Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/7/1987 - Minutes PC.~i_ ,, ,_ << f f~_ ~. , n .; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 7, 1987 Monday - 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Greek at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Administrator and Commission Secretary; Ron Thompson, Director of Community Development; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner ® Hart, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of November 16, 1987, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master abstained from voting because he was not a participant in that meeting. IN RE: CONTINUED ITEM5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-87"A", ZONE CAANGE 1080, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1625 - MOHLER CORPORATION: Request for a General Plan Amendment from local commercial _. to high density residential (15-24 units per acre), and a zone change to R-3 (Residential Multiple Family). Also requested is approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a two story structure exceeding 20 feet in height within 70 feet of a single family residential zoning boundary. Subject property is located on the southeast corner of Orange-Olive Road and Whitecap Avenue. (Continued from the October 19 and November 2, 1987 Planning Commission Meetings.) NOTE: Negative Declaration 1173 has been prepared for this project. :. ' Planning Commission Minutes `,tom December 7, 1987 - Page 2 The staff report was presented by Joan Wolf t, Assistant Flanner. The applicant is proposing to construct a two story apartment complex consisting of 22 two-bedroom units on the vacant property at the southeast corner of Orange-Olive Road and Whitecap Avenue. The property is bordered on the north and south by commercial zoning and uses. To the south of the pan handle extension of the lot there are single family residences and duplexes in the R-1-7 and R-2-6 zones. To the east and west of the property are single family residences in the R-1-7 zone. In order to develop the plan in the manner proposed, the applicant is requesting several approvals from the City. First, a request for an amendment to the City's general plan to change the designation on the property from local commercial to high density residential. Secondly, a change of zoning classification from C-1 to the R-3 (Residential Multiple Family) District. Thirdly, a conditional use permit is requested to permit the construction of a two story structure which exceeds the one story 20 foot height limitation, which is imposed on structures in the R-3 zone within ?0 feet of a single family residential zoning boundary. To provide background on this proposal, in 1986 plans were submitted for the construction of a 24 unit two story apartment complex. Although the current applicant was not involved with that proposal, similar requests for a general plan amendment, zone change and conditional use permit were made at that time for Planning Commission approval. The project, however, was withdrawn prior to the public hearing. The project had been reviewed by the Environmental Review Board and at that time concerns were expressed regarding the density of that project and its proximity to single family residences. At this time, the applicant is proposing again to construct 22 two-bedroom apartment units, which is two fewer than what was previously proposed. The apartments are shown grouped into two separate buildings, each facing the other and each two stories and 24' in height. A lawn area would separate the two structures. A spa will be provided adjacent to the small detached laundry room between the two apartment buildings. An exhibit of the plan is on the wall for reference. The earlier proposal was very similar to the current one in the way it was proposed. It was three buildings grouped together around three sides of an open court yard, where this is two buildings. The current project complies with the site development standards of the R-3 zone except for the structural height of both the main and accessory buildings. A conditional use permit and an administrative adjustment have been :: .~ Planning Commission Minutes ~`"~ December 7, 1987 - Page 3 requested to authorize these additional heights. The buildings are set back ten feet from the northern property line and 15 feet from the western property line. Parking areas are located between the proposed apartment buildings and the southern and eastern property lines, thereby providing setbacks of over 50 feet from the residences to the east. The Orange Municipal Code, however, requires a conditional use permit be issued to authorize the requested 24 foot building height because it exceeds the one story 20 foot height restrictions for buildings in the R-3 zone that are within ?0 feet of the R-1 zoning boundary. These buildings are 52 feet and 55 feet from that boundary respectively. The maximum height for an accessory structure to be located directly on a property line is ten foot; therefore, the proposed 11 foot height of the carport must be authorized by approval of an administrative adjustment permit. If these carports were set back a minimum of three feet from the property line, the proposed 11 foot height would meet code requirements and an administrative adjustment would not be necessary. As far as parking is concerned, the 44 parking spaces E"'"`'"+~ provided do meet the code requirements of two parking 1~r~' spaces per two-bedroom unit, inclusive of guest parking. The code requirement of one enclosed space per unit has also been met. The complex has driveway access to both Orange-Olive Road and Whitecap Avenue, with parking and circulation areas wrapped around the proposed construction of the buildings. A recorded ten foot wide drainage easement exists along the eastern property boundary and along the southern edge of that small pan handle extension. No permanent structures can be constructed over the easement. The project density is proposed at 21 units per acre, which falls within the high density general plan category. A general plan amendment has been filed to place this designation on the property, changing it from the commercial designation, which would allow the development of 22 units on the site. Properties to both the east and west of the site have a low density general plan designation, which permits two to six units per acre. The public hearing was opened. Bob Colin, JFP and Associates, 1190 North Tustin Avenue, represents Mohler Corporation for the project. In studying the site and location it was concluded that the multi-family residential is a more appropriate development than commercial. It is more compatible with the neighborhood to stay with residential. Multi-family on "Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 198? - Page 4 ~I ~' I Orange-Olive seems to be the growing trend for the area. ~'' Orange-Olive tends to be more isolated and not very appropriate for commercial development. In developing the site plan they have tried to design it to develop a good circulation pattern for