Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/4/1985 - Minutes PC PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California March 4, 1985 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Master at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF John Lane, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secre- PRESENT: tary; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Toba V. Wheeler, Recording Secretary. ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: PRESENTATION OF PLACQUE Chairman Master presented Commissioner Hart with Resolution PC 1-85 and a placque in appreciation of his many years of service on the Planning Commission and his two years as Chairman in 1983 and 1984. IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 1985 The minutes were corrected to show that on page 3, in the motion halfway down the page, the Negative Declaration is #959 not #944. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the minutes of February 20, 1985, be approved as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1400 - OCTO-M, INC. Proposed office complex which exceeds the height limit in the C-2 zone at the southwest corner of Town and Country Road and Lawson Way. NOTE: Negative Declaration 962 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Greek excused himself from the meeting due to conflict of interest. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report. He said no comments have been received from the City of Santa Ana but a letter was received from Mr. John Shawver representing Town & Country, saying they have some concern about the height of the buildings and would like Building A to be moved away from the west property line at least 60'. Mr. Lane said Staff suggests approval subject to the 17 conditions in the Staff Report and the two condi- tions in the March 1 memo from the City Engineer. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Two Commissioner Mason asked for clarification regarding the proposed signal light at Town and Country Road and the 22 Freeway ramp. Mr. Lane showed the location of the signal light at the present four-way stop, using the map of the amea posted on the wall, and Mr. Johnson said $58,000 has been recommended to cover installation of the signal light. Commissioner Hart asked if it was intended that the builder pay for the whole thing or if the $58,000 is just part of the cost. Mr. Johnson said it is his understanding that $58,-000 is the entire cost. He said he believes that building permits were issued some two years ago on this construction activity and at one time they were still considered valid, but that was pre- Transportation System Improvement Project date so they were not required to pay the one percent fee, but it may have changed at this point and he doesn't know if a legal ruling will be required or not. He said he believes this was one of the projects that was the basis of implementing the Transportation System Improvement Project and he thinks that paying for the traffic signal was in lieu of .payment of the one percent fee. He pointed out that when Mr. Tomolin was the developer of the property he entered into an agreement with the City of Santa Ana, which was recorded and runs with the land, in which there were certain obligations to the City of Santa Ana, and he is sure that the City of Santa Ana is going to hold this developer to that agreement if it has a legal right to do so. Mr. Minshew said that the Transportation System Improvement Project ordinance provides that the developer may be credited with traffic-type improvements that he makes, but he doesn't know what the exact rule on it is. Commissioner Hart asked if the permit was issued fora condominium building and, if so, would it still apply for an office building. Mr. Johnson said he couldn't answer that but he believes that when the project was first started, as far as it being an office complex :the inferenceiwas that the foundation permit had already been issued and if it's revised supposedly it still qualifies. Commis- sioner Hart asked if the developer got the plan checks from the original building. Mr. Minshew said there would be a problem if the developer is not building the building that was plan-checked. Commissioner Hart said he was concerned that this developer is going to be assessed the entire signal costs when everybody in the area will be using the signal. Mr. Johnson said it may be that the signal cost was to be an in lieu type of assessment in light of the fact that the one percent was not applicable. He said that obviously the money paid in would go to build the signal facilities called out in the Transportation System Improvement Project but he doesn't believe that this particular signal was one of those and he thinks that is the way the Traffic Engineer discussed it with this applicant; however, if he is paying the one percent then this cost would probably be credited to it. Commissioner Master asked for identification of the nearest residential zone and Mr. Lane said it is the residential towers in the City of Santa Ana located to the southeast. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Three Commissioner Master opened the public hearing. Mahmoud Zaratalba, the developer, said he met with the City of Santa Ana city manager and was told that he will be required to honor the agreement that was made with Mr. Tomolin in.1978 regarding a $300,000 contribution for a park and traffic improvements. He said he reached his agree- ment with the City of Santa Ana on March 1, which is why the City of Santa Ana could not get its letter regarding approval of the project to the City of Orange by that date; however, Santa Ana approved the project and is requiring him to pay $100,000 for traffic and park improvements, and a letter to that effect will be sent to the City of Orange. Commissioner Master said that the original assessment by the City of Santa Ana was based on the property being developed as residential in which case a contribution to the parks of Santa Ana would have been appropriate; however, he questions the appropriateness of assessing an office complex development for a contribution to parks. Commissioner Hart said he is disturbed by any assessment by the City of Santa Ana when the project is entirely in the City of Orange