Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/21/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 21, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Master STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Commissioner Coontz asked for a correction to paragraph 6 of page 12, stating: "However, the plan must be looked at in light of its needs." She asked that the following be inserted at this point in the paragraph: "The East Orange Plan did not include a circulation plan and its effect on land use. Crawford Canyon extension was referred to, but negatively, as being a regional problem to be solved regionally." Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the minutes of December 7, 1981, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1171, VARIANCE 1671 - STP,TE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY c/o CASTILLO: Request to allow construction of a one-story office structure and damage inspection station for driveable vehicles on a site of less than 5 acres in the M-2 District at the southeast corner of Taft Avenue and Case Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 743 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to permit the construction of a one-story office structure and property damage inspection station for driveable vehicles in the M-2 zone. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to build on less than a 5 acre site. Mr. Lanz explained that this property contains 2.01 acres of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Taft Avenue and Case Street. The property has approximately 339 feet of frontage on Taft Avenue and approximately 260 feet of frontage on Case Street. It is presently a vacant parcel of land in the P1-2 (Industrial) District. He pointed out that the applicant requests approval of Conditional Use Permit 1171 in order to construct a one-story office building with a 3 bay dri ve-through inspecti on faci 1 i ty i n an i ndustrial zone, and Variance 1671 in order to construct the office building on less than five contiguous acres. ,~ Mr. Lanz further pointed out to the Commission that the Planning Commission, on a number of occasions, has permitted office-professional bui 1 di ngs to be cons tructed on parcel s of 1 ess than 5 contiguous acres in the M-1 and M-2 (Industrial) zones. He explained that Taft Avenue serves as a "window street" to the industrial area and that the site is adjacent to uns~creened storage yards on the east and south which are quite visible from Taft Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes December 21 , 1981 Page Two AYES NOES: ABSENT: AYES NOES: ABSENT: Mr. Lanz said that the Staff has reviewed this proposal and found that it was technically acceptable, explaining that there will be 92 parking spaces in this project, which is twice the amount that the code requires . Staff recommends. that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 743. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1171 and Vari ance 1671 for five reasons 1. That similar office uses have been granted on arterial streets in the industrial zone. 2. That the applicant's proposal is compatible with the existing zoning and uses. 3. That development and finished landscaping required on this site will screen surrounding non-aesthetic industrial uses as viewed from Taft Avenue. 4. That the applicant's proposal meets all the development requirements as specified by the Ci ty of Orange. 5. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the City of Orange General Plan. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1171 and Vari ance 1671 with the 17 conditions 1 i sted i n the Staff Report. Commissioner Mickelson opened the public hearing. Dorian Fortney, representing State Farm Insurance Company, 4653 S, Lake Shore Drive, Tempe, Arizona, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he had nothing to add to the Staff's presentation and that State Farm accepted the conditions set forth in the Staff Report, There being no one to speak for or against this application, the Chairman cl osed the public hearing . Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 743. Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner h1as ter MOTION CARRIED Proved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1171 and Variance 1671, for the reasons stated by Staff and to include the 17 conditions which are listed in the Staff Report. Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Master MOTION CP.RRI ED O Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1981 Page Three ZONE CHANGE 958 - SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL: Request to rezone property from RM-7, OP and P-1 to PI on the north side of Columbia Place for a 644± foot reach starting 123± feet easterly of Main Street and on the west side of Bush Street for a 212± foot reach south of Columbia Place. (Note: Negative Declaration 735, in connection with General Plan Amendment, Land Use Element 3-81A, is incorporated by reference for this project.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 2.2+ acres of land and is located on the north side of Columbia Place, starting 123+ feet easterly of Main Street and extending southerly of Columbia Place for a 212+ foot reach along the west side of Bush Street. The property is vacant except for the southerly half of the Bush Street reach, which is zoned P-~ and is a developed parking lot for the medical office building at 363 South Main Street. The remaining Bush Street property is zoned OP and the Columbia Place property is zoned RM-7. Mr. Murphy explained that Columbia Place is improved to a 50 foot ultimate width and Bush Street is improved to a 60 foot ultimate ~ width. The applicant requests rezoning to P-I to permit the develop- ment of a parking structure on the site. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff has raised three concerns during the time of the proposal of this application, which has been reviewed now by Staff on several occasions. These three concerns are: 1. The precise portions of Columbia Place and Bush Street to be abandoned. 2. Vehicular traffi c related to uses north of the parking structure. 