continuous flow. They are also proposing to put in security gates and enclose as many garages as possible for security. They have tried to maintain as much open space as possible between the units to eliminate the over crowding effect within the complex itself. By constructing two-story units, it will allow them to maximize their open space and also to develop a pitched roof. They have received comments from the Bnvironmental Review Board in regard to the pan handle area as far as security in that area. In talking to the Police Department, they have come to an understanding that they need garages or security lighting. Bnclosed garages would be the most logical option. The garage wall being against the property line is quite common, especially along commercial property. They are not exceeding height limitations very much and does not feel it would be a major problem to allow 11 feet rather than 10 feet. They are concerned with security and if the project is approved, they will work with City staff, Bnvironmental Review Board and Design Review Board to develop a scheme that will be pleasing to not only the City, but also to the neighborhood. Commissioner Bosch asked Mr. Colin if he had reviewed the site plan and circulation with the Fire Department in terms of accessibility of fire equipment? Mr. Colin stated the Environmental Review Board has reviewed the project. They require a 20 foot drive, which they have. Lock boxes are to be provided along with the security gates. Commissioner Bosch said the conditional use permit is predicated on two stories within 70 feet of the R-1 zone boundary and it appears to encompass two units on the site plan. Why the particular density and arrangement, which causes that C.U.P. on the site? Mr. Colin said it was developed this way to develop some unity between the two buildings. He did not feel they could accommodate the two units without cutting into the open space, causing an overcrowded effect if only using single story units. Commissioner Master wanted some clarification on the fencing along the property line at the pan handle. Mr. Colin said all the fencing will be 6 foot masonry walls. ~~lanning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 5 ~" Those speaking in opposition: Terri DePaola, 736 East Whitecap, property is located right next door to project. They are in opposition to the project because of the traffic problems that already exist on Orange-Olive Road. Traffic circulation is a major concern. It is also inappropriate to have renters next to homeowners. Parking is a problem on Friday and Saturday with the bar being across the street. They argue the site is not acceptable for commercial; that it is too far off the main road from Lincoln; however, they are visible from Lincoln. They are also worried about security problems. Renters and homeowners are two different types of people with different priorities. Richard Walker, 2749 Swell Street, spoke about the traffic problem. He understands people are parking on Orange-Olive Road, which is illegal. People cannot get out of the tract in the morning or evening. The bar causes many problems on Friday. and Saturday nights with their parking on the street. The two story building will take away from the open spaces. The crime problem with the bar causes a big enough problem right now; with rental property it will be much worse. Mrs. William Snyder, 16341 Cumberland Road, has dual interest in this property. She and her husband live within easy walking distance of that piece of property and also own the Orange-Olive Shopping Center. She agrees with the people who spoke before her. They feel the area is a stable neighborhood with a low crime rate. She also thinks C-1 zoning is a proper use for the site. Orange-Olive Road is a very viable commercial area. She opposes the high density apartments which will be adjacent to a bar, facing a railroad track -- not the best area for people to live in. It will cost the City more in fire and police services than a one-story commercial development. She and her husband conducted a survey of the area on commercial properties. They feel the two-story high density units is not compatible for the area. Steve Smith, 737 Whitecap, across the street from the proposed project. He has young children and is concerned about the traffic. It is already nasty on Orange-Olive Road and Whitecap. He is completely surrounded by commercial property. It is a quiet neighborhood, but he is afraid if apartments are built, it won't be. The two-story unite would block his view. Also questioned the vacant dairy on the corner of that site -- would people want to look at an old empty building? Kathleen Tobkim, 16551 Cumberland Road, commented on the precedent that is being set -- if you start granting ', Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 6 variances on the 70 foot distances from R-1 property, there is going to be a great effec t on other parcels around the City. There are a lot of vacant lot around town. When people move into their homes, they check the zoning of properties around them. When you start building two story structures, you begin to block light, air and open space. A long range plan for the entire strip is needed. She is also concerned abo ut a zone change from C-1 to R-3 without actually seeing what was going to be built on it. R-3 zoning includes higher density bonsuses for low income housing, senior hou sing or some other project. She does not approve of the proposed use. Ken Burr, 824 East Whitecap, stated there is already a problem with parking. The country-western bar on Friday and Saturday nights is packed so the cars park on the street. The plans do not show security gates and feels the applicant is using excuses to build the apartments. In five to ten years, he feels the units will be low income apartments. The property should remain commercial. Mike Slatery, 725 East Greenleaf, has problems with the traffic, no setback for the 11 foot garage or wall, and if a garage is not built, security problems were to be solved by putting in a security light, which would shine onto his house. There are no elevations supplied by the developer for the homeowners to review. The property is zoned commercial when the people buy it; maybe they shouldn't buy it if they don't intend to use it for commercial. Roger Macroy, 809 Whitecap, questioned if Mohler Corporartion is the owner of record of the property? (Mr. Colin responded Mr. Mohler put up the money for escrow as of today's date, which basically closes the transaction for him being the owner of the property.) Mr. Macroy does not doubt the property will be developed. He thinks Mr. Mohler has put the wrong development in this location. Apartment buildings do not belong on this corner. The property should remain commercial. '~ Mr. Colin rebutted that it is a known fact the traffic on Orange-Olive is at times quite congested. This is an existing problem and whether the site is commercial or residential, it is already there. He has no problem with the curb areas are painted red regarding parking so no one will park on the street. If the project is approved, they would need to go through the Design Review Board for elevation review. Enclosed garages will make the apartments a better complex. The developer will definitely enclose the garages and provide security gates, per conditions of approval. The Police Department would Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 7 like to have security lighting without shining into residents yards. If they were to have lighting in that pan handle, it would be deflected from the neighbors' yards. However, enclosed garages are being proposed and they will not need security lights in that area. