HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/6/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Orange
Orange, California
February 6, 1989
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Ntaster, Scott
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: John Godlewski, Sr. Planner & Commission Secretary;
Jack McGee, Administrator - Current Planning;
Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney;
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: h1INUTES OF JANUARY 16, 1989
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart,
that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of January
16, 1989 as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1695-88 - CHAPMAN COLLEGE:
A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of
residential structures to a child day care use and to find
the use acceptable as an accessory college use on properties
located at 485 and 489 North Center Street i.n the R-1-6
zone.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1238 has been prepared for
this project.
Conditional Use Permit 1695-88 was continued from the
December 5, 1988 and January 4, 1989 Planning Commission
Meetings.
Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The item was
continued until the outcome of the Chapman College Specific
Plan could be resolved. City Council approved the Chapman
College Specific Plan; however, did not extend the full.
definition of the Specific Plan to said properties. They
held these properties out as being entitled to the zoning
which they previously had, which would allow the Commission
to act on the Conditional Use Permit in a R-1-6 zone.
Council also noted that the existing use, as a child day
care use, could stay at this location for a period of six
months.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 2
The public hearing was re-opened since there was a change in
the conditions.
Applicant:
Tom Beck, 2686 Sylvan Circle, addressed a letter to the
Commission last Friday, suggesting they might continue this
item, considering the fact the City Council is going to
initiate a 90 day study on this. They believe they should
wait until the outcome of that process prior to proceeding
with the application.
commissioner Scott asked if they were requesting a six-month
continuance?
Dr. Beck requested a continuance to the first of May. He
feels the situation could be resolved by that time and then
they could proceed with a location that is agreed upon by
the study.
Those speaking in opposition:
Joe Suste, 409 North Shaffer, concerned if they drag this
out further, in May the child care center will still be
there. He presented a list to the Commission of other
resources in the area for. child care. Unless action is
taken no*a, in May there will not be a place to go.
Registration for summer and fall for pre-schools is going on
now at some of the schools. Others are accepting
applications in March and April. Something should be done
to resolve the problem in a reasonable amount of time.
C1.J. Martini, 638 East Walnut, is only opposed to the
location of the child care center; not the use. He is upset
over the continuations. City Council gave the College six
months to relocate and he feels that is plenty of time since
they have had this opportunity since September to start
looking for a new place.
Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked if Chapman College
has another six months before bringing everything up to
code?
Mr. Godlewski responded in this particular case the only
thing being reviewed is the child day care issue. All the
other issues that were listed in the Conditional Use Permit
would be in effect, and any violations would be a violation
of the Conditional Use Permit.
Mrs. Walters has complained about the car port. It's a fire
hazard. They have not. done much to the maintenance shed.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 3
Chairman Bosch referred this complaint to staff for action.
Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, wanted to know what zones
child care facilities are acceptable on? Are they
acceptable on the R-D-6, R-M-7, or P-I zonings?
Mr. Godlewski stated child day care is allowed by a
Conditional Use Permit in the single family and duplex
residential zones. There are also provisions for
school-type day care in the commercial and
office-professional zones.
Mr. Boice understood child care is permitted in a R-1, R-2
zone provided it was an accessory activity to a church
operation and that it was sketchy as to whether Chapman
College was calling this use a child care facility for the
sake of caring for children or if was an instructional item
for their students.
Mr. Godlewski said the Conditional Use Permit is for an
expansion of a college use in the residential zone. This
particular child day care center is considered a facility
college use. It is defined by the Jrange County Health
Department as a lab school, which is affiliated with the
University.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Beck added some information about the maintenance shed,
which is now covered under the Specific Plan. The
operations which the Commission thought unwise to use there
have been moved. They will be building a masonry wall very
shortly. They are asking for half the time City Council has
given them to relocate the child care study. In 90 days
they think a decision can be made and then they can move
forward with whatever is best for the community.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hart asked what their options were as far as
the existing Conditional Use Permit and what action can be
taken or not taken to coordinate with the May 1 date?
Mr. Godlewski said the Conditional Use Permit is a valid
request for the zone that the request is being made in.
Therefore, regardless of the Specific Plan and the action of
Council, Commission may either approve the Conditional Use
Permit, deny the Conditional Use Permit or continue it as
the Commission sees fit. A variation could also be taken to
coincide with what the City Council has suggested and also
what the College is suggesting.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 4
Commissioner Hart had a problem with approving the
Conditional Use Permit when it is clouded. The best
solution would be to continue it to May 1, 1989.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek,
that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit
7.695-88 to May 1, 1989. The public hearing will be
re-opened at that time.
AYE^~: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, EIart, Master, Scott
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Master asked staff if there has been some
activity regarding working with Dr. Beck and the College in
the relocation of the day care center?
Mr. McGee stated Dr. Beck and the College have had
discussions with staff and are making efforts to find
alternative locations to assist the College in finding
somewhere else to put the facility.
