the board in back of Chairman Hart depicts the site plan for the project submitted by Santa Anita Development Corporation. The City Council approved a resolution in March, 1983, and adopted an ordinance changing the zone on that ® property to C-1. As a part of that zone change an agreement was also established with Mr. Kennedy, the landowner, who wished to have the commercial zoning rather than a resolution of intent. That agreement required the review of all plans on the property by the Planning Commission and the City Council; therefore, the reason for the plan being before the Commission at this meeting. The reason for the particular concern about this property is that the plans had been proposed previously by Santa Anita Development Corporation for approximately three-quarters of a million square feet of office buildings on the property and the staff and Commission had reviewed the .plans but they never went to official public hearing. The proposed plans are for approximately 133,700 square feet of building area with the major buildings being a discount department store and three other small buildings. The staff has several concerns in reviewing .the plans, including that there be adequate vehicular access both from. Tustin and from Meats to the project, that those entering sections and entrances particularly the one on Meats Avenue, be designed so as to allow for both the access to the property and the normal traffic usage to the mobile home park to the east and traffic on Meats Avenue. Secondly, that the delivery truck traffic along the easterly driveway adjacent to the mobile home park be treated as well as openings in the wall on that side of the major building and trash collection facilities which are shown at the southedst corner of the building, that those things be designed and any adverse impact mitigated with regard to the mobile home park. The third concern was that adequate reciprocal access and parking agreements be established between the Planning Commission Minutes • March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-two parcels which include the existing two buildings at the northwest corner of this site, a bank and a savings and loan building. There will be six parcels in all in the alternate 12-acre complex. Fourth, that a comprehensive sign program be developed prior to project construction so as to provide necessary identification for all uses in the project. Staff was particularly concerned about the building at the southeast corner, the furthest away from Tustin Street. The staff has asked the developer to dedicate an additional ten feet on Meats Avenue and twelve feet on Tustin Street at the corner of Tustin and Meats, to provide additional travel lanes at that location and a bus bay on Tustin Avenue. This dedication is in addition to the present standard for Meats Avenue and Tustin Street and the developer has requested that the City or redevelopment agency pay the costs of reconstruction of that portion of the project as a trade-off for the dedication being requested. This matter is really a City Council or redevelopment agency responsi- bility and the Commission should not address itself to that request but allow the City Council to make that determination. The plan does not require any other zoning application in the way of condi- tional use variances or other such vehicles. The staff met today with the redevelopment agency staff and they are requesting that the matter be continued to the March 19 meeting to allow for a report to come back from the redevelopment agency on the project's relationship to the redevelopment project. The applicant wishes to move ahead on the project in that he has a time deadline with the acquisition process of the property. The staff suggests that the Planning Commission make known any concerns that it has .with regard to the project that might be studied or ~o~ked on by the applicant between tonight's meeting and the March 19 meeting, and also the staff has volunteered to place this item on the March. 20 calendar of the City Council in order to expedite the matter to the City Council once the Planning Commission is able to make a recommendation on the March 19 date. Chairman Hart inquired as to the relationship between this parcel and those of the bank and savings and loan that front on Tustin Street. Mr. Murphy responded that the Santa Anita Development Corporation might be able to answer that question better than he can but there are agreements being established between the savings and loan which owns the two parcels, reciprocal access as well as parking agreements, so that the entire twelve acres can be looked at as a single project from that standpoint with the completion of those agreements. Commissioner Master expressed concern about the ingress and egress off of Meats which he feels is going to have profound implications with respect to the mobile home park. Mr. Johnson said the staff looked at that and they agree with him. Planning Commission Minutes • March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-three Staff thinks there is a possibility of moving the entrance further to the east. It can't go up the slope but it really should come in at a location that would serve both this property and the mobile home park. That could be done with the construction of the street improvements; there might have to be an offset intersection for a short period of time or it might be done all at once. There is a project out to bid presently to reconstruct Meats Avenue and if it would proceed that might be an ideal time to look at relocating the entrance, particularly if the redevelopment agency does get involved in the improvement of that street. Todd Ridgeway, Santa Anita Development Corporation, the applicant regarding this development, said they think it is important to indicate the original intent of this project and how it evolved to where it currently is on the site plan. He said this is a joint venture between Target, a Dayton-Hudson company out of Minneapolis, and the Santa Anita Development Corporation. At the time discussions were started it became apparent that a project of the magnitude of a discount store had to have a larger site