Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/3/1986 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California March 3, 1986 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mason at 7:.30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF Stan Soo-Hoo, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Toba V. Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 1986 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the minutes of February 3, 1986, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Mayon, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT 10112, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7500 RIDGEWOOD Revised tentative tract rnap and conditional use permit to allow the development of a 37-unit planned unit development on an 8±~acre parcel located north .and south of future Canyon View Avenue, east of Chapman Avenue. NOTE:. Negative Declaration 941 was previously filed./accepted in relation to this project, Mr. Soo-Hoo made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval. Chairman Mason opened the public hearing. Fred Armstrong,-Ridgewood Development, 151 Kalmus, Costa Mesa, said that the presently proposed alignment is the same as the one suggested eight years ago, Ted G. Hays, 32923 Via Espalda, Murrietta Hot Springs, owner of the adjacent property, objected to the proposed road alignment and. said it would be a hardship on him in that it would deprive him of some of his property which he plans to develop. Mr. Johnson said the road as shown on the current map is fairly much Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1986 Page Two approximated to the original master-planned road across the Hays property and that it goes across the bottom of the canyon and is almost entirely in fill. He said that in light of the new geolog- ical findings made by Ridgewood Development, he thinks it would be incumbent upon Mr. Hays' engineers to use these findings to come up with a better configuration. He said the City. is concerned that mass grading operations wouldn't be feasible and for that reason asked Ridgewood to change the alignment to fit the terrain more closely in ,keeping with what was master planned originally. Dan Collier., 7782 Laurelwood Lane,-La Palma, Mr. Hays` contractor, said he has worked with Mr. Hays for six or seven years in develop- ing his property and pointed out that the currently proposed road alignment will go through 15 of Mr. Hays` lots, making development, as wel'1 as the sale of some lots, difficult. He said in getting a permit to build a pre~ious1y-constructed condominium tract, they had hired a geologist and ascertained that there were no geologic problems in the canyon that would prevent their putting in a road. He quoted four geological reports in which, he claimed,. there wasn`t anything said that would be detrimental to building on the Hays property;. in fact, these reports were favorable to the devel~ opment of the property. He said he couldn`t understand how one developer could realign his project at the expense of another developer just for his own benefit when such realignment would be negating an a1 ready designed complete project adjacent to it. Mr. Johnson agreed that there were a number of preliminary geological reports but said that within the last six months more extensive geological investigations were made and these indicated that the originally planned road alignment is more desirable. He said the plan that is proposed now in accordance with what Ridgewood wants to do has been reviewed by Planning Department. Staff and is accept- ab1e. Mr. Hays again objected to the current proposal and said he feels he is being treated unfairly. Mr, Armstrong requested that there not be a continuance of this hearing. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review .Board to file Negative Declaration 941. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Tentative Tract 10172 and Conditional Use Permit 1500, e Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1986 Page Three AYES: NOES: subject to .the conditions in the Staff Report, including Condition No. 23. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: AYES; NOf S AYES NOES: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1.045, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-455, VARIANCE 1788 - BUSCH Proposed zone change from R-1-6 to R-D-6 (Residential Dupilex), division of one lot into two lots, and reduction of minimum lot depths for an 18,000-square foot site located on the west side of Cambridge Street, north of LaVeta Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1046 has been prepared for this project. Mr. McGee made the presentation according to the Staff Report. and said Staff recommends approval , Chairman Mason opened the public hearing. George Hearns, representing the applicant, said he has no problems with the Staff Report and is in agreement with it. Cha irman Mason 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 1046. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Zone Change 1045. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Variance 1788 and Tentative Parcel Map 85-455, for the reasons shown in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1986 Page Four IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1498, TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP 85-457 - ANTRIUM ASSOCIATES/COVE DEVELOPMENT Proposed five-lot parcel map creating three lots that will not have direct frontage on a public street. The site is 11.07 acres in size located on the west side of Eckhoff Street, north of Orangewood Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1050 has been prepared for this project. Mr. McGee made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval. Chairman Mason opened the public hearing. r res nti John Leland,/~~ve ~eve~~~ment, 3737 Birch, Newport Beach, said he has no problems with the Staff Report and is in agreement with it. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. ® Commissioner Greek said he doesn't understand what is going on. He asked Mr. Leland what they are doing and why they need the parcel cut because the original submittal indicated that there was a property cut and the Planning Commission had been told that an easement had been obtained from Mr. Eckhoff, Mr. Leland said he understands that this is what is necessary for structuring financing for the second phase of .the development, Commissioner Greek said he objected to the sub-standard street and that he had explained this to Cove Development in the past. He said the latest submittal shows a six story building and now Cove says they aren`t going to build it, so he would like to know what is going on. Mr. Leland said sand they are developing the amended use permit in stages and the first stage is to remodel the base of the four-story tower and to convert the manufacturing facility into a two-story office building, He said the intent is to continue with the overall devel- opment but and to apply at this time fora normal subdivision process, Commissioner Greek said he has a problem with cheating a parcel that doesn't have access to the street and unless there is a real reason for it, he can`t support it. Mr. Leland said all they want to do at this time is create a parcel for the use of the two buildings, and access, ingress, egress and parking will all be accommodated for a17 the parcels through easement agreement. Com- missioner Greek said he couldn`t see why Parcels 1 and 2 are being added when they already exist. Mr, McGee said Staff asked that question also and the answer received from the engineer was that they wished to have all of the parcels shown on one parcel map. Commissioner Greek said he would like to have this item postponed until the civil engineer can be contacted to clarrify what is going on. Planning Commission Minutes .March 3, 1986 Page Five Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that this item be continued to the March 17, 1986, meeting. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Name MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1046 - CRANES Proposedpre-zoning.,to R-1-7 for an 8,625-square foot parcel located on the northeast corner of Bond Avenue and Hewes Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1051 has been prepared for this project. Mr. McGee made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval. Chairman Mason opened the public hearing. The applicant said he had nothing to add to the Staff Report and is in agreement with it. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1051, AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Pre-zone Change 1046. AYES.:. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES:. None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1047 - ALLEN Proposed zone change from R-1-6 to 0-P (Office-Professional ) for a 9,728-square foot parcel located on the northwest corner of Wanda Road and Garfield Avenue. NOTE:. Negative Declaration 1052 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Soo-Roo made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Planning March 3, Page Six AYES: Q NOES:. Commission Minutes 1986 Report and said Staff recommends approval because the zone change is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with existing surrounding land usage. Chairman Mason opened the public hearing. The applicant said he has nothing to add to the Staff Report and is in agreement with it. Al Kane, 2902 East Garfield Avenue, objected to the zone change because-the property would then be the only commercial-type property in the area and would increase the traffic in the area. Roger Alfred, 2908 East Garfield, and Richard Lock, 2323 East Garfield, also voiced objections for the same reasons. Additionally, Mr. Alf red pointed out the drainage problems in the area, and Mr. Lock said the traffic in and out of an office building parking area would be detrimental to the children in the area. and pointed out that the neighborhood had been developed for residential usage. Mr. Kane brought a petition that had been signed by area residents. Rod Allen, 2974 East Katella, the applicant, said he had worked with Planning Department Staff to come up with a plan that would solve all the problems. He said the building would not be any different than the building that was there before, as far as its exposure to Garfield and the existing neighbors is concerned. He said there would be very little traffic going onto Garfield., that the majority of the traffic would go onto Wanda and up to Katella. He said he had asked area residents to call him if they had a problem and no one ca71ed. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed, Commissioner Hart said he has a little problem with changring the zone from residential at this time. He said that in the future he would like to see Garfield and other area streets become cu1- de-sacs so they go out onto Handy and then bventual1y he could visualize that Wanda would. contain office buildings,-but he doesn`t like to see it done in this manner with Garfield being left open, Commissioner Greek said he would like to see a comment from the City Traffic Engineer prior to creating a parking lot adjacent to a street thereby creating additional traffic. He said he agrees with Commissioner Hart that eventually Wanda would be better for professional-type buildings rather than single-family residences. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that Negative Declaration 1052 be denied. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1986 Page Seven Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Conmission deny Zone Change 1047. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: .None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE .AMENDMENT Z-86 Proposed addition to the Orange Municipal Code establishing fortune telling as a permitted use within the 0-P, C-1, and C~2 zoning districts NOTE:. Negative Declaration 1054 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Soo-Hoo made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and pointed out, that by extension, if this item is approved, fortune telling would also be allowed in the C-P and C-3 zones. He said Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Hart asked if this ordinance was a foregone conclusion. ® Mr. Minshew responded that it is because it is in effect already. Chairman Mason opened the public hearing and since there was no comment from the audience, she declared the public hearing closed. AYES: NOES: AYES: NOES:. IN RE: Moved by Con~nissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1054. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission reconunend to the City Council that it approve Ordinance Amendment 2-86. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott None OTHER BUSINESS MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart commented on a memorandum from the City Manager regarding the East Orange Development, to which was attached a letter from The Irvine Company telling the City what it would like to do. He said he didn't see any reference to the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council that the area that on which ,there is proposed to be construction should be annexed to the City before any planning is done. He said he has expressed Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1986 Page Eight concern in the past about the piecemeal planning the Commission is being asked to do and that is his reason for requesting annexation. However, he said, it appears that no one is doing anything about a proposal to annex and he would like clarification on what is being done. Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning and Development Services for the City of Orange, said he understands that the Planing Commission will have a study session next week and at that time perhaps the Department ought to have some exhibits to show the Commission that are related to Commission action and the subsequent proceedings and final action of the City Council on the policies planned as well as other recommendations that the Commission made to the City Council. on the whole matter of planning and annexation. He said that if the Commission wishes, the Department will be happy to make that presentation. He said there are about four documents that are relevant to the concerns of the Commission. One is a report based upon the Commission's recommendations to the City Council relevant to the policy plan. Another is a quick cost revenue analysis by Staff on the revenues versus the expenditures for the entire 18,000 acres. On this the bottom line came out, and it was a conservative estimate on the Department's part, that there would be about a half a million dollar net loss each year if the property were to be annexed to the City in its entirety,-assuming that LAFCO would allow it,-the property owner would allow it and the Board of Super- visors would allow it. Another is the letter, which is the subject of ,the memorandum received by the Commission, in which The Irvine. Company has made a commitment and overture to the City that certain planning activities would occur: 1) an infill annexation program which would take those parcels probably closest to the existing City boundaries in fill around the college site, 2) a general plan program for what appears to be around 7,500 acres in the area running east and west from the existing 230-acre site plan to just beyond the eastern limits of the lake, generally also south of the lake and of Irvine Park, 3) the precise plan, after that general plan is done, which would then be one of the implementation steps of the general plan, 4) those studies that would accompany the general plan of the 7,500 acres involving two specific activities: a) a park boundary study to be conducted with the cooperation of the County because it is a regional park, and b) a study of the Eastern Corridor to be done by The Irvine Company and the City so there would be a condition that the City could take with the County on the alignment and other factors related to the Eastern Corridor. Mr. Yamasaki said he believes that is the outline and basic parameters of The Irvine Company letter. He .said City Staff has been in initial conversations with The Irvine Company staff to develop a work program for the planning and annexation activities. He said the work program will be developed within the next few months and there have been some initial discussions between the Planning Department and the Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1986 Page Nine City Manager's office regarding the fact that some consideration for proper staffing of the Planning Departrtnent,,~as well as other departments, needs to occur. He said the Planning Department has given the City Manager a report that indicates that the Planning Department sees at least three major areas. where additional staff needs to be considered. He said the first one is the Planning Department itself because of the General Plan and other planning duties; the