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1173. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch stated they have heard a lot of discussion over what the potential best use for the land on Orange-Olive Road is. There is a variety of different types of commercial office uses, primarily in C-1 zones; single family uses that intend to end onto Orange-Olive Road being the outcome of an adjacent development, and there is multi-family residential along the street. The different properties along the street are in an appropriate transitional area between the single family residential and the more major traffic volumes on Orange-Olive Road, as well as the railroad track and industrial area to the west. Therefore, the commercial and multi-family residential uses could be appropriate uses on the site. Design problems of the site and traffic problems caused by the particular development could be mitigated. He is concerned that the neighborhood is greatly impacted by the land use across the street in terms of the bar and its entertainment programs, which are not the fault of this property. That use should be reviewed to determine if they are in conformance with City ordinances. Also the current configuration of the traffic lanes on Orange-Olive Road and the intersection of Lincoln Avenue should be investigated more thoroughly. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve General Plan Amendment 4-87"A". AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Zone Change 1080. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED ,• Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 8 Commissioner Bosch has a problem with approving the plan as drawn for the conditional use permit. He recognizes there are particular features about the site that are difficult, whether the use be commercial or residential, and particularly the drainage easement, the pan handle and the unobtainable abandoned dairy to the south. He has a strong feeling that they should try and maintain a separation of multi-family residential two-story from single family where there might be some negative impacts. They do not have the elevations of the buildings nor the floor plans to determine whether in fact the second story units in the 70 foot area would have a negative impact or would be neutral in terms of their impact on the privacy of the residences to the east. It appears that once security gates are planned for and installed with appropriate queing distances on operational areas, that trash areas are provided with appropriate access for those vehicles and the collateral turning radius at the right angle of the drive is provided that it is very likely some parking spaces will be lost. Given the feeling that the land use is appropriate, he has a serious concern about those particular units. Commissioner Bosch directed a question to the applicant regarding the units and 22 parking spaces. Would the applicant be willing to stipulate to the reduction of those two units within the collateral parking in order to eliminate the need for the conditional use permit on the site to clear up those issues? Mr. Colin responded they would. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it deny Conditional Use Permit 1625. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. McGee stated that all of the actions are recommendations to the City Council. There will be a public hearing before Council and another set of public notices will be sent to the same people who received notices for the Planning Commission hearing. The meeting will take place in 4-6 weeks from tonight. Commissioner Bosch was concerned that the applicant mentioned the desirability of providing garages at the pan handle area to help satisfy the security requirements. That would keep the car ports off of the south property line of the pan handle, that one resident was concerned about his back yard. There wouldn't be a need for the adjustment there and would leave the adjustment as planned currently on property lines that border the C-1 zone. Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 1987 - Page 9 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve the administrative adjustment for heights of the carports at the C-1 property lines to a maximum of 11 feet. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT 13102 - REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Commissioner Bosch was excused from the meeting. Request to subdivide an irregular shaped 27.5 acre parcel, and establish a 61 unit single family residential development, on property located north of Santiago Canyon Road and east of Newport Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1180 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. 0 Pat Hayes, President of Real Estate Development Corporation, 18302 Irvine Blvd., Suite 360, Tustin. The project they are proposing consists of 61 single family detached units ranging in square footage from 3,000 to 3,700 square feet. The project is processed under P-C because there will be private streets, two guard gates, and a homeowners association that will maintain the perimeter slopes around the lots. They have met with the local homeowners and discussed any concerns they had relative to the project. Their concerns revolved around the equestrian aspect of the project. There is a ten foot easement at the northerly boundary of the project. The residents discussed the possibility of giving up that easement and relocating that parallel to Santiago Canyon Road. The conditions, as drawn, considered that happening; however, within the last few days the homeowners association became concerned that Santiago Canyon Road horse trail would actually lead nowhere. There was no trail to take it from the southerly boundary out to the Villa Park Dam road. They are now in favor of the easement going where it was originally intended, which is to the north end of the project. The developers have no problem with that and are willing to live with whatever the staff recommendations are. Also, in discussion with the homeowners association, they would not object to still . ~~ ~. Planning Commission Minutes ~ December 7, 198? - Page 10 having it along Santiago Canyon Road if there were no sidewalks contemplated. That area is within the 18 foot right-of-way that the assessment district has now. In answering Commission's questions about the horse trail, Mr. Hayes stated the trail could be realigned for safety and