than the original mobile park, Mr. Kennedy's parcel. As a result they opened discussion with Western Federal Savings and Loan, owners of the adjacent northerly property. It was agreed that this should be an integrated shopping center and at that time a conceptual site plan was submitted to the City. They tried to address, as best they could, the problems of traffic, on-site circulation and entrances, taking into consider- ation the short time frame in which they had to work. Mr. Ridgeway said he thinks Commissioner Master's comment regarding ingress and egress on Meats Avenue is well taken and he has addressed that problem with Target, whose representative, Mr. Tom Bonneville, is present at this meeting and will answer any questions put to him. However, from a site-planning view, movement of that driveway .becomes very difficult because it starts the flow of traffic into the front door. The front entry of the Target building is diagonal, which is a modification from their standard building, because of a compromise with Western Federal in order that Target would not capture Western Federal's parking lot. He said that floating in a different driveway would become very onerous to Target financially. .Because the City had forewarned him that they were looking at the driveway situation, he already discussed it with the design people in Minneapolis and with Mr. Bonneville today, and it is a very difficult on-site situation. However, the City Traffic Engineer suggested modifying the site plan by moving the first driveway traveling northbound on Tustin Street one drive aisle forward in order to provide for full movement off of Tustin, left-hand in and left-hand out, into that driveway, which is just south of Western Federal. It is felt that by doing that the increase in flow of traffic on Meats would be mitigated. Mr. Ridgway stated that he and Mr. Bonneville are at this meeting in order to present a conceptual site plan and get direction from Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-four the Commission. He said that apparently the redevelopment agency has requested a delay, but they wanted to proceed with their present- ation at this meeting in order to get some comfort level as to whether or not they are on the right track. They don't mind delaying the project if they can just get some direction as to how to go. Commissioner Master asked if the Traffic Engineer made any comments about the driveway cuts. Mr. Johnson said he thinks the Traffic Engineer has reviewed the access location and. has reservations about the Meats Avenue frontage, which he thinks should be looked at in more detail. If it is kept where it is and there is a major access point on Meats, then there is virtually no pocket at all eastbound. Commissioner Vasquez said he doesn't feel the issue of traffic circulation can be overstated because from what he knows about Target stores there's no question that this store will have heavy use. Additionally, he has considerable concern about the design aspect~~of the store, and by that he means the esthetics of the exterior design. He feels that Tustin and Meats is a strategic location in the City of Orange, being in the center of the redevelop- ment project, and he wants the appearance of the Target building to be an asset to the area. He feels that esthetics are as important as economic incentives and he doesn't want to approve a building that might not fit into the long-term plan for beautifying that area. Mr. Ridgeway responded that Santa Anita Development Corporation had discussed this with Western Federal and they share the same concern. He said there are plans for erecting a high-quality dinner house at the corner of the property which would be an asset to the mall area. Also he has photographs of another Target building for the Commission to see, and he thinks it is a very pleasant building but it must be realized that Target buildings are large discount-type stores like Gemco, Fedco and K-Mart. However, he thinks Target does a better job of designing its stores but there isn't much that can be done with a 100,000-square foot building--there are certain limitations to its design. Commissioner Vasquez stated that he recognizes the design limitations of that type of store but he also feels that at least exterior design can be upgraded when the store is in a strategic location of a city. He said he also is uncomfortable with the proposed plot plan in that he doesn't like the entrances and the jamming of the building into one corner of the property. He feels the proposed site plan looks awkward but he doesn't know what can be done to make it better or if he would be happier if the building were to be relocated to another spot. Mr. Ridgeway responded that the building is designed that way in Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-five order to provide adequate parking for alternate users, which was a concern in integrating with Western Federal and that this is probably the 20th site plan they have come up with. This plan has on-site circulation, provides adequate parking for all users, and provides for access from the major streets. They have an aerial photograph of the entire twelve acres that shows driveway entrances to the mall and they have tried to accommodate the concerns of winding up driveways. He said there were a number of concerns but even if this plan looks awkward on paper, it certainly works from a design point of view regarding circulation aspects and adequate parking. Commissioner Vasquez stated that Mr. Ridgeway can't ask the Commission to believe that Santa Anita Development Company thinks the entrance from the south side is good. He said he feels that entrance is extremely dangerous. A discussion followed, with several persons speaking at once, back and forth, regarding the dangers which could be involved traffic-wise in the use of this particular driveway. Mr. Ridgeway admitted that there are a lot of traffic movements at ® that point and said he feels the problems can be mitigated by some nal si or sto i ffi f t t . g p c s gn ra ype o Chairman Hart expressed his concern that the average age of the driver coming out of the mobile home park is probably around 