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1721 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 3-88
- I.D.M.:
A proposal to approve a Development Agreement to facilitate
the construction of approximately 1,675,000 square feet of
high rise offices and a proposed Conditional Use Permit to
allow the development of two 10-story and three 18-story
office buildings. Orange Municipal Code Section 17.46.110
permits additional height in excess of 45 feet subject to
the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Orange Municipal
Code Section 17.46.040 permits office use in the M-1 zone,
subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit..
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1262 has been prepared
for this project.
Conditional Use Permit 1721-88 was continued from the
December 5, 1988 and January 4, 1989 Planning Commission
Meetings.
Mr. Godlewski outlined the applications being presented and
would have the applicant give the report on all the details
of the project. There are five items: Environmental Impact
Report; recommendation to City Council adopting a statement
of facts and findings and a statement of overriding
considerations for those items that are identified in the
Environmental Impact Report which cannot be completely
mitigated; recommendation to the City Council on the final
action of the Conditional Use Permit; a recommendation to
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 5
the City Council on final action and adoption of a
Development Agreement; and recommendation to City Council on
the final action of a Memorandum of Understanding between
the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange concerning
revenue allocations project. A small number of corrections
to the staff report were made: Reference was made to the
pink copy, (most recent staff report) - Page 3, parking
ratio. The parking proposed by the developer is more than
adequate to meet the new parking ordinance and examples were
given. Page 12, the very first condition recommended by
staff was to "prior to issuance of any building permits, an
agreement for shared project revenues shall be executed
between the City of Orange and the City of Anaheim." On
direction from Council, it was suggested staff only put in
by the City of Orange -- not tie it to other entities which
there would be no control over. Page 17, at the bottom of
the page in bold print..."Conditions 46 through 49 shall be
completed prior to occupancy of any building in the City of
Orange", the actual numbers should be 46 through 48.
Mr. Godlewski pointed out staff received comments from the
applicant concerning the conditions, both from the architect
and from the applicant's attorney. Staff tried to get those
comments to the Commission last Friday and they noted in the
margins of those two letters their recommendations on the
corrections to the conditions. Staff feels satisfied with
the conditions in the pink staff report as modified. The
conditions recommended by the applicant are open for
consideration.
Commissioner Scott asked if staff received a response from
the notations? (Not at this time; it would need to be
directed to the applicant.)
Commissioner Greek did not receive a copy of the applicant's
latest communication. He requested a complete package be
given to the Commission for review in a reasonable amount of
time. He was not prepared to act on this issue and did not
wish to hear any testimony.
Commissioner Hart agreed. Apparently the applicant is not
happy with the staff report as evidenced by his attorney's
letter. Those issues need to be worked out by staff and the
attorneys -- not by the Commission.
Applicant:
Ron Winkler, Project Manager with I.D.M. Corporation, 5150
East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, was pleased to be
before the Commission to present their project for
consideration and approval. They are prepared to accept the
conditions subject to successful negotiation of their
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 6
agreement for a Development Agreement on the project that is
currently underway. They are not in disagreement, but there
are a couple of points for clarification -- only three they
wished to address tonight.
Chairman Bosch concurred with the Commissioners to continue
the hearing until they have had a chance to review a
complete package and asked the applicant if he concurred to
continue the hearing.
Mr. Winkler is prepared to sit down with staff this week and
resolve and get final copies to the Commission in the form
of an amended staff report. They could have the Development
Agreement within two weeks if staff is prepared to work with
them.
Mr. Godlewski noted the next available meeting would be
March 6, 1989. The Agenda for that meeting goes out
February 24, 1989, which allows almost three full weeks to
resolve any issues with the Development Agreement and the
Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Winkler said it would be their pleasure to deal with all
matters at one hearing. Their hearing with Anaheim is
scheduled for that same date, but they can meet with both
cities.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott,
that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit
1721 and Development Agreement 3-88 to March 6, 1989.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1730-88 - EL POLLO LOCO, INC.:
A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a
drive-thru restaurant on property located on the north side
of Katella Avenue, 150 feet west of Tustin Street, addressed
1539 East Katella Avenue.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1268-88 has been prepared for
this project.
Conditional Use Permit 1730-88 was continued from the
January 16, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Greek was excused from the meeting due to a
conflict of interest.
A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was
opened.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 7
Applicant:
Jeffrey Smith, Manager for El Pollo Loco, 16700 Valley View
Avenue, La Mirada, accepts the findings in the staff report
and has no exceptions to that report.
Commissioner Master asked if Bernie Dennis has reviewed the
plans for the driveway and if he had any problems with the
ingress/egress?
Mr. Glass from Traffic said they had no particular problems
with it. They specifically had them move that entry
drive-thru aisle further into the property. Problems are
not anticipated.
Those speaking in favor:
Carolyn Gaw, represents the landlord, 1400 East Katella, and
agrees with the project.
The public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner
Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of
the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration
1268-88.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Greek
Hart, Master, Scott
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner
Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 1730-$8, final action on lot line adjustment 89-1,
and final action on the reduction of the number of parking
spaces by 12 percent, subject to the conditions listed in
the staff report.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting.
