Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/19/1986 - Minutes PC City of Orange Orange, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 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: CONTINUED HEARINGS ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1457 - TONTI/GARCIA Proposed construction of a second-story unit over a garage within the RD-6 (Residential Duplex) RCD (Residential Combining District) Zone on a ,14-acre parcel on the east side of Batavia Street, south of Chapman Avenue ('1.41 S. Batavia). (Continued from the January 20, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.) NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. Mr. McGee made the presentation in accordance with. the Staff Report including changes made since the January 20, 1986, meeting, said changes having been detailed to the Planning Commission in a memo. He said the Planning Commission had also been given a revised plan, Chairman Mason. opened the public hearing. The applicant indicated that he understands the changes and is in agreement with them. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that Conditional Use Permit 1457 be approved subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT 1-86, ZONE CHANGE 1040, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1470 - KOLL COMPANY Proposed development of a high-rise office and commercial complex Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1986 Page Two consisting of two office buildings, two multi-level parking structures and two restaurants. The proposed development is on a 12.5-acre site at the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue. and State College Boulevard. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1018 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Greek requested that he be excused drre to a conflict of interest. Bert K~, Yamasaki, Director of Planning and Development Services, made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and a memo of February 7. He said the City of Orange had received two letters from the City bf Anaheim stating that it had not been nailed legal notice of the previous meeting; therefore, to satisfy this concern this second hearing on the item is being held, He said the revised Staff Report which had been given to the Commissioners reflects the activities that have occurred relative to this appli- cation since the original Planning Commission public hearing. He said there has been a series of meetings between the staffs. of the cities of Anaheim and Orange on some of the areas of concern on the part of the City of Anaheim, He said those concerns are reflected in the revised Staff Report, in which the City of Orange has tried to expand the explanation for the conditions of approval, especially with regard to the review process. of .the precise plan, and has also added certain additional conditions of approval based upon each of the traffic sections` discussions with each other. He said the Commissioners had been given corrected pages for Addendum Two which has been requested by the City of Anaheim to comment in the EIR about the cumulative effects of development in the area. In addition, the Commissioners were given a corrected page 5 of .that addendum this evening. Mr. Yam asaki said Staff has just recently completed a revised list of the conditions A and B, conditions that were made part of .the suggested conditions of approval for the conditional use permit,- and these deal with the short- and long-.term traffic solutions related to this project, and a1 so reflect the result of the dis- cussions between the two traffic engineering staffs. He asked the Commission to consider adding these to its approval at this meeting if it so chooses. Mr. Yamasaki said the copies of the Staff Report were sent by him last Friday to the City. of Anaheim and also a copy was picked up by one of its staff members yesterday. He said the only comment received from the City of Anaheim was a phone call at 4:30 this afternoon questioning page 5 of the list of traffic issues. He asked if Bernie Dennis, City of Orange Traffic Engineer, could address the Commission regarding what's been happening with the discussions with the City of Anaheim regarding traffic because Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1986 Page Three that seems to be the main concern of-the City of Anaheim, as well as explain the .revised A and B lists. Mr. Yamasaki said that in addition to Mr, Dennis there are repre- sentatives present from other major City departments such as police, hire'and public works to answer any questions relative to the development proposal. He said there are also representatives of the Ko17 Company and its consulting team present to answer any questions that might arise. Mr. Yamasaki said Staff is still recommending approval of the project with the suggested wording in the Staff .Report. He said the developer is requesting, and. Staff is recommending, that this application really has a conceptual plan approval of the site plan, He said the Planning Commission will see a precise plan of development when the tentative parcel map is brought before it, probably later on this summer. At that time the Commission will also receive the Staff Reports and exhibits that will go to the City Council for requested vacation of the street which will have to be done in order for development to proceed. Mr. Yamasaki said the other important event related to this development will be