screened from rear yards. They are proposing to make no change from the existing trail. Commissioner Hart understands the association does not particularly want the Santiago Canyon trail. Mr. Hayes stated their concern was at the south end of the property where that trail would be dumping out onto, they have no way to connect from there to the dam road. Chairman Greek asked Mr. Johnson why a trail could not be constructed along Chapman Avenue's right-of-way. Mr. Johnson felt that could be accomplished after looking at the proposed plans, although it was contingent upon the O.P.A. Trails Committee accepting that concept and relinquishing the right-of-way that had been previously dedicated. A letter was received today stating it was seriously considered; however, they wish to keep the trails they have now. Commissioner Master asked about the comment of Orange County Parks Commission maintaining the slope in some vegetation, fire proof manner. Mr. Hayes explained what they had agreed to was there is an area that needs to be fire retardant within 100 feet of the units. They are also suggesting a 30 foot landscaped area down the slope, which they are willing to do. There will be little disruption of the native vegetation; twenty percent of the slope will be maintained. The public hearing was closed. ® Commissioner Hart understood the Orange Park Acres group does not want the horse trail there and they have volunteered to take care of the one they want, but not the one they don't want. Chairman Greek said there was a condition stating the trail location along Santiago Canyon Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association. He understood there was a difference of opinion between the Orange Park Acres Trails Committee that is responsible for maintaining and locating the trails and the Board. However, no one was present to give them some direction. From his personal opinion, he prefers to see the horse trail along Santiago Canyon Road with access along existing Chapman down to the back. •, Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 11 Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Johnson if he were familiar with the letters being passed back and forth? Have they changed their minds? Mr. Johnson is familiar with the letters, but does not know if they have changed their minds. He does not know the background behind it. He talked to Bob Walters last week, who stated they were considering the idea of changing the horse trail to the Santiago frontage. It would be an easier trail to follow. The terrain on the trail over to the dam is tough. In talking with Mr. Hayes, it was indicated that whatever the desires of the O.P.A. group, he was willing to work to accomplish that. He feels the condition could be left in and then get together with the O.P.A. group to look at the specific design when there is more information available. He also thinks an agreement can be reached. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1180. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Tentative Tract 13102 subject to the conditions as shown on the staff report, noting the change in Condition X11 regarding negotiated trail site, reviewed with the Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association and approved by the City Engineer. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the development standards be incorporated by ordinance as part of the P-C (Planned Community) zoning for this site. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City n v Planning Commission Minutes December ?, 1987 - Page 12 Council on the Administrative Adjustment to allow a reduction in lot widths for three lots at the ends of the cul-de-sacs.. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Basch returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1631 AND VARIANCE 1825 - CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to remove the existing CHOC hospital building and construct a 5 story medical office building and a 7 story hospital building in the 0-P and P-I zones. A Variance is also requested for reduction in street side setback from 10' to 6'3" on the 5 story building which is located in the C-3 zone. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Main Street and LaVeta Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1177 has been prepared for this project. The staff report was presented by Jack McGee. Exhibits were displayed on the wall. This proposal involves two separate parcels, one of which is located on the corner of LaVeta and Main and is occupied by an existing structure, as well as a five level parking structure. The other parcel, which is on Pepper Street and also has frontage on Bush, is currently occupied by the six story CHOC hospital tower and surface level parking to the north of that tower. There is a parcel in between these two, which is occupied by a parking structure that is jointly owned by CHOC and the medical building on the corner of LaVeta and Pepper. .The parcel on Main and LaVeta is 2 1/2 acres in size. The zoning on that property is C-3. The parcel on Pepper Street is 1 1/2 acres and has a split zoning of 0-P and P-I. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses. To the north and east are primarily the medical uses of St. Joseph Hospital, Providence Medical Building, and the LaVeta Medical Building. To the south are two high rise buildings. Union Bank Square is also in the general area. To the west is a one story commercial retail project. Most of those are in commercial zoned properties. St. Joseph is in a Public Institutional zone. The proposed request involves a desire by CHOC to build two new structures on their property. One of the ~I/ structures would be a new hospital building to replace the ~~ ~~ Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 13 existing six story tower. That tower would be removed and would be replaced by the building shown on the exhibit. It is seven stories in height. The other building would be located on the corner of Providence and LaVeta and is five stories in height. It would be primarily an administrative type office and used for laboratory uses, either directly or indirectly related to hospital functions. Specific requests are a conditional use permit to allow the CHOC seven story hospital within the P-I and 0-P zones. A conditional use permit is required for a hospital in each of those zones. The second request is for a variance for the building on the corner of Providence and Main Street. Regarding a variance for the setback along Providence, the zoning district requires a 10 foot setback. What is proposed is a 6'3" setback for the building. There is a section at the top of the exhibits that show a fluctuation of where the wall areas are and the different floors. The new seven story building is 185,000 square feet and it will replace the existing 75,000 square foot hospital tower. The maximum height of the building is 128 feet and it will have 202 beds. The new five story building on Main and Providence is ?0,000 square feet in size and 86 feet in height. The amount