3. General circulation related to the parking structure in terms of the locations of access points, as well as the questi ons regarding the ultimate abandonment of Col umbi a Place and people who might get involved in approaching the parking structure who do not really intend to utilize i t. Mr. Murphy said that the Staff has met on a couple of occasions with the representati ves of Saint Joseph Hospital and feel that some of the questions raised iin the origina'~l Staff Report are being worked on satisfactorily by the consultants for Saint Joseph Hospital. Mr. Murphy further explained that the Staff had listed several concerns in a memorandum to Robyn Ravgiala, the representative at St. Joseph Hospital and feels that rather than using the Resolution of Intent that the Staff would recommend approval of the zone change with the satisfyi ng of those five basic concerns 1 i sted i n the aforementioned memorandum, to take place prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the parking structure. He said that the biggest concern at this time is regarding the matter of the comprehensive analysis of parking for the entire complex, in that they have always tried to deal with the hospital campus as a single entity, i ncl udi ng the uses of St. Joseph , Chi 1 dren's Hospital , Providence and the medical offices within the general area. O Planning Commission Minutes December 21 , 1981 Page Four Commissioner Coontz pointed out that in the switch from a Resolution of Intent to the new recommendations, the five items listed in the Staff Report are different than the five items listed in the December 17th memorandum. Staff has also asked for a comprehensive analysis of the parking plan. She asked whether these 10 points altogether are what Staff is asking clarification for. Mr. Murphy replied that the Staff is basically asking for a clarification of the five points listed in the December 17th memo. As a part of that, Items 4 and 5 address both parking layout of a permanent nature for all of the uses proposed at this time on the campus, as well as a contingency parking plan for St. Joseph Hospital on a comprehensive basis. He explained that those two items were what he was attempting to expand upon in the items listed in the Staff Report. U Chairman Mickelson questioned Finding #10, asking whether this is in keeping with the recently adopted plan. Mr. Murphy answered in the affirmative. Chairman Mickelson then questioned Staff's concern regarding off-site parking and the possible expiring of the lease be- fore the on-site parking is ready. hir. ~1urphy explained that the contingency plan is basically the plan that will be utilized if the parking structure is not completed within the time when the six-story building, which is the next large building planned on the campus, is completed. The contingency parking plan would provide parking for that six-story building. Chairman Mickelson then spoke to the first concern Staff had in their initial Staff Report which had suggested the Intent to Rezone procedure, after it is confirmed that General Plan Amendment 3-81 is satisfactorily adopted, wondering if they could take the attitude that the Commission has recommended approval on that and, therefore, they could proceed with'. the Zone Change, on the assumption that if the Council takes a different position on the Land Use Element that they would perhaps send the Zone Change back to the Commission for reconsideration. Mr. P•1urphy explained that the Council has acted upon the General Plan Amendment just recently. Ch airman Mickel son then asked if the hospital has power of eminent domain and he was told that they do. Mr. Minshew explained further on this question. Chairman Mickelson then opened the public hearing. John C. Goldthorpe, Administrator of St. Joseph Hospital, 1100 West Stewart Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he was available for questions from the Commissioner members. Commissioner Coontz asked a question regarding the comprehensive parking plan for the hospital, asking for clarifica- tion on Items #4 and 5 from the Staff's latest memorandum. Mr. Goldthorpe stated that their master parking plan covers this pretty thoroughly. He explained that Mr. Dennis, the Traffic Engineer, has a copy of their plan. Mr. Murphy explained what this plan covers. He also explained that Staff is also interested in seeing a series of numbers that identify the parking lot and the parking spaces and also wanted to see a basic plan of those parking lots arrd know, in fact, that they could hold that number of parking spaces and what type of parking spaces they were. They would 1 ike to see a drawing or plot plan. Mr. Goldthorpe assured the Commission that this would be available. There being no one else to sneak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. O Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1981 Page Five Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend approval of Zone Change 958, for the reasons that (1) the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding 1 and use and zoning; and (2) the proposed zoning is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The Zone Change to encompass the five conditions listed in the Staff Report, plus the five concerns listed in the memorandum of December 17, 1981, with special emphasis on a comprehensive analys i s of the parking 1 ayout for the entire complex of non-profit ins ti tuti ons ; and that the conditions and concerns listed be resolved prior to the issuance of grading or b ui 1 di ng permits . Commissioner Hart wondered about stating conditions fora Zone Change. He thought that this would be setting a precedent and he didn't feel that i t is necessary to ti e the conditions i n with a Zone Change. Commissioner Coontz thought that they could be called concerns instead of conditions. Mr. Minshew thought that Zone Changes are not conditioned and what this was supposed to do was to set up a Resolution of Intent to Rezone. Commissioner Hart asked if Commissioner Coontz would accept a Resolution of Intent to Rezone and she replied that she thought the word "concerns" could be used instead of "conditions", a resolution stating the ten concerns, with special emphasis on a comprehensive analysis of the parking layout, etc. as she had stated in her motion previously, and that these items be resolved prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Goldthorpe if the major concerns listed by Staff could be resolved by the time this matter appears before the City Counci 1 . Mr. Gol dthorpe replied that they find the conditions reasonable and intend to comply with them. His only concern was with the timing. Chairman Mickelson explained about the conditioning and a Zone Change, pointing out what the Intent to Rezone does for the City. Commissioner Hart felt that there is no problem here because the Staff has total control, since they issue the building permit. Commissioner Coontz pointed out also that this is a recommendation to the City Counci 1 and they wil 1 carry i t forward from here. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master P10TION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 959, TENTATIVE TRACT 11704, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1172 - BARRATT IRVINE: Request to rezone property from RD-8 to RM-7 to allow development of a 189 unit Planned Unit Development at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Batavia Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 744 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to (1) rezone the subject property from RD-8 to RM-7 (Residential Multiple-Family District); and (2) allow develop- ment of 189 unit planned unit development. This property is an i rr.egul ar shaped side containing 14.7+ net acres of 1 and 1 ocated along the eastern edge of the Santa Ana River at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Batavia Street. It is vacant and is i n the RD-8 (Res identi al Duplex) zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes December 21 , 1981 Page Six ~ Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant requests a zone change from R-D-8 (Residential Dupl ex) district to R-M-7 (Residenti al Multiple-Family) district and approval of a Conditional Use Permit 1172 and Tentative Tract hlap 11704 to allow a 189 unit Planned Unit Development. He pointed out that General Plan Amendment 1-77 "B" was approved by the City on November 8, 1977 designating the site for Medium Density Residential (6-15 DU/AC) development. On January 9, 1979 the City Council approved Tentative Tract 10539, Pre-Zone Change 884, Con- ditional Use Permit 930, and Environmental Impact Report 508 allowing a pre-zoning of land to R-D-8 fora 207 unit (1 and 2 story designs with 2 to 4 bedrooms) Planned Unit Development, with a densi ty of 7.11 DU/AC; all subject to annexation. About 99 units , as approved, exist on the southern portion of the site. The present appl ication is for the remainder of the former site. On May 15, 1979 the City Council approved Annexation 328 containing the subject property. The applicant is now proposing the use of a "zero lot line" concept with the common wall of the attached "town home" structure located over the lot line. The buyer owns the lot on which the structure is located; a homeow ner association maintains common areas. It is proposed to develop Tract 11704 in eight phases, starting at the north end of the tract i n June 1982 and ending December 1983. The tract ingress and egress from two 50 foot wide entrances is proposed from Batavia Street. There is no access from Lincoln Avenue. The northern entrance is located 240 feet south of Dunton Avenue and the southern entrance is located opposite Westway Avenue. Mr. Murphy explained that the project which was previously built and this project will be separated from each other. The Staff has reviewed the request and points out that: 1. Access to the adjacent Santa Ana River Green Belt Trail be approved by the Orange County Mater District. 2. That a wall or fence will be installed along the western edge of the site. e. That the project is feasible. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 744. Staff feels that the proposed development is acceptable and recom- mends approval of Zone Change 959, Conditional Use Permit 1172 and Tentative Tract 11704 for the reasons that: 1. That the zone change and proposal are consistent with the Land Use El ement of the General P1 an. 2. That the proposal meets the development standards contained in Chapter 17.82 of the Orange Municipal Code relating to Planned Unit Developments . 3. That the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zo ni ng . Approval is recommended subject to 24 conditions listed for the Condi tional Use Permit and 14 condi tions 1 fisted for the Tentative Tract. O Planning Commission Minutes December 21 , 1981 Page Seven ~~ L Mr. Murphy explained that there should be a modi fi cati on of Condition #20 in the Staff Report for the reason that the existing project already has an existing wall which Staff feels would be appropriate to extend, thereby maintaining continuity of the two projects. Commissioner Coontz asked for further clarification of the modification of Condition #20 and Mr. Murphy explained this in greater detail. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Dennis Chiniaeff, 17752 Sky park Circle, Irvine, representing Barratt Irvine, the applicant, addressed the Commission i n favor of this application. He explained with regard to the existing project, called River Trail, which consists of 100 units. About 65 units have already been constructed and about 36 units remain to be constructed to complete this tract. They have decided to modify the second tract to 189 from the original 187. The existing project is a patio single-family home project and the suggested project is a town-house concept. The units planned will be both one and two story. They are planning this development to integrate into the area and not create conflict with other properties already there. He explained that emergency access is being designed in such a way that police and fire departments will have a key allowing only their department to use this access. He said that they have