and he is afraid that this might trigger a whole set of other problems between Orange and Santa Ana on future projects. Mr. Minshew said that the Transportation System Improvement Project was implemented because of problems of this nature between the two cities and its implementation was supposed to eliminate such problems; however, since there was a valid agreement between Mr. Tomolin and the City of Santa Ana which states that said agreement shall revert to Mr. Tomo1in`s successors in interest, then Santa Ana has a right to require that it be carried out. Ehrouze Ehdaie, architect for the project, questioned the condition stating that the parking structure be fully sprinklered. He said the lower level will have sprinklers but since the street level is open on several sides he feels there. is no necessity for sprinklers there and, in fact, they were not required on a previous similar project. Mr. Johnson said if the requirement is a part of the fire ordinance then any decision to change it will have to be made by the City Council. Mr. Lane said that since the condition was suggested by the Fire Department he assumes it was based on what they have ® read and interpreted. in the plans but he feels it should not be required if it isn't required by the Code. Commissioner Hart suggested that the matter be discussed and settled with the Fire Department between now and the date of the City Council meeting at which this matter will be discussed and, if necessary, the require- ment can be changed by the City Council. Commissioner Hart said he is interested in the difference in the two configurations of the buildings on the site plan posted on the wall, which is the one the Planning Commission received, and the site plan on the easel being used by Mr. Ehdaie. Mr. Ehdaie said the site plan he was using was the more recent one, that the plan on the wall was the preliminary plan and has since been changed by setting the buildings at an angle instead of perpendicular to Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Four each other, thereby creating a large opening between them for more elaborate landscaping which will make a more exciting view from the street. Commissioner asked if the site plan is part of the Conditional Use Permit and, if so, how can the public hearing be on one site plan if the builder is planning to use another one. Mr. Lane responded that the site plan under consideration is the original one submitted to the Planning Department and posted on the wall, not the revised plan being discussed by Mr. Ehdaie. Mr. Ehdaie said an architect is always improving the plan and trying to get the maximum from the landscaping and space and since the~City requires that the project be submitted for review by the Design Review Board it is possible that the Design Review Board might require that the building be moved and/or the landscaping changed. Commissioner Hart said it is his~.experience that when the Panning Commission approves a site plan that is the one that is built, unless it is appealed to the City Council., and he does not believe it can be changed by the Design Review Board. Mr. Lane said virtually all buildings in the City are reviewed by the Design Review Board but he believes it does not have the authority to change a site plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council unless the changed plan is sent back to either of those bodies for final approval. Commis- sioner Hart asked Mr. Lane if he considered the revised site plan a substantial change from the site plan submitted to the Planning Department and Mr. Lane responded in the affirmative. Mr. Ehdaie said the revised plan is an improvement over the original plan. Commissioner Hart said that is not the point; whether the revised plan is better or not, it still is not the plan that was submitted for the .hearing. Mr. Lane said he thinks the Planning Commission should not have final action on this project but that it should be recommended for review by the City Council, particularly since it involves conditions and regulations of the City of Santa Ana. Mr. Ehdaie pointed out that he has been waiting for the City of Santa Ana to reach a decision for a long time, that he met with its engin- eering staff and its planning staff in December, that they have had his plans and a letter from the City of Orange requesting ® a response by March 1, and they still have not responded or reached a decision. Commissioner Master said he sympathizes with the applicant regarding the delays caused by the City of Santa Ana; however, he feels uncomfortable with the Planning Commission having final approval of the project and thinks it should go to the City Council for review and final approval. Mr. Lane agreed that it could be referred to the City Council. Commissioner Hart said he is still uncomfortable about changing the site plan and feels the Planning Commission cannot act on the revised plan when it was that original plan that was submitted. He stressed the fact that the public hearing is being held on the original site plan, not the revised site plan. Mr. Ehdaie said Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Five if it is the new site plan that is causing the problem, the appli- cant is willing to return to the original plan. Commissioner Hart asked if the legal requirements would be met if the applicant formally submitted the revised site plan at this meeting. Mr. Minshew said he feels this could not be done without the proper noticing on the revised site plan since it varies substantially from, the original plan. Commissioner Scott asked if the Planning Commission would be within its legal rights to request consideration of the revised site plan in order to meet the request of Town and Country to mitigate its problems by moving the building so that it is 60' from the lot line. Mr. Minshew said this could be done. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 962. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master, Hart, Mason, Scott Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott asked if the revised site plan changed the physical character of the buildings or if they would still meet the square footage, the height, the number of parking spaces, and anything else in the original. application:, Mr. Master said that it did, and he asked Mr. Lane if there is a copy of the revised site plan on file with the Planning Department. Mr. Lane said the Planning Department has one copy and depending on the action taken by the Planning Commission at this meeting, he will request the developer to supply the Planning Department with at least a dozen copies. He said~if there are no changes in the characteristics of .the site plan other than. shifting the position of the buildings, Staff will have no problem in accepting it and will place the same conditions on it as were placed on the original site plan. Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Conditional Use Permit 1400 with the following provisions: a) That there be the addition of Condition #18 reading, "The orientation ® of .the buildings will be as per rendering submitted before the Planning Commission on March 4, 1985, to partially satisfy the recommendations of John B. Shawver of Orange Town and Country, dated February 28, 1985, to increase the setback to sixty feet, providing the separation of the two buildings at the south end meets the standards of the Fire Department"; b) that the two recommendations "1)" and (2)" contained in the memorandum of March 1, 1985, from Bernie W. Dennis, Traffic Engineer, to Bert Yamasaki, Director of Planning and Development Services, be added as Conditions #19 and #20 respectively; c) that Condition #2 ,be changed to read, "The parking structure shall be fully sprir~klered or as required by fire regulations"; and d) that the City Council hold a public hearing on this matter. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Six AYES: Commissioners Master, Hart, Mason, Scott. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart pointed out that the Planning Commission referred this application to the City Council because it is uncertain about the developer being required by the City of Santa Ana to pay for parks and a traffic signal under the Transportation System Improve- ment Project or whether the Transportation System Improvement Project applies because of previous building permits issued and whether those permits are valid for this project. Mr. Greek returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1401 - SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT Proposed outdoor service pit area within 300 feet of a residential zone on 4.2 acres in the M-1 zone situated east from Glassell Street, approximately 980 feet south from Fletcher Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 963 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval subject to its 20 conditions. Commissioner Mason asked for clarification regarding the fact that the map shows the perimeter fence to be a 6' high chain link fence and the condition in the Staff Report requires a wall. Mr. Lane responded that the requirement of the condition is what prevails. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Howard Thompson, 16520 Aston Street, Irvine, representing the applicant, questioned the fact that Condition #5 requires screening of the proposed pit area, which they are doing by proposing a chain link fence, whereas Condition #14 requires a not less than six foot view obscuring masonry wall across the entire east property line. He pointed out the great difference between merely screening the pit area and ® installing a masonry wall for the entire length of the property line. Mr. Lane said the wall condition as written is what Staff's intention is since the chain link fence will not effectively screen the area from the street. He said Staff feels that all properties along that street should be walled and will request that as a con- dition on all further applications. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 963. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Seven AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1401 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Lane informed Mn. Thompson that the applicant has fifteen days in which to file an appeal if he so wishes. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1403 - SMART & FINAL IRIS CORPORATION Proposed off-sale of beer and wine in conjunction with a wholesale food and supplies business on 1.2 acres in the M-2 zone at the southeast corner of Batavia Street and Nicolas Avenue. NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval. Oommissioner Hart questioned why this isn't just a technical problem rather than a Conditional Use Permit and Mr. Lane explained it was the result of a new section added to the Code recently and that it must also go to the City Council for its approval and have a six-month review. Chairman Master opened the public hearing.. David Gaon, an employee of Smart & Final Iris Corporation, said the conditions in the Staff Report are acceptable to the applicant. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Condi- tional Use Permit 1403 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. ® AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1404 - FLOWER STREET ASSOCIATES Proposed two-story, 134,000-square foot mini warehouse facility on 3.7 acres in the M-H zone located on the west side of South Flower Street, south from Almond Avenue and adjacent to the Orange~(b7) freeway. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Eight NOTE: Negative Declaration 964 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Greek excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Dave Cunningham, a general partner in Flower Street Associates, 203 South Brea Boulevard, Brea, said he concurs with the conditions in the Staff Report and is willing to accept them except for changing the wording of Condition #20 by the addition of the words "or lot line adjustment." He said the hours of operation recommended by Mr. Lane are acceptable. Bruce Jordan, the architect on the project, discussed the plans. Commissioner Master asked if giving the option of a lot line adjust- ment would be a problem for Staff. Mr. Johnson said that under. normal circumstances, if it was just having to combine lots, the lot line adjustment would be in order as opposed to a parcel map; however, there are two things that recommend a parcel map:. 