Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/4/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange December 4, 1989 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Minutes of November 20, 1989 be approved as corrected: Page 3, paragraph 3, second sentence changed to read: "They discussed lots with slopes in excess of 5 feet, but distance was not clarified and it should be." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS Chairman Bosch was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Hart conducted the hearing. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14054, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1796-89, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 40-89 - PULTE HOME CORPORATION: A Tentative Tract Map application to allow the subdivision of one 11 acre parcel of land into 147 attached single family condominium units, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the creation of lots without frontage on a public street, and an Administrative Adjustment to allow a one-foot reduction in garage parking space width. Project is located northeast of the intersection of White Oak Ridge and Canyon View Avenue, and is also known as Lot 18 of Tract 12417, Santiago Hills. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1321-89 has been prepared for this project. There was no public opposition and a staff report was not presented. Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 1989 - Page 2 The public hearing was opened. Applicant Craig Johnson, President of Pulte Home Corporation, 3822 Vista Blanca, San Clemente, introduced their project. and the project manager pointed out its features on the wall exhibits. The project is located on the northeast corner of White Oak Ridge Road and Canyon View. They are proposing 147 units on 11 acres of land. This falls below the allowable use of the parcel in that 165 units could have been planned. The units will be two story over a partially tucked under garage and will be grouped in building clusters of 5, 6 or 8 units surrounding an auto court. The main entry to the units will be off a greenbelt on the opposite side of the auto court. Garages will not be visible from the street. The project will be beautifully landscaped with greenbelt areas, meandering walks, community pool and spa, two tot lot play areas and a terrace fountain entry way. The auto courts will be landscaped. A fountain will be provided in each auto court. The project has been well planned for parking. They have provided 66 guest spaces, which exceeds the required 29 spaces by 37 spaces. They have also provided two car garage parking for each unit, which exceeds the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan requirement. In terms of noise, they conducted a study and provide the following mitigation: A 6 to 6 1/2 foot perimeter wall will be provided along Canyon View to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. The balconies that are impacted by directly facing on Canyon View Road will be constructed with a 5 1/2 foot combination wall and 1/4 inch glass to meet the same 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. The buildings all meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard through the inclusion of air conditioning. Commissioner Greek requested more specific details. When talking about a 6 1/2 foot wall along Canyon View, where can he look at a plan to get a feeling for where it is so that he can understand it. Do any of the plans show that wall? (The plans were included in the Noise Package, Exhibit 2, after Page 4.) Commissioner Greek requested an extra copy because he did not get one. Jess Harris, Land Plan Design Group, 34 Executive Park, Irvine, said there was a perimeter wall around three sides of the development with an open view fence along the trail way. The perimeter wall matches the standard throughout the community and is designed roughly between 6 and 6 1/2 feet. It is located on the perimeter of the site at the top of the slope. There is a landscaped parkway which varies in width that is being provided by the master developer in conformance with the overall Specific Plan. The wall is to create a boundary or edge for the development. Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 1989 - Page 3 Commissioner Greek asked which one was the site plan. Mr. Harris pointed out the site plan and said it looks like a 30 foot minimum distance between the back of curb of the street, Canyon View, and the perimeter wall. Then, a minimum distance of 20 feet to the building setback for a total of 50 feet from curb to building. If you look closely at the plan, there is a slope that curves about for half the distance of Canyon View from the west portion to the central portion. Then it levels out with the parkway. Commissioner Greek questioned the slope shown on the site plan? Are they to assume it does not exist? Mr. Harris said the site plan is identifying a slope on the western portion. That would occur within the parkway. But the actual wall would be on the top of the slope. Essentially, when you're inside the development, the wall would be measured from that height. Commissioner Greek had concerns because the top of slope was not consistent. There were no dimensions for the wall from setback nor from the property line. It's a guessing game. He would like to see some dimensions. Roger Wilcox, Keith Companies, 200 Baker Street, Costa Mesa, explained the top of slope shown along Canyon View Avenue (western portion towards White Oak Ridge) will remain. With the on site grading towards Old Camp Road, it will bring the elevation to join in at the property line elevation. At that point there will not be a wall at the top of slope; it will be at parkway elevation. They will not do any grading within the public right-of-way. Commissioner Greek referred to the grading plan. It shows a top of curb of 48.2. What is the property line grade? (approximately 49) What will the top of the wall be at that point? (55 1/2) So you will have 6 feet on the low side? (yes) At that point the finished side will be approximately 4 feet above that. You're going to end up having a wall. that is 2 1/2 feet above the finished floor. He was trying to figure out. the plan and wished for more complete information in order to determine the proposed grades/existing grades. Commissioner Hart expressed the concern that at some points the wall only appears to be about 2 feet high. Commissioner Greek still would like detailed information (i.e., location of the wall with some dimensions on it, maybe a few grades) to stay away from some problems that already exist out there. Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 1989 - Page 4 Mr. Wilcox and Commissioner Greek discussed grades, elevations, height of the walls and finished floor area because of the overall elevation in relation to the street scape. Mr. Johnson would be happy to provide detailed drawings of the height minimums on the inside walls and would work with staff on the cross sections. Their intention is to have the wall work at 6 to 6 1/2 feet all the way around the perimeter where it exists as a closed wall. Commissioner Greek was having trouble matching the architectural plans of elevations with the grading plan. The detailed plan indicates a garage elevation of 9 feet. The grading plan shows 7 feet. Each pad shows a finished floor elevation. They looked at the conceptual grading plan and discussed the drawing as it related to finished grade and garage height. Commissioner Scott referred to Page 7, Project Determination, Item 2, CC&R's shall state that all garages must be maintained so that two cars can be parked within the garage at all times - he assumed the homeowner's association would enforce this condition. Item 6, There shall be "No Parking Anytime - Tow Away" restrictions on the Old Camp Road cul-de-sac as required by the Traffic Engineering Division - assumed this would be a police action. He wanted it put with the CC&R's if possible. It was a dedicated street so it could not be part of the CC&R's. Item 10, Decorative paving shall be used in the auto courts - he assumed they were private streets. Regarding easements, if anyone had to go in and tear it up, they should not be required to replace with decorative paving. Initial cost is reasonable, but if a gas or water line needed to be replaced, it would escalate dramatically to replace the decorative paving. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master was not sure how they could condition the wall. Commissioner Greek referred to Condition 17, but he was not sure if that was what the applicant was intending to put in. Mr. Johnson had anticipated that the conditions would be addressed through Design Review. Commissioner Greek was concerned with the wall where you can step into the back yards (it already exists; it's an error in the design they approved) and the elevation of_ the building adjacent to the roadways. He has a problem figuring out the roof line elevations. He cannot tell from the documents he has, nor can he understand it. Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 1989 - Page 5 Commissioner Hart stated restrictions could be placed in the motion as to what the maximum height should be above the top of the curb. Dimensions of the project were stated pertaining to the roof height and elevations. The average overall height on the visible side of the street is 23 feet 10 inches. Ms. Wolff explained the way the height is measured by the zoning code is the average height between the deck line and peak of the r oof . Commissioner Greek asked if the applicant could live with a condition that the roof line be no higher than 35 feet above the top of curb and measured perpendicular to the roof line. The applicant is willing to accept that condition as a requirement for approval. Commissioner Hart asked about the concern of the block wall; that it be consistently 6 feet high rather than dropping down. The question is the height from where? From the high grade side. Ms. Wolff pointed out a memo was attached to the noise study, dated November 29, 1989. There were three additional conditions included: (1) relates to the height of the wall and ties it into the noise study. Staff's recommendation is that it comply with the noise mitigation conditions. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission accepts the findings of the Environmental Review Board that EIR 868 has been certified for Master Tract 12417 and has addressed the potential impacts of the project, and that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment and file Negative Declaration 1321-89. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master asked if both conditions 17 and 19 were required? Commissioner Greek felt if both were left in, it would take care of the perimeter along the horse trails {security fencing) and the other for sound barriers. Fencing was for two different functions. Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 1989 - Page 6 IN RE: Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 14054, Conditional Use Permit 1796-89 and Administrative Adjustment 89-40, with the revisions to the conditions under 17 - perimeter fencing shall be of a non-climbable design, minimum 6 feet in height above highest grade, and the added conditions 19, 20 and 21 from the memorandum regarding noise analysis, pertaining to the Tentative Tract. Also, add a condition that the roof line shall not be higher than 35 feet from top of curb, measured at a right angle from the building opposite the curb along Canyon View and White Oak. And, under condition 10 - any decorative paving replacement shall be borne by the homeowner's association. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek, Hart, Master, Scott Bosch MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek asked about bonding requirements? Gary Johnson addressed not have a bond cover dedicated to the City. occupancy until those the land will make t not be that much value. the issue of bonds. The City would any improvements that were not to be Basically, they hold units back for improvements are made. The value of hose units get built. The bond would Commissioner Greek was concerned that the units are not stranded and that the City does not have any liability from an incomplete project. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Wolff added one additional item. At the last Planning Commission meeting, November 20, 1989, the Commissioners took action on the Grading Ordinance. At that time, the Negative Declaration was reviewed, but a vote was not taken. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1286-89 (regarding the Grading Ordinance). AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Greek, Hart, Master, Scott Bosch MOTION CARRIED A study session will be held December 11, 1989 concerning the former Santiago Golf Course site. Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 1989 - Page 7 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission attend the study session, December 11, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the former Santiago Golf Course site. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED The Commission requested staff to make an oral presentation. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT There would not be a quorum at the regular meeting of December 18, 1989; therefore, it is rescheduled for December 27, 1989. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission adjourn to the meeting of December 27, 1989, 6:30 p.m. study session; 7:00 p.m. regular meeting. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. /sld