second is Engineering, because sooner or later Engin- eering will have to get to .work on drawing streets, storm drains, water, etc.; and the third major area is Traffic Engineering, because of the new circulation system that must be accommodated for development of the area. He said the Planning Department also told the City Manager that there needs to be consideration given to the Planning Department because there are so many difficult issues that are very important to the planning activities. He said the Planning Department also segregated its manpower needs into two kinds: 1) the immediate needs due to the pressures that the current activities by The Irvine Company is pushing upon the existing Staff,-primarily the Engineering Staff in terms of processing tentative tract maps and site plans, etc., 2) the longer-term planning manpower because each one of the operating departments will have to do some planning of its services and its facilities based upon the activities of The Irvine Company. ~ Mr. Yamasaki said that although he can`t speak on behalf of the City Manager, it is his understanding that the City Manager intends to bring this information to the City Council sometime during this month. He said the immediate recommendation of the Planning Staff is that it has for its own department, and has requested as part of its budget request, two additional persons in current planning and two additional persons in advance planning. He said the first and most immediate need that the Planning Department has indicated to the City Manager is a senior level planner in the advance Planning Division, who would be the main and primary person to interface with The Irvine Company in all the planning activities and would work across division-lines in the Planning Department as well as coordinate activities between departments and The Irvine Company. This person would be a relatively high-level, a senior- level planner not a planning assistant, and the Planning Department is recommending to the City Manager that this person be recruited almost immediately,because the indication received from The Irvine Company is that it is very sincere and very ambitious in terms of what it wants to accomplish in the next year or so. He said that more than likely this person, in addition to being a senior-level planner, will also be a contract-type person fora specified amount of time, maybe two or three years. He said the City Manager is requiring The Irvine Company to make a solid commitment oi< wbrk and time to the City so that the City does not have a hundred man-hours cranked up in the next few months and then a pause for the following six months, so there is a demand placed upon The Irvine Company by the City Manager`s office that there not be a start-and-stop Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1986 Page Ten schedule, and The Irvine Company has indicated through a preliminary scheduling~~of work for the next four years that it plans to have a solid and ambitious work program. Mr. Yamasaki said that if the Planning Commission wishes to have a further discussion, there are probably some graphics and other material to illustrate what he has just explained in words. He said the involvement of the Planning Department in this process has been in the form of attendance at meetings between the City Manager's office and The Irvine Company, and in reviewing some of the preliminary documents that The Irvine Company has submitted. He said the Planning Department has had an opportunity to make recommendations to the City Manager's office as to the way it feels about this planning effort and was one of the co-authors of the statistical analysis. Commissioner Hart asked what happened to the Planning Commission's specific recommendation regarding the 18,000 acres. Mr. Yamasaki said all recommendations of .the Planning Commission were sent to the-City Council and his recollection of the action of the City Council is that it took no action on the 18,000-acre annexation recommendation by the Planning Commission, but Planning Staff is responding to The Iririne Company as if the City Council took positive action on the recommendation because it is entering the discussions, at the instruction of the City Manager, with The Irvine Company on these issues. He said the City Council did take an action on the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the specific plan, very similar to the action of .the Planning Commission, and that is at the Board of Supervisors now, awaiting its action. Discussion followed in which it was established that the recom- mendation did, in fact, go to the City Council and that the City Council took no action. Chairman Mason said she thinks the action the City Council took was to authorize a feasbi1ity study. Com- missioner Hart said he has some questions about the feasibility study he would like answered, one of which is if the City accepts only the 7500 acres, what would be the cost of servicing that area, because it appears to him that all the land that would require servicing is contained within that 7500 acres; therefore,-it appears ti him that if the City would lose $500-,000 in servicing the 18,000 acres,-it would lose $500,000 in servicing only the 7500 acres. Mr. Yamasaki said he is unable to answer that question, He said Staff. .is very cognizant of the impact, both from an incremental standpoint within the general plan as well as externally beyond the 7500 acres. He said the City Council did take two subsequent actions, however: 1) it accepted The Irvine Company`s letter which then is a substitute for the 18,000 acres, and gave a tacit approval to a general plan, not necessarily an annexation, but a