Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/1/1986 - Minutes PCt City of Orange Orange, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 1, 1986 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.in. PRESENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Associate Planner and Acting Commission Secretary; Ed Gala, Assistant Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 1986 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of November 17, 1986, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1063, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1553, VARIANCE 1804 - DOPP AND CURL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Request for a change of zone from RD-6 and RM-7 to RD-6 P (Residential Duplex/Parking Overlay) (.for a portion of the site), a conditional use permit to allow increased building height, and a variance to allow reduced setbacks for a 22,725 square foot parcel located on the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Citrus Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1105 has been prepared for this project. Mr. McGee presented the staff report. The request is to allow the develop- ment of a 21Z story medical office structure. A site plan was referred to during the presentation, illustrating the proposal. A structure with two office levels above parking is what is proposed. The parking will be partially depressed below grade, with parking to the rear. The parking would be on the currently residentially zoned property. The need for the zone change is to allow a parking overlay to permit that parking on that piece of property. The building, as proposed, is approximately 38 feet tall, which includes some equipment enclosures, skylights, etc. The ordinance permits structures of 30 feet or two story maximum in height within 120 feet of a residential zone. Therefore, it does exceed the maximum height at that location by about eight feet. The variance requests are for Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1986 Page 2. setbacks along Citrus Street. The parking and structure of the parking encroaches within the required ten foot setback approximately 2~ feet. The residential parking overlay portion of the property requires. a 15 foot setback. This proposal indicates a 7~ foot setback landscaped -- a reduction from what is required by ordinance. Staff is recommending approval on all of the applications. The reasons for those recommendations and conditions of approval are listed as follows: Zone Change:. 1. That the Parking Overlay designation applied to the subject property will maintain compatibility with surrounding residential development. 2. That the proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 3. That the proposed zoning will not allow commercial development within close proximity to residential land uses. Variance: 1. That because of the subject property's configuration, strict appli- cation of the zoning ordinance will significantly restrict the development opportunities of the subject property and deprive said property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 2. That granting of the variances will not reduce property values or cause general deterioration of the adjacent residential and commercial parcels. Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposal is consistent with the surrounding land use and zoning. The requested building height is similar to other development in the area. 2. The proposal will not cause deterioration of surrounding land uses or create special problems for the area. Commissioner Master questioned the zone change from R-D~6 and R-M-7 to RD-6P (Residential Duplex Parking Overlay), does that preclude anything else taking place other than by a zone change? Mr. McGee explained with the RD=6P zone designation in place, it would allow all of the uses within a residential duplex zone residential uses and parking in conjunction with an adjacent commercial use parking only. The public hearing was opened. Jack Selman, Architects Orange, 144 N. Orange Street, applicant for the project, realizes the Planning Commission is not fond of granting variances '~ "just because" and there should be good reasons for it. One reason for the variance would be size and topography of the property. This property Planning December Page. 3. Commission Minutes 1, 1986 is very narrow along the Chapman frontage and it has an unusual. condition in that there is a 13 foot curb to property line city right-of-way. Other property surrounding the project are more like 10 feet. The 7~ foot that is proposed, in addition to the 13 feet, will have the same sidewalk as everywhere else. The question.- is this property being deprived of the privileges enjoyed by others - the answer is definitely yes. The property across the street (Higgins) is zero, two or three blocks up is zero -- probably 50% from Main to the Circle are zero; some five feet setbacks. They will also be meeting the landscape requirement. The height variance (two story 30 foot height limit) -- many buildings along the street go from 32 to 36 feet. Generally, a 36 - 38 foot building would be a two story building with a peak roof. This building is 2~ stories, but has a flat roof. The proposal is 128 feet away from the rear property line. The residential zone is midway through the property. It will have 128 feet of buffer area between the building and the residential structure. The parking overlay is actually in the residential zone. Pictures of the. property were given to the Commission, showing the setbacks, property in the area, and parking. The project is going to help that area. It is a medical use and will be a high quality building. The landscaping will also add and help that area as it redevelops. Those speaking in favor of the project: Craig Curl, 1717 S. St. College, Anaheim, feels this is an excellent product and will enhance the beauty and character of the West Chapman area. They have tried to buffer the residential units with the parking facility in the rear of the building, A large Magnolia tree that exists now will remain with landscaping surrounding it. Jeff Crussell, 1818 W. Chapman, Suite B, owns a piece of property south of the project at 176 South Citrus. The existing property is a menace to the neighborhood and.. the parking area is a haven for abandoned parked cars in the neighborhood. Ts