of parking, which is available for this project, was of great concern to the staff. Staff has done a great deal of research to establish exactly what the parking requirement for the facility is. There are 675 parking spaces available under CHOC's control. There are 535 spaces within the five level CHOC structure and 140 spaces within the existing two level structure, which CHOC is 50X owner in. In 1970 there was a variance approved permitting the two level structure and granting a variance in parking number for the shared use between CHOC and the LaVeta Medical Building. CHOC was given a number of 140 stalls, which was their share within that structure. This 140 spaces, in combination with 535 in their structure, does meet the code requirement of 669, based on the hospital use and the indirectly related laboratory uses and other things which require special parking requirements. Commissioner Master asked a preliminary question regarding appropriate zoning since the property is owned by the hospital, why isn't it also being considered for a zone change from C-3 to P-I? Mr. McGee said hospitals are listed as a conditionally permitted use in other zones, as well as the P-I. A zone change has not been requested by the applicant at this time; however, it could be done. Planning Commission Minutes '? December 7, 1987 - Page 14 ~ The public hearing was opened. Harold Wade, C.P.O. at CHOC. His staff was also present. The CHOC Tower is the building in question as to being torn down. They bought the tower in 1974. It was an extended care facility. Their intent was to convert that building into an acute pediatric hospital. They remodeled the first floor, fourth and fifth floors. They leased back to St. Joseph's Hospital the second and third floor of the building. They have decided since St. Joseph has vacated that area, that they would like to finish the remodeling of that building and complete the second and third floors. However, the structural engineers have told them the floor to ceiling height, since it was built for an extended care facility, do not accommodate the electrical and mechanical that is needed in an acute care facility today. The building does not meet the current earthquake standards. They feel they would be pouring good money into a building that is not worthy of remodel. The new proposed building is larger. The sick children need to be housed in a one room situation so the new building will reflect private rooms to accommodate that purpose. Commissioner Bosch asked for further background of what additional services will be in the building? Will there be more clinical uses in the building or will you continue to share those at St. Joseph's Hospital? Mr. Wade stated they will continue to share lab, x-ray and operating rooms with St. Joseph. Those speaking in favor: 7930 East Lakeview Trail, read the staff Ed Cancilla , report and recognizes the importance to the community that this development would mean. He hopes that any problems could be resolved and the conditional use permit granted. Those speaking in opposition: Geneva Fulton, 1801 North Greenleaf Street, Santa Ana, was t ' s not agains not unhappy that this is being built; she but had a few questions. When CHOC remodeled the old it , telephone office, they added four feet of gingerbread west and south on the building. That does not give them a of id t e s traffic pattern for the traffic lane on the eas Main Street. There is a parking problem on west Main; they do not meet the standard parking for their facilities. Parking problems with CHOC exist now erbread on the existing in Th g e g especially on rainy days. ing a traffic lane of traffic on the east kee i di p s ng buil side of Main. In the future Main will have to be widened. ~° ~~ Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 15 Where is the new five story building going to go? Will it be even with the gingerbread or will that be taken off and the building to be setback even with the old CHOC building? If so, a traffic lane could be squeezed in there. Mr. Wade responded when they bought the building, the building was 25 years old and the gingerbread was approved by the City in order to make the building more attractive. Commissioner Master commented that earlier he talked about the zone change of the C-3 designated properties to P-I. He asked the applicant if he had any particular feelings on that? Mr. Wade could not answer that at this time. Commissioner Master felt it would be more appropriate if the City to re-zone this area in another designation. He wanted to know if Mr. Wade objected? Mr. Wade did not object. Mr. Thompson believes they may want to do that throughout the City all at one time to bring the zoning in conformance with the general plan. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1177. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Chairman Greek does not feel the traffic consideration is adequately considered. He thinks there should be some consideration or discussion made when they are increasing the total square footage by that much. There will be some additional traffic created that needs to be considered. Commissioners and Mr. Johnson discussed the traffic situation and setbacks at Main and LaVeta. There is not a master plan at the present time that shows anything more than a modified primary street. They would like to see setbacks that would accommodate the 120 feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Hart would like to see the ultimate right-of-way required on the project. In response to Commissioner Scott's question of a traffic study, Mr. Johnson explained how the study was conducted. e ~ Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 16 Mr. Minshew has a problem with dedication of it. The setback is one thing; the actual dedication is another. You need ordinance authority, which is not available now. Mr. McGee said the way the current ordinance is established, there are ten foot setbacks from the ultimate right-of-way of each of these street frontages on Main Street and Providence. If this particular building was setback an additional three foot, the variance would not be before the Commission. They could put it exactly where they wanted it. He doesn't know if requiring an additional setback on Main Street has enough direct relationship to the variance request to be legally defensible. Commissioner Bosch stated special circumstances have to apply to the variance, but he hasn't seen one presented yet. Mr. Johnson stated the traffic has an accumulative effect. The City has been looking at this trend towards high rise development and have been analyzing it. The engineer who is conducting the circulation review has taken this into account. In similar requests, they have limited the conditions to the setback concerns; they have not asked for dedication. Commissioner Bosch sees it as two separate issues. As he understands, the conditional use permit is solely for the hospital use. Is it intended that the building be constructed to OSA standards and be a licensed hospital facility? David Oakley, architect, 505 Mission Street, South Pasadena, responded they are designing the building to hospital seismic. They chose to do that for a better building because they are some shared uses, but it won't be specifically licensed as a hospital. He talked about the setbacks and referred to the site plan. They are holding the new building back almost to the identity of the face of the old telephone company building (that is back behind the gingerbread). He doesn't think if the street were to be widened that you would chop off the usual footage of a building; perhaps you would go back to the face of the building. The building is almost back to the original line; it only hangs over up at the fifth floor (allowable in the setbacks by ordinance). Most of the concerns have been mitigated about the street. Commissioner Bosch stated the key concern is about the variance application which is on Providence Avenue, the side setback, what is the hardship here or what justification can be given to allow this other than maximizing the floor area? . Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 17 Mr. Oakley said that was the primary reason -- to maximize the utility of the floor for the functions designed. Commissioner Hart stated it does not appear Mr. Oakley has met the necessary criteria for hardship. Just because more floor space is needed, does not generally consider a hardship. Commissioner Bosch said they could have such a design and meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, eliminate the variance requirements and still have the square footage. He explained this concept to Mr. Oakley in detail. It's not quite as economical, but solves another problem. Commissioner Bosch's personal opinion is that it is appropriate to apply the conditional use permit to both buildings so they would have the flexibility to utilize the building at Providence and Main for hospital use if it meets OSA licensing standards. But he has problems with the variance. He does not see that it is absolutely required since there is an alternative solution that is purely structural in nature and does not affect the size or utility of the building. A motion was made by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1631 subject to the conditions and findings in the staff report, but to deny Variance 1825 since there are alternative solutions available that meet the apparent square footage requirements of the applicant and because we cannot find a special circumstance of hardship that applies to the property as required by the Orange Municipal Code. Chairman Greek wanted to add the condition that the building setback be 60 feet from the center of Main Street. Commissioner Bosch pondered the added condition. His concern is from a technical point of view -- setbacks at the lower part of the building. From the degree of information we have now about the alignment plans on Main Street, it may very well be the problem is taken care of by current plans. Perhaps more information is needed. Commissioner Bosch withdrew his above motion. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1631 and Variance 1825 to December 21, 1987, .' . Planning Commission Minutes /~, December ?, 1987 - Page 18 for a staff report on the rights to dedication and the current plans for Main Street to see what the impact would be. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1629 - REYNOLDS ALUMINUM RECYCLING COMPANY: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary mobile recycling collection trailer to be located in the parking lot of an existing strip shopping center on the southeast corner of Tustin Street and Collins Avenue, addressed (1800 East Collins Avenue). NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. A staff report was not presented. Commissioner Hart was familiar with the center and he had a problem with where it is going to be located. Would it be possible to relocate it in the parking lot that enters onto Tustin because it does not seem to be used as much as the parking lot by the market? Mr. McGee felt it could be established anywhere the Commission thought it would be more appropriate. The only consideration would be required setback areas. The public hearing was opened. Steve Almieri, representing Reynolds Aluminum Recycling Company, 9910 6th Street, Cucamonga, stated they have contracted with Stater Bros. Markets to place several of the mobile recycling units in So. California. The request is listed as being a temporary location and their intent was to have this permanent as a trailer facility. The City's requirement that it be replaced in six months by a permanent structure will be difficult to comply with. The facility intent was to provide a convenient recycling which would be flexible to the City's demands, as well as the landlord's concerns. The requirement of putting up permanent structures is economically infeasible for them. The operation being considered in Orange would provide recycling for the citizens within a 1/2 mile radius. Commissioner Bosch felt the operation was a clean, but somewhat noisy operation that relates to commercial uses. ,~ ~, Planning Commission Minutes December ?, 1987 - Page 19 He asked what the difficulty would be in negotiating leases of portions of existing commercial centers to take care of this. He does not feel it would be impossible to obtain a permanent location within a six month period. Mr. Almieri stated their problem is the capital investment in putting forth a permanent structure. Some cities have considered their trailer as a permanent structure, but the fact that the trailer would be replaced as it is filled up with another trailer, would be parked in exactly the same spot. To actually require them to build a building and to invest in a leasehold agreement with the landlord is something the company cannot spend that kind of money. They are operating on a very tight profit margin. Right now they are losing money. Commissioner Hart said there would be a problem in approving their application if it is impossible for them to put up a permanent facility. A direction from the City Council requires the permanent building. Chairman Greek stated that temporary buildings are allowed concurrently with the processing of a conditional use permit, but not before the conditional use permit is filed. Permanent plans need to be made before the Planning Commission could approve the request. Mr. Almieri is trying to find a way to appeal this to the City Council as permanent plans have not been obtained. Mr. McGee said there were other solutions besides the one Commissioner Bosch spoke of, and he offered a few ideas. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission continue this item until the applicant works out the problem with City Council's memorandum of November 6, 1987, which prevents the Commission from acting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED This item has been postponed until clarification has been received for the Commission to act on it. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1637 - PICK YOUR PART AUTO WRECKING, INC.: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow an auto dismantling and salvage operation and to move two prefabricated buildings onto the site from another • `• Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 20 location. Subject property is approximately 8.11 acres in the M-2 zone, located 574 feet north of Katella Avenue, and immediately west of the railroad tracks, between Glassell Street and Manzanita Street (rear of 411 West Katella). NOTE: Negative Declartion 1183 has been prepared for this project. Joan Wolff presented the staff report. The proposal is somewhat unique as it is retail in nature. Customers will be allowed into the yard and will be allowed to remove parts directly from autos for purchase from a cashier in the yard itself. The project also includes plans to move two prefabricated structures onto the property. One will be used as an office and the other will be used as a sales building. A conditional use permit is required for the dismantling and salvage operation in the M-2 zone and also to permit the move on structures. All surrounding properties have industrial zoning. The project does not have frontage on a public street. Two properties are involved in the application. There is an abutting strip of land owned by the railroad and it is proposed to be utilized for customer parking. Staff has received verification from the Southern Pacific Railroad the applicant is involved in negotiation of a long-term land lease for that piece of property. Access to the site is obtained via an ingressjegress easement which runs from Katella Avenue northerly to the site. The easement is over the westerly 30 feet of the property which is to the south. A ZO foot Orange County Flood Control District easement exists within the 8 acre property along its northern property line. Customers will have to cross over the channel to reach the customer parking lot. The proponent has made application to the Flood Control District to widen the existing auto bridge over the channel and to construct a new pedestrian bridge for additional access back into the yard. The wrecking and salvage operation are proposed to consist of staging an impound yard for cars dropped off and stored during DMV processing, a retail yard where cars are placed on stands for removal and purchase of parts, and a dismantling yard where cars are stripped and compacted after an allotted period of time. The entire yard has display and storage space for approximately 950 cars. Additionally, customer and employee parking will be provided for 245 vehicles. The project involves the handling and storage of hazardous waste materials such as oil, gas, and other fluids. Staff has contacted the Fire Department, and have also talked to the County Health Department and the Orange County Flood Control District regarding potential environmental impacts of the project. The site is in a proposed redevelopment project area. The City's objectives in selecting the '-~ Planning Commission Minutes - December 7, 1987 - Page 21 project area boundaries were to upgrade and revitalize the industrial area aesthetically, environmentally and economically. It should be considered whether this project will help to implement these objectives. It should be noted that Condition #11 is incorrectly in the staff report. It was "Parking lot should be used for customer parking only and repair work on customer prohibited. Overnight parking or storage allowed in the parking areas." The public hearing was opened. stated intended to read, and employee vehicles shall be will not be Cindy Galfin, 31 Fairget, Irvine, Property Controller and Assistant Secretary for Pick Your Park Auto Wrecking, gave the Commission some background information on the corporation. Ten auto dismantling yards have been opened by them since 1976. These properties are on landfills, on properties zoned M-2, and a variety of other different zoned properties. Pick Your Part provides a valuable service to the community by allowing people to purchase and repair their cars at a very affordable price. They also recycle 12,000 to 14,000 cars per month at all of their locations. They help to keep abandoned vehicles off city streets. They are very conscientious regarding the hazardous waste issues. They have employed state of the art dismantling pads at the Stanton location and will be installing those in all other locations as well. They drain all fluids prior to the cars going into the yards on stands. The gas is recycled for their own consumption. She feels this property is ideal for their use and they will do whatever is necessary to meet the needs of the community. Commissioner Bosch asked the applicant to describe a state of the art dismantling pad. Ms. Galfin replied it is an fiPA approved cement slab that has underground fuel tanks below it. There are wells that are around the pad and they are monitored for leaks. The yards are not paved; they have a crushed rock base, which is constantly replenished. The parking lots are paved however. The cars are crushed, but not shredded. Those speaking in opposition to the project: Salah, 2436 North Manzanita, has a wrecking license; however, a year ago he shut down the operation. He does not think it is useful for the community. There will be traffic congestion on Katella. It's too big an operation and will create a health hazard. G .~ ~ ` a , .. v Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 22 Ed Cancilla, 7930 East Lakeview Trail, stated the junk yard would hamper land use development for the entire area on Katella between Glasaell and Batavia. He visited the auto wrecking center in Stanton, walked thru it, and talked to some of the neighbors. The area was dirty and smelly and the neighbors did not speak highly of the operation. He tried to take pictures of the area to show them at the meeting; however, his camera was taken away and the film removed. They did not want pictures presented for public hearings. Arthur Nisson, 1652 S.E. Foothill Blvd., Santa Ana, concurred with Mr. Cancilla's observations. He is concerned with the problems of theft as it is. The type of activity as proposed would increase the crime problem in the area. It would not be compatible with the upgrading and development of Katella. Ed Gerber, Manager at So. California Bank, 303 West Katella. The bank has been the owner of the property for 10 years and feels the addition of a business of this nature would not enhance the area or community. Kenneth Trossen, 93 Rivo Alto Canal, Long Beach, owns the property at 1465 Batavia (in the backyard of the proposed project}. Thermco Products is the manufacturer at that address and they are in apposition to the proposal. The whole area is going through a redevelopment stage. It is not an appropriate location for this type of business. This will definitely affect the land values. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Galfin responded to the comments made about the Stanton yard. She was rather surprised as it is a clean operation. She was aware of the film being taken away from Mr. Cancilla. They do not allow-pictures to be taken in any of their yards strictly due to the competition. Pick Your Part operations gets along well with their neighbors. Complaints have not been made and she is not aware of any other problems. They have had a lot of support from the communities. They are not in the business to sell junk; they are in the business to sell used parts to the public. Commissioner Scott stated this project is located in the redevelopment area and they are considering a zone change. What effect would this have on the area? Mr. Thompson believed the Commission received a report from Mr. Yamasaki, Economic Development. It is their opinion that a use of this nature would not be in keeping with the redevelopment plan being proposed. ~ ~r • .. Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 23 Commissioner Scott was handed a copy of Mr. Yamasaki's report. Commissioner Hart had a problem with the Negative Declaration clause in the application. The 8 acre auto wrecking yard must have some kind of impact on the environment. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to not accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board, but to deny Negative Declaration 1183. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart quoted Redevelopment's evaluation #16, "the project area boundaries were selected based on the city's desire to revitalize and upgrade the industrial zoned properties. The intent is to promote an aesthetic and environmental improvements, economic development and improvements to infrastructures to remove or rehabilitate blighting influences." He stated this type of operation would be in direct contradiction to that statement. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 1637. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. McGee mentioned there is a 15 day appeal period on the above action. Unless appealed within that time period, the action is final. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1638 - DON WILSON DEVELOPMENT (BATAVIA PALMS BUSINESS CENTER): Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow office uses in the M-1 zone on property located on the west side of Batavia Street between Grove Avenue and Fletcher Avenue, addressed 2324 North Batavia Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1184 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. r v ~ 1 ` V ,, -,• Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1987 - Page 24 Allan Dibartma, Don Wilson Development, 2324 North Batavia, gave the Commission a brief history of the project. The park was completed in June, 198?. It is an industrial multi-tenant park with one owner. It is not a condo project. When they filed for the shell permits, they also filed about 50°K of the unit build out. Some of those were indicated in black on the exhibit attached to the wall. Additional build outs were completed (75X of the park) and then they submitted for two large units or three tenants together. In those particular uses, a high office build out was required. At that time the Planning Department informed them that in order to build that high percentage of office, a conditional use permit would be required. At the same time, because they were submitting for those particular locations, they decided to go with the rest of the park and submit the suites where they would be over the 25~ allotment for industrial zone. The total square footage has been calculated of the office and the parking required for it. Staff has provided a different analysis requiring 36,431 square feet to be noted as office; therefore, parking required is 223. Their reasons for calculating it this way is in any case where greater than 25X of the suite has an office build out - meaning drop ceiling, air conditioning, carpeting or electrical - they considered the entire space to be office build out. That is why staff's office use is much higher than theirs. He asked if the Commission would consider their method of calculating the space of office vs. warehouse and the parking requirement calculated on that breakdown. Commissioner Hart directed a question to Mr. McGee in reference to if a building is used more than 25X for offices, then the whole building is deemed to be office? Mr. McGee stated what they interpreted for this specific case is each of the rentable leased areas. If it is more than 25~, we would consider that particular unit. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Greek made reference to one statement in the staff report regarding one area of surplus parking. Commissioner Bosch said it seems like the enforcement problem exists either way. The City seems to have a different application to multi-tenant industrial development than there is for single tenant industrial development. The City should be more equitable in that application. The single tenant ones are obvious easier to please. He feels that although it is subject to abuse, one would hope the abuse is relatively limited and the City would want to encourage that the industrial area breeds industrial support uses which may be a bit heavier in personnel than they are in parts from time to time. •. ~':y ~ Planning Commission Minutes - December 7, 1987 - Page 25 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, 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 1184. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch,, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1638 subject to the conditions of approval #1 - #3 in the staff report. AYE5: .Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Greek asked the applicant if he saw a problem with the condition? The applicant has problems with the deed restriction, Condition #1. They do not see any need for the deed restriction as it is cumbersome upon them to file to maintain, as well as in the future to transfer the property. They are willing to abide by the other restrictions, but are asking the Commission to strike the requirement for a deed restriction from the conditional use permit. Commissioner Hart stated a deed restriction would not make a bit of difference. Mr. Minshew stated the concern is with another purchaser who will not feel obliged to carry through with the original deal. This way he has constructive notice. Commissioner Scott asked if the conditional use permit could be revoked if the conditions are violated? Mr. Minshew told them the argument will be "I didn't have knowledge; I took over the property and I wasn't told about this." The condition is far the City's benefit. It runs with the land as long as the structure is there. IN RE: , ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission adjourn to December 14, 1987, 5:00 p.m., for a study session on land use and parking; then adjourn to December 15, 1987, for a joint meeting with the City Council/Planning Commission to discuss the ?,500 acre general plan amendment; and in the future the Planning Commission will meet .regularly at 7:00 p.m. instead of ?:30 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is December 21, 198?. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. /sld