70-some years ' t as sharp as they used to be. He old and people of that age aren is concerned, and he feels that Santa Anita Development Corporation should also be concerned, that these people are not going to be as quick to dodge the delivery trucks, that would have to use the same driveway, or other traffic using that driveway, when they are not used to having that type of traffic on that driveway. Commissioner Greek said he recalls that when the development plan for that area was approved, the Commission specifically deleted any modification to the overpass because of the same type of concern. Mr. Ridgeway suggested that visibility in that area would be improved by cutting down the oleander bushes that obstruct drivers' vision. He also said that he feels the mobile home park residents would become conscious of the increased traffic and learn to be very careful in that area. Chairman Hart said he shares Commissioner Vasquez' concern about design. He said he doesn't know how many millions of dollars the redevelopment agency anticipates spending to improve this area, but it is a large sum, and he feels that to have the possibility of a building that doesn't fit into the scheme of things scares him. At this point, Mr. Ridgeway showed the photos of a target store in the Columbia Ma11 Shopping Center in Grand Forks, North Dakota, to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-six In answer to various questions from the Commissioners as they were studying the photographs, Mr. Bonneville said. the .size of the store at the Columbia Mall is 100,000 square feet, which is basically what is being proposed for Orange with some small modifications, that the color of the store in Orange would be substantially the same as that of the Columbia Mall store, that the material used for the Orange store would come from San Bernardino and is called Lone Pine Gold, and that the Columbia Ma11 store opened in 1978 and is still the prototype that is being used. Commissioner Vasquez commented that the photograph takes the place of some words; however, it does not give him a perception of the overall area in which the store is located other than a mall. He said the price tag and the projections that the City of Orange has made in terms of its investment for the future in the redevelopment area is such that there's little allowance for poor quality or cutting corners or trying to dodge some of the criteria. He said he didn't mean by this remark that he felt Target was guilty of this conduct, he was just trying to emphasize that it could be potentially one of the most ambitious projects ever undertaken by Target in terms of design because he has seen some discount houses and retailers who, under the same type of conditions, have done some extremely ambitious things and have produced some very out- standing facilities and buildings that defy the typical type of department store. Mr. Bonneville said Target would love it if the Commission would tell them that they would have to build a structure of that nature. Mr. Ridgeway said he thinks it is important to talk about economics and pointed out that the Target store would be a $15,000,000 invest- ment in the City and would have retail sales alone of about $25,000,000 a year, which are substantial revenues for the City. Commissioner Vasquez said he thinks there has to be a better way of constructing the building than to have just a blank wall to look at. Mr. Ridgeway pointed out that there are certain compromises that have to be made in connection with a commercial building; also that the view from the Tustin Street frontage is of the two financial insti- tutions because the Target building would be behind. them. t f l l rom a o Commissioner Greek said Target is asking for an awfu pretty plain presentation and he just can't feel comfortable with it. He said he can't offer a large amount of support for the project because he thinks it is a tough piece of property and a tough project and there's not much data there. He said there are a lot of problems that haven't been solved and he can't make any favorable comment to make Target feel comfortable. m 0 Planning Commission March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-seven Minutes Commissioner Mason said her concerns have already been addressed by the other Commissioners. She said she thinks the driveway is a real problem because of the way Meats comes down a hill. She likes the way the store will be set back behind the bank building and she likes the idea of having a nice restaurant on the corner, because if it has good design and good landscaping it can be a real asset. :. She said her main concern is the traffic in and out of the property. Mr. Bonneville stated that,th~y have tried very hard to address each and every concern that has been listed by the Planning Depart- ment including the dedication of streets on two sides with very expensive land and working out an REA with Western,-.Federal. They are aware of the problem with entrances and exits on the property and feel there are some things that can be done to alleviate the traffic. He suggested that the residents of the mobile home park could use the drive that goes behind the mobile home park buildings and directly onto the shopping center property, and then exit from there rather than directly onto Meats from the current driveway. He also felt that possibly the mobile home park residents might leave the area prior to the opening for business of the Target store.. He also tried to think of things like eliminating the divider between the property and the roadway itself that goes out to Meats. He asked if there is any other way that the City can think of to help people escape from the encapsulated mobile home park. He said there is also the slope problem coming down the hill on Meats but he feels that eliminating that they would also be eliminating the use of that property for a lot of users and probably for themselves also. Mr. Bonneville said he thinks that moving the entry on Tustin further north would help alleviate the problem of using the Meats entrance because, for example, traffic to Target coming from the south to the north would, instead of making a right