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1742-89 - TASB COMPANY:
A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the development
of a 5-unit, two story apartment within 70 feet of an R-1
zone on property located on the east side of Glassell
Street, south of Lomita and north of Mayfair, addressed 773
and 775 Pdorth Glassell Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 8
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1266-88 has been prepared for
this project.
The applicant had a 5-unit apartment complex that was denied
at a previous meeting because the rear elevation indicated a
deck that was within five feet of the rear property line and
a first story wall that was within 10 feet of the rear
property line. The revised plans indicate a much greater
setback on one building (16 feet) and the other building is
22 feet for the second story addition and all decks and
windows have been removed from that elevation so as not to
impact the R-1 neighborhood.
The public hearing was opened.
Applicant:
Hadi Tabatabaee, 15935 San Miguel, La Mirada, is the
consultant to the owner. The revised plan is much improved
from the previous one. They split the building to reduce
the massiveness of the original plans. They have provided
turn arounds for easier circulation. They created a 22 foot
setback at the second story level from the rear property
line and eliminated all windows and balconies.
Those speaking in opposition:
Scott Specht, 776 North Orange, submitted a petition of the
neighbors in the area opposing this development. He feels
their privacy will be invaded and feels he is being
infringed upon.
Rebuttal:
Mr. Tabatabaee responded to the concerns of the neighbors
and felt their project would enhance the area.
The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Bosch appreciated the applicant's efforts to reduce
the more impacting problems of the previous application, but
he was still concerned with the degree of intrusion into the
normal 70 foot setback. He recognizes this is a difficult
parcel because of the shallowness for the type of use. The
zoning standards allow a density of housing based upon an
open site without constraints and without constraining
neighboring uses. He personally felt it was still too close
to the property line with the impact of the mass and volume
of the second story units.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 9
IN RE:
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart,
that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit
1742-89 for the reason that the Conditional Use Permit must
be considered in relation to its effect on the surrounding
land use. This would cause deterioration of bordering land
uses and create special problems for the adjacent R-1 zone
because of the proximity of the mass and height of the
structures.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Greek commented on the central driveway
location without an adequate turning radius. It was too
much building on the site.
Mr. Godlewski explained the applicant's right of appeal
process.
MISCELLANEOUS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-412 - CORINTHIAN DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY:
Proposed subdivision of 3.1 plus or minus acres into 5
commercial parcels on property located at the southwest
corner of Chapman Avenue and Main Street.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1279-88 has been prepared for
this project, which is necessary for the
Redevelopment Agency's action in the future.
Applicant:
Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, represents Corinthian. He
explained this was a parcel map in a commercial zone which
simply re-arranges existing parcels to match the plot plan
being proposed on the site. It is a site plan that does not
require any variances. These parcels will move the lines
around to be consistent with the long-term leases and the
purchasing of transfer of title of the parcels underway at
this time. The parcel map will not be recorded until the
project is underway so that the map can match the
building/parcel lines with the site plan.
Commissioner Hart understood there were some long-term
ground leases, as well as fee ownership.
Mr. Mickelson stated that was correct. This is a
technicality to create these parcels in this manner to be
consistent with the site plan and it is required by the
State Map Act when you have a long-term ground lease.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 10
Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart,
that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review
Board to file Negative Declaration 1279-8$.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart,
that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that it approve Tentative Parcel Map 88-412, subject to the
conditions so listed in the staff report.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Greek explained his "no" vote. He felt they
were creating more property lines and not following the
philosophy of Redevelopment. He does not feel creating
smaller parcels out of one large parcel is a solution; it is
contrary to the whole purpose of having an Agency.
IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1. A communication was received regarding the water tank.
A study session was suggested including the Water
Department. Staff is to gather background information
for presentation at a study session.
2. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres,
does not oppose the I.D.M. project per se, but feels
the public deserves the time to find out what is
happening and to study all documents if they so choose.
3. Fred Fischer, 405 North Fern, submitted photos of a
development underway adjacent to his property south of
Walnut and adjacent to Santiago Creek. It is his
understanding the building pads are being raised up
about four feet in order to get drainage from the sewer
system. The fill will require a four foot retaining
wall; then on top of that will be a six foot wall for a
fence. Adjacent to his property will be a ten foot
high wall, which he objects to. He does not feel this
will be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The Commission could not address this matter; it should
be referred to the City Engineer or City Council.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master,
that the Planning Commission adjourn to Wednesday, February
Planning Commission Minutes
February 6, 1989 - Page 11
8, 1989 at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room "C" for a tour with
City Council of the Irvine Company's developments featuring
small lots; then adjourn to the workshop, Monday, February
13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room "C" to discuss the
General Plan Amendment; then adjourn to a regular meeting
March 6, 1989; study session at 6:30 p.m. and public hearing
at 7:00 p.m.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott,
that the Planning Commission also adjourn to February 27,
1989 at 5:00 p.m. for a study session on the Sign Ordinance
to be held in the Weimer Room.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
/sld