no problem with any of the condi tions. Randy Holbrook, 1042 W. Oregon Trail, Orange, addressed the Com- mission, stating that he lives in the first development and had a concern as to whether this new development will be low cost housing and what this would do to his property value. He was also concerned with the reduction i n the units and what thi s woul d do to the home- owners' associatio-n in the cost of maintenance of the premises. Chairman Mickelson asked if this would be one homeowners' association ultimately. Mr. Chiniaeff explained that the intention is to have two separate homeowners' associations, one for each project. They have done a revised budget and fees will be going down. With regard to low cost housing, the project is not intended to be a low cost project, although the units are smaller than the first project. H e explained that this is a different type of unit than the first units . However, he did not feel that thi s would have any effect on the first project. Shelley Holbrook, 1042 UJ. Oregon Trail, Orange, addressed the Com- mission, wondering whether these would be family units or adult oriented. The answer was that they would be family and adult, with two separate recreational areas. There being no one else to speak for or against this appl ication, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 744. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 21 , 1981 Page Ei gh t Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve Zone Change 959, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report. AY ES : Commissioners Mickel son, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend approval of Tentative Tract 11704 and Conditional Use Permit 1172, subject to the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet and the 23 conditions as shown on the Staff Report, deleting Condi ti on # 20 . AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz stated that about three years ago, when this came up before the Commission, she mentioned that there was an appeal on the original sa 1 e from S . A.V . I . and i t i s s ti 11 sitting in the Circuit Court of Appeals. It is probably due to come fairly soon, since it has been there so long. Commissioner Hart said that he assumed that there must be an insurance policy covering these properties. He also pointed out a letter from the School District and wondered whether they are getting school money from the developers. Mr. Murphy explained that the City has not gotten directly involved in the matter of the developers' discussions wi th the School District about School District problems . Therefore, th ey are not aware of the discussions . There was further discussion among the Commissions with regard to this property and previous problems. Commissioner Hart asked the developer what their relationship is with Orange Unified School District and Mr. Chiniaeff explained that the original approval with the previous developers required them to enter into an agree- ment with the School District to pay school fee premiums . I n their conversations with the School District, they have agreed to honor that previous agreement. They will be paying additional fees for their additional units. He thought that the fee is about $355 per uni t. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISED LAMPLIGHTER TENANT RELOCATION PLAN ON JANUARY 18, 1982. Ch airman Mickelson explained why there was a request to set thi s matter for the January 18, 1982 Commission meeting. He suggested that this be accepted and placed first on the agenda at that time. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the Commission might need some study session time on this matter. Chairman Mickelson thought that if copies could be sent to the Commissioners prior to the January 4, 1982 meeting, they could make a decision at that time. Moved by Chairman Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to direct Staff to set this hearing at the regular Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 1982 and place it first on the agenda. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ~, ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1981 Page Nine °~ Commissioner Coontz brought up that in the S t. Joseph Hospital proposal reference was made to the applicant bei ng assessed 1 of the estimated construction cost at building permit issuance for the transportation system improvement district. She pointed out the Commissioners had all been in favor of this, but she didn't think they had been informed as to what i t encompasses . Chairman Mickelson explained that he had happened to be at a recent Santa Ana City Counci 1 meeting by acci dent when the traffic consultant was maki ng a presentati on to the City Council . The same traffic consultant 1 ater made a pres~entati on to the Orange City Council. However, the committee has yet to have a meeting. He has requested that they be invited to one of these meetings . Mr. Murphy suggested that the Traffic Engineer could give a short report to the Commission in this regard. This was agreed to by the Commission members. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, January 4, 1982, at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California . C ~s~ ,_~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNP~ENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on December 21, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on December 22, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of December 21, ]981 was held. L~~ EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 21, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners P~ickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Master Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that this meeting adjourn at 8:35 p.m. on Monday, December 21, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. P~onday, January 4, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, December 21, 1981. Dated this 22nd day of December, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. Jer P. Murphy, City P I annex' and Se etary to the Planning Commission the City of Orange . •