turn on Meats, continue north and make a right turn into the property. Traffic coming from the north to the south would have a tendency to make a left turn into the most convenient left-hand slot and then into the property. He feels that the only traffic they need to concern themselves with is the traffic that might be coming up over the overpass and coming down the slope, making a right turn into the property using the Meats driveway, because that traffic would be the least visible. He is trying to be creative in thinking of solutions for this problem and one of the thoughts he's had is trying to make the stop signs work or cause the area to be large enough or maybe have to cut some bushes down and do some physical things on the site. He feels there are workable solutions and stated Target will work with the City on finding them. Commissioner Mason asked if .there is any other way to get in and out of the mobile home park. C O Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-eight Mr. Johnson said the City Engineering Department did look at a situation which would mean moving the access point, which creates a different concept, but as yet no design has been done to find out whether or not it would be feasible. Using a map, Mr. Johnson showed the Commission what the Engineering Department had in mind. He said it would involve a lot of relocation and since no design work had yet been done it would be difficult to know if it could actually be worked out. In answer to a gdestion from one of the Commissioners about putting medians on Tustin Street, Mr. Johnson said that medians on Tustin have been a real problem because of the businesses there so the Engineering. Department is not going to push for medians but they are a possibility some day. He said the .Engineering Department wants to try to consolidate driveways and then strike the;rest to eliminate many turning movements. He feels that consolidation in certain areas will work as well as medians would. He also feels that it is possible for Meats Avenue to be a future interchange, and even though that idea was stricken from the redevelopment project, it is probably the only possibility so far as an on or off ramp between the Lincoln and the Katella interchanges, so the Engineering Department is looking at that possibility, but not actively. Commissioner Mason asked if there are any entries to the mobile home park further north. Mr. Johnson said the driveway entrance adjacent to the property under discussion is the only one except for an emergency exit at the east end which is kept chained and is adjacent to some condo- miniums fronting on Pine. Commissioner Greek commented that the eastern perimeter of those condominiums as a means of ingress and egress just might provide an option because the property running east of there is Caltrans property and there is some property that is usable. C7 Commissioner Vasquez said he wants to comment based on a thought he had .just a few minutes ago so the comments willibe tranismitted. He said one would be that the magnitude of this proposed develop+ ment concept once again heightens the necessity of at least the consideration of four major modifications to that freeway overpass. Again, just as a means of a comment., when the Commission is talking about something of this magnitude, be_th.inks.it-has to be at -l east mentioned. He said he recognizes and acknowfiedges~the fact:~that it was deleted primarily because of the concern., at least to the best of his recollection, overly concern about the mobile home park and the destruction it would cause there, but again if the Commission is going to consider this kind of a concept it just renews that issue all over again. So he would-certainly urge that at least that be conveyed in terms of a comment even though it has been deleted from the plan. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Twenty-nine Mr. Ridgeway suggested that Target and Santa Anita Development Corporation continue to work with the Planning Department staff and the Traffic Engineer, and he thanked the Commission for its comments. Chairman Hart told Mr. Ridgeway that the Commission could bring him back at the March l9 meeting. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that this Miscellaneous Item be continued to the meeting of March 19 for discussion and report on the comments discussed by the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart said that the Commission has a meeting on March 12 and should accommodate a joint meeting with the City Council at 7:00 p.m. on that night. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason that such a meeting be held. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart said the staff has seen the need fora study session on various items. He asked Mr. Murphy which items were on the agenda for this study session. Mr. Murphy responded that these were the matter of computing density, whether to use `''net or-gross area for developments, what constitutes net lot area with regard to common driveways,. again the Swanson issue and then to talk about policy in those two areas, and then perhaps to talk about conflict of interests and regulations, particularly in light of what some of you learned last week down in San Diego.at League of Cities. Chairman Hart suggested having the study session on March 19 at 4:30 p.m. and having sandwiches brought in; then go into the regular meeting at 7:30, and if anything should be left to study, it would be done after adjournment of the regular meeting. Commissioner Master said he is scheduled for meetings from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. on all Mondays for the next six; Chairman Hart said Commissioner Master would just have to come in late. Commissioner Mason pointed out that Commissioner Greek is going to be out of town and she will have to leave early that evening but can come in early. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that there be a 4:30 p.m. study session on March 19. z ~ Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1984 Page Thirty ;~.~ AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, March 19, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. L