1) dedication is required along the Flower Street frontage and it can only be accom- plished by parcel map and acceptance by the City Council, and Z) not having any recorded data on this parcel necessitates making an adequate survey because of the irregular shape of the parcel and a parcel map ensures that this will be done. Mr. Cunningham said he would be happy to have a survey made and asked if that would be acceptable. Mr, Johnson said it would and if i;t will. resolve his concerns then the option 'of a lot line adjustment is acceptable. Mike Gilmore, Vice President of Manan Homeowners Association, 400 South Flower Street, asked for clarification of the hours of opera- tion. Gary Smith,-one of the property owners, who will be on-site manager, said they intend the official hours to be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. but there will be many times when they open later than 7:00 a,m. and close earlier than 8:00 p.m. He said they will be happy to cooperate with the homeowners association and address any concerns they might have. Mr. Gilmore expressed satisfaction with the hours stated and said the homewowners association is very posi- tive about this proposed installation. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hart said he is concerned about people plugging in portable generators and running a cabinet shop on the premises as he has seen at other mini warehouses. He suggested the addition of Condition #34 to ,read, "The applicant shall supervise the project to ensure that no manufacturing is done on the site." Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 964. AYES: Commissioners Master, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES:. None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Nine Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconddd by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Conditional Use Permit 1404 subject to the 32 conditions in the Staff Report, with the following provisions: a) that Condition #20 be changed to read, "A parcel map or a lot line adjustment, providing adequate surveying has been done, shall be recorded as approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits."; b) that Condition #33 be added reading, "The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.."; and c) that Condition #34 be added reading, "The applicant shall supervise the project to ensure that no manu- facturing is done on the site." AYES: Commissioners Master, Hart, Mason, Scott. NOES:. None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT 12375, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1405 - TRIDER CORPORATION Proposed six-lot subdivision of 1.56 acres and creation of four lots without frontage on a public street in the R-1-6-A zone on the east side of Shaffer Street, approximately 445 feet north from Collins Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 965 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said .Staff recommends serious consideration be given to this application and, if approved, should be subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Greek asked if the 35' turning radius of the cul-de-sac shown on the plan is adequate per the '-~. requirement of Condition #8. Mr. Johnson said 35' is the minimum radius and he's not sure exactly why that condition is placed in the Staff Report but it may, have been because other members of his staff were concerned about the overhang of a vehicle as it is turning ® around. He said he thinks the cul-de-sac touches the property line on the south and it could be thatithere was some question about someone knocking the wall down. Mr. Lane said he feels that was the reason for the concern since the south end of the cul-de-sac is right at the wall. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Alan Trider, 1421 North Wanda, Orange, the applicant, said the City Council and the residents of the area are desirous of having six lots in the tract, that the property has been properly zoned, that it conforms to the general plan, that there are at least 20' setbacks in both front and rear yards, that there is only one home facing Shaffer and it preserves the large, country feeling of that side of the street, that the Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Ten private drive is 32' wide and has a two-curb cul-de-sac, that there will be only four residences on the private street,. that both lots and homes will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and that there is ample parking. He said the site plan was shown to residents of the area and it was acceptable to them; in fact, they had signed a petition requesting approval. He presented the peti- tion to the Planning Commission and requested approval. Chuck Elliott, 953 North Shaffer, said that although he had objected to the former application for an eight-lot tract, he is willing to accept this one and recommends approval. Chairman Master closed the public hearing. He said he hopes that a year from now no one will be thinking of splitting the now proposed vacant center lot into three lots. Mr. Trider said he is planning to refurbish that property and he thinks it will be sold to someone who wants the grounds the way they are. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 965. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek,. Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract 12375. AYES Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Conditional Use Permit 1405, subject to the conditions in the Staff. Report, AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Master noted the memorandum from Doug Flaherty regarding specificity of Fire Department apparatus requirements if there are such. Commissioner Greek said his reasons for absenting himself during two actions were that he does work for the persons involved. Commissioner Mason said she had attended the Planning Commission Institute sponsored by the League of California Cities and suggested Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1985 Page Eleven that there be a Study Session at which she could share what she learned with the other Commissioners. Discussion resulted in the Study Session being set for 4:.30 p.m., March 11, 1985. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to a Study Session at 4:30 p.m., March 11, 1985, and to reconvene to a regular meeting Monday, March 18, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. C