the development and approval of the southwest strateyy plan, ;~ which is in the mill at present with discussions going on with consultants, and it is expected that their proposals will be received soon, He said the cities of Anaheim and Orange have started holding meetings independent of the current discussion on this project, and he believes the two cities are now ready to formalize the technical committee to try to identify the infrastructure needs of the area, and to try to estimate the costs, priortize them and develop a strategy p1 an to implement them. He said that committee will meet on a monthly basis, and more frequently as the needs occur. Mr„ Yamasaki said the the City Council continued the previously scheduled public hearing last evening to March 11, with the antici- pation-that the Planning Commission will be sending a recommendation to the City Council. Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer,. said that in the City of Orange's meetings with the .City of Anaheim,. one of the paramount concerns with the proposed development was the traffic impact that would occur as a result of this specific development and in conjunction with the development program-that will occur in the City of Anaheim, He said that in the initial submittal of the information packet to the Planning Commission there were two pertinent documents, one called Rttachment A and the other called Attachment B. He said that during the urgency of their meetings to get the attachments complete and to the Planning Commission, there was some redundancy and perhaps certain errors in the package of information the Commission received relating to traffic. Consequently, he went over the items in Attachments A and B. Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1986 Page Four Chairman Mason said that since before the Planning Commission, made by persons in the audience minutes. Said statements from are as follows: this is the second public hearing all of the previous. statements will be incorporated into these the January 20, 1986, public hearing "Bonnie Robinson, 114 North Walnut; James Ledbetter, 17572 Hollister; and Mary Lancaster, 477 Northeast Country. Lane, spoke in favor of the project but apparently their homes are not now included in the particular portion of the project for which approval is now sought, and these homeowners were concerned about how thec~current project will affect their properties. Edgar Weichel,-also residing on Hollister, spoke against the project. All four, whether for or against, were concerned with how the current project would affect their properties and what could be done by the City of Orange, It was pointed out to all of them that there was nothing, that could be done by the City concerning their situation. Philip Quarre, Hartmann Corporation, 536. West Lincoln, Anaheim, owners of five commercial/industrial buildings on Anaheim Boulevard, on approxi~ mate1y 4~ acres, said Hartmann is in favor of and welcomes the project and the Ko17 Company as its neighbor, but is concerned with the abandonment and vacation of Country Lane and Walnut because they are the two main entry streets into the Hartmann property and the closure of those streets would cause considerable hardship to Hartmann. He asked that the ingress and egress of the Ko11 Project on Walnut Street be redesigned to include a street that will go southwest and then northwest to what is now Country Lane and then southwest again into the Hartmann property, or a similar configuration, so that there will be access to Hartmann, Mr. Lewis of the Koll Company said that Kol1 Company is prepared to work-with Mr. Quarre and Hartmann.Co•rporation and will come up with a plan that is acceptable to both companies," Chairman Mason opened the public hearing, Mike Lew%s, Vice President for Development, Ko11•Company, 4490 Von Karman, Newport Beach,-said they have read the revised conditions of approval and concur with the Staff recommendation.. Philip Quarre, Hartmann Corporation., said he wanted to get a clarifi- cation regarding the access to the rear part of Hartmann`s buildings. He said that if Mr. Lewis will, indeed, work with Hartmann Corporation and come up with a plan that is acceptable to both companies, as he said at the January 20 meeting, it would be agreeable to Hartmann. Mr, Lewis said that is the intention of Koll Company and it fully intends to meet with Hartmann prior to the final. tract map and resolve the situation, Joel Fick, Assistant Director of Planning, City of Anaheim, said he is not speaking in opposition to the project and .thanked the Planning Commission for giving the City of Anaheim the opportunity to attend Planning Commission Minutes February 19,.1986 Page Five this meeting. He said his-'comments would pertain to all of .the items being considered--the General Plan Amendment, the Zone Change and the Conditional Use Permit. He said that in October, 1985, the City of Anaheim sent a letter to City of Orange Staff in response to the notice of .preparation that originally went out to the Environmental Impact Report. He said that subsequently, on December 24, the City of~!Anaheim did send a letter to the City of Orange addressing major concerns and comments of the City of Anaheim. The expression of these concerns and the need to give further examination to the issues raised led tb a se~ie~ of ~ee,tings between the City of Anaheim staff and the City of Orange staff, to which Mr. Yamasaki referred. He said the City of Anaheim appreciated these discussions primarily because they have led to a better mutual understanding of how the respective jurisdictions condition projects and how they apply a project condition, and. in addition the discussions have also led to the revised conditions that the Planning Commission is hearing this evening. Mr. Fick said the City of Anaheim believes that the revised conditions inherently contain language that reflects theuntutual understanding between the two cities that it is the desire of the City of Orange to condition the Ko11 project first of all to mitigate the negative impacts ,that are identified in the EIR as being project related and secondly on an overall basis to cooperate between cities to address the long-range cumulative ~~mpact astociated with projects of this magnitude proposed in the cities of Anaheim and Orange, which mandate that there will be between the two jurisdictions a cooperative effort that will be going on fora number of years to come. He said the City of Anaheim looks forward to working with the City of Orange fora number of years to come. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hart said he would like to condition any approval of this .project to the effect that the applicant should be required to have completed the purchase of the property in question because he feels that the owners of the properties will have lost their bargaining power if property gets rezoned without that provision. Chairman Mason pointed out that the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council that if everything else is approved tonight the Tentative Parcel Map should also come back to the Planning Commission for approval before it goes to the City Council. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify EIR 1018 and all pertinent supplementary information, including Attachments A and B pertaining to traffic, as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and that the City Council find that the Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1986 Page Six mitigation measures outlined in the EIR will reduce to acceptable levels or eliminate any adverse environmental impacts associated with this project. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 1-86 designating the area from industrial to Major Commercial Land Use based upon the findings that 1) the aimendment would not be in conflici< with surrounding existing and proposed land uses in both Anaheim and Orange, and 2) the amendment will assist in the transition of the area from low density resi- dential and low intensity commercial and industrial uses to high intensity office and commercial land uses. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council. approve the intent to rezone on Zone Change 1040 designating the subject property to be zoned C-1 (Limited Business District) based on the following findings: 1) that the proposed zoning is consistent with the City of Orange General Plan. as amended above, and 2) that the proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding zoning and land use, and that the condition of the intent to rezone is that the applicant has acquired and completed the purchase of the properties in question simultaneously with the zone change. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:. Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED ° Moved by Commissioner Master.,-"s-econded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council .approve Conditional Use Permit 1470 subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report,, based upon the following findings: 1) the proposal is based on sound land use principles and in response to services required by the surrounding communities, 2) the proposal will not cause deterioration of surrounding land uses or create special problems for the area, and 3) the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning; and that the Tentative Tract Map be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to going to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February ] 9, 1986 Page Seven IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1048- CITY OF ORANGE Proposed zone change from C-1 and C-2 to C-TR (Commercial-Tustin Redevelopment) District on 370 acres located on the east and west sides of Tustin Street between Wilson Avenue and (north of) Lincoln Avenue, and on the north and south sides of Katella Avenue between California Street and SR-55 (NewportlCosta Mesa Freeway). The boundaries of this zone change are co-terminus with the Tustin Street Redevelopment area. NOTE:- Negative Declaration 1053 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Hart requested that he be excused due to conflict of interest. Ron Thompson, City of Orange Economic Development Director,,~~.made ® the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commissioner accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1053. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commissione approve Zone Change 1048. AYES:. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS PRE IOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT 10112 - RIDGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT Request by applicant for the Planning Commission to make a finding that revisions to the tract design are in "substantial compliance" with the previously approved tentative tract map for property located north and south of proposed Canyon View Drive, eas of Chapman Avenue. Mr. Soo-Hoo made the .presentation in accordance with his memo of February 5, 1986, to the Planning Commission. He said that Staff does not feel that the map is in substantial compliance. Commissioner Master asked what technically is the geological condition. Mr. Johnson responded that the geologist who was Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1986 Page Eight commissioned to do the work din conjunction with satisfying Condition 12 which is subject to a seismic and geologic report being submitted prior to approval of final maps found that problems with bedding plains made it impossible to cut into the hillside in a manner that was proposed by the original tract map,= and a letter from Eberhardt and Stone, the consulting geologist for the Ridgewood Company, gives an overview of what their findings are and what needs to be accomplished in order to satisfy the stab i1ity problem of the geologic conditions. He said that basically there`s a hard rocky material that`s underlined by a toughmateria1 which has much less strength and when the hard material is cut through into. the soft material it loses its stability and the harder material tends to slide down the hill causing an unstable conditions that may preclude the property adjacent (the Hays property) from being developed the way it was originally .intended, which was approved three or four years ago and was sold. to British holdings at that time.. Ted G. Hays, the owner of the property east of the proposed project, said this project was approved for 99 lots and after selling it to Mr. Block it was approved for 80+ lots, then the road was planned and the geology tests were made, but it now appears that 15 or 20 lots would be wiped out. He said his is a very expensive project and is now down to 66 lots. He said that he and Ridgewood Develop- ment would like to make a study to see if he can keep from losing any lots, because if 15 or so were to be deducted from 66, he couldn`t even commence his development. He asked if he could have extended time to meet with Ridgewood and make a feasibility study. He s.ai:d he is .just recovering from atwo ye,~r.llrless ckuri_r~g,w1~ich his twc~ partners -stole a million and ~ half dollars from him,. Mr, Jonnson said Mr. Hays'- property is directly to the east of the proposed project and originally on the tentative map there was a proposal fora road to go easterly to possibly serve the Hays property, but the amended configuration of the tract would eliminate that road.. He said.Eberhardt and Stone have made enough of a study and have given the City what amounts to a letter of opinion that if that road is implemented the way it was planned the whole mountain may come down, and for that reason the concept of development that was originally approved for the Ridgewood project, which certainly has a bearing on the Hays property, may be precluded and it may involve a new study of .the Hays property to determine what is feasible and what isn`t. Commissioner Greek said he feels the Commission is getting side- tracked, that the request is for it to make a finding that the map is in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and he thinks that is all-that needs to be done at this hearing. Fred Armstrong., Ridgewood Development, 151 Ka1mus, Costa Mesa, said he has met with Mr. Hays and concurs that some time is necessary for them both. to look at the site. Therefore, Ridgewood Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1986 Page Nine is withdrawing its request.~nd would like it to come up again in about two weeks .or as soon thereafter as possible. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the applicant`s request to withdraw this item. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES:. None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Mason asked what is proceeding on the parking study for the Cit of Orange. Mr. Soo-Hoo said the parking study was tied to an R~P that was sent out in conjunction with the General Plan, specifically the land use and circulation elements. He said there are some modifications being made to the RSP process right now, so as yet there is na firm date established for the completion of the study, Commissioner Master asked what has happened to the housing element. Mr. Soo-Hoo said it is one of the victims of the reorganization of the Planning Department because he wrote the daft as advance planner and therefore it is logical that he continue and finish it; therefore he has to be able to get some time away from current planning to be able to finish the housing element. He said he hopes it will be completed within the next.: several months. Commisioner Master asked if .the Department is near target on the tentative schedule for consultants. Mr. Soo-Hoo said the land use and circulation element is off; the schedule called for award fif that contract the end o~f~last summer but it looks like because of reconsiderations of how exactly the consultant will be selected, it will be a number of weeks before anything happens on that; therefore, it is approximately six months off schedule. He said he is confident the housing element will be done in the next several months. He said as far as the coming. schedule is concerned, that is really going to be dependent upon budget considerations .for the next fiscal year. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:.45 p.m., to reconvene at a regular meeting on March 3~; 1986, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.