very concerned about the area and is in favor of the proposed variances, but has a couple of problems with. the overall location of the building on its local site. The building needs to be shifted over six inches to afoot to the extreme east to achieve some type of buffering between the property line and the building. Those speaking in opposition of the project: Jim Fasbender, 1020 West Chapman, property owner on West Chapman located immediately west of the proposed project. Planning Commissioners received his letter in the mail. He summarized and read his reasons the zone change, variance and conditional use permit should be denied-believing it would be detrimental to his property. Refugio Sanchez, 131 North Citrus, concerned about the parking problems in the area. Mr. Selman added a couple of comments. The building is being developed for a group of doctors; it's not a speculative building. There is a need for it and there is very little property available to do this. There are at least 12 other buildings within a 15 block area. having zero setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1986 Page 4. Five cars per 1,000 square feet is being allowed for the parking, which is a medical requirement which is higher than the normal four. Doctors going into the building do rotate their shifts and they were concerned about providing five because they don't believe they will need five. They will be there on alternate days. Ample parking is provided. The area immediately adjacent to the residential is going to be better off than now. Commissioner Hart stated the request for a variance must be accompanied by a hardship and wanted to know Mr, Selman's reason.. Mr. Selman understood a variance should be granted when the strict appli- cation of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of .privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. They would be forced to do something no one else. is being made to do. There will be an overall 25 foot setback. A unique situation exists on the property. Commissioner Hart stated those buildings that were mentioned were of non-conforming uses. Mr. Selman pointed out variances were granted along Chapman Avenue for various setback issues. Chairman Greek asked what would happen if the building were moved back 72 feet to get the required front yard setback? Mr. Selman said they were not asking for a setback on Chapman. They are providing the required 10 feet. The 10 foot setback requirement along Chapman is being complied with. They are dedicating an additional two feet of street right away. Mr. McGee clarified that the front yard is within the RD-6-P zone (existing residential lot). The only variances requested are for the setbacks on Citrus. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Greek wanted to know the status of the motorcycle store side yard. Commissioner Hart said that building caused a lot of problems. The Commission turned that down twice and the Council overruled the Commission. Basically it was the same situation. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1105. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The. Commission discussed their concerns about the variance, width of the. building, setbacks and parking. The problem centers around the 10 foot sideyard setback that was established by law. The Commission continually Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1986 Page 5. asked to change or grant variances for things developed by the developer. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission deny Variance 1804 without prejudice. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Greek asked if the variance were denied and the zone change and conditional use permit were approved, would that be a sign to the applicant or what? Mr. McGee said that indicated the Commission would permit a use if it met all of the other requirements other than what the conditional use permit is approving - the height of the building. Commissioner Hart asked the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Selman stated they have-done many site plans on the property because it is small. Parking configuration needed to be taken into consideration. Discussion ensued on parking ratios, compact spaces, standard car parking spaces and Mr. Selman stated 18 and 25 would work. Mr. McGee explained the standard car parking stall size is 9 x 20. Standard .parking spaces require a 25 foot back out turn radius. Compact size is 8 x 16 with a 21 foot back out space. Those stall sizes are uniform regardless of where they are located. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission deny Zone Change 1063 and Conditional Use Permit 1553 without prejudice. AYES: Commissioners-Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart pointed out to the. developer it's a technical vote because of the fact that without the building the .zone change would not be acceptable. Hopes the developer can work on a'.p.lan that .will fit the lot. Commissioner Scott concurs; it would be a nice development and a tremendous addition to West Chapman. Mr. P4cGee said this was a final action unless appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Greek wanted to know what condition Item ~~10 was under the conditional use permit. Mr. McGee said that condition addresses a future reciprocal access. Staff ~ feels it would be beneficial to both properties to provide some tie between the two. The other property may need access out through the rear. Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1986 Page 6. N RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 6-86: Proposed amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance changing the titles of the multiple family residential zones from RD, RM, and RMM to R-2, R-3, and R-4; and amending the procedure for approval of additional height in specified situations within the duplex zones. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1106 has been prepared for this project. As no one was opposed to this item, a staff report was not presented. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1106. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Masten, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 6-86 for the reasons listed. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None PZOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-268 - SUUTHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT: Proposed subdivision of 240+ acres located east of Meats Avenue, west of future Loma Street and adjacent to the Southern California Edison easement, into two parcels. Mr. Johnson explained the intent of the parcel map submittal is to split the parcel into two parcels. This parcel overlays on the approved Tentative Tract 12082. The property owner is proposing to split off as a phasing the westerly half, which in turn will be sold to another developer. Parcel 4~1 is basically a single family residential units that will be developed first. Staff has asked that all applicable conditions of the tract follow the proposed split sa that "piecemealing" of the land will not be a factor. Commissioner Hart asked if Phase 2 would be developed first. Bob Mickelson, 328 N. Glassell, stated that all conditions of the tentative tract are carried over to the parcel map. One of the main conditions on that tentative tract was the first unit be on the west end. Parcel l will be developed first. Parcel 2 could not be developed until the. connection is made to Loma and down to Serrano. The buyers of Parcel 1 are well aware of all the conditions. Mr. Johnson interjected the condition Mr. Mickelson was speaking of is Condition 4~5: That the first phase of development be Lots 1-53 and 57-104, including that portion of Via Escolla connecting Street "A" and Meats Rlanning Commission Minutes December 1, 1986 Page 7. `~ Avenue. Prior to the building permits being issued on the second 500 units, Via Escolla shall be constructed to two lanes width minimum from Meats Avenue to Loma Street, and Loma Street/Imperial Highway shall be constructed two lanes minimum width providing access to the arterial highway system in the City of Orange. Commissioner Hart asked what happens to the missing link between the City of Orange and the end of Tmperial? Mr, Johnson stated they cannot develop those second five hundred units until that arterial .facility is opened. It states specifically that it shall be constructed two lanes minimum width providing access to the arterial highway system in the City of Orange, They cannot connect it to Anaheim, Mr. Mickelson added there is no intent to circumvent that condition in any way. The condition is locked in. Commissioner Master asked if the City Attorney had any reservations or concerns regarding the fulfillment of all the conditions. Mr. Minshew stated they have no problems with this. They are reasonably assured the City is protected on this phasing. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve the split of a portion of Tentative Tract 12082 as presented by staff subject to the-conditions filed on the previous Tentative Parcel Map 86-268 dated November 3, 1986. Development of either parcel shall be governed according to the approved conditions of Tentative Tract 12082 and Parcel Map 83-765. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS EAST ORANGE 7500 ACRE GENERAL PLAN STUDY: Civil Engineering and Geotechnical Consultant selection. Vern Jones, Senior Project Planner, Advanced Planning, presented the staff report. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the East Orange 7500 Acre General Plan Study has completed its evaluation of the civil engineering and geotechnical consultants, and is recommending this evening approval of Greiner Engineering and GeoSoils, Inc. as the consultants. TAC interviewed five civil engineering firms and four geotechnical firms in its evaluation process. Overall, TAC felt that Greiner Engineering and GeoSoils presented the best combination of experience and expertise in hillside grading and large scale land development that is desirable for this large project area. Commissioner Scott stated in reviewing the engineering services did not see any of the qualifications for the principals that were going to participate in this. Rates were not covered either. Normally it's included in the proposal. Elanning Commission Minutes December 1, 1986 Page 8. Mr. Johnson stated there were two volumes to the Greiner proposal; one was a format set-up for the work items, and another was a booklet of the principals in the company. Possibly the work item proposal was the one Commissioner Scott received instead of the qualification proposal. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Johnson, for the record,could hesverfy that the people are all licensed as required and do have the necessary education background? Mr. Johnson said yes they are and the principal that will be working on this, Mr. Anderson, has had similar project experience on specific and general plan designation/projects. Commissioner Scott offered a suggestion; if approved, to include the qualifications in the recommendation. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by .Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to .the City Council approval of Greiner Engineering and GeoSoils, Inc. for the 7500 acre East Orange General Plan Study subject to that Volume 2 with the qualifications for the civil engineering firm be included with this recommendation. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED `IN RE: OTHER ITEMS 1. Two future study sessions: December 3 and 15, 1986. 2. Letter from Nexus: Chairman Greek was excused due to a potential conflict of interest. This letter is regarding an application they have filed with Planning. Application is for a tentative parcel map and a conditional use permit. They are desiring to split one of the existing lots within their subdivision on Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive. In doing that split, they are creating a lot without direct frontage on a public street. Staff has set that item for a public hearing by Planning Commission on January 5, 1987. Normally this item could be heard by the Zoning Administrator; however, based on the fact that so many other previous items for this same development have been heard by the Planning Commission, it is staff's policy and procedure to schedule all of them to consolidate the review responsibilities so we don't get two different review authorities reviewing the same project. It's a very technical consideration. Nexus is asking that the Planning Commission grant him consent to allow the Zoning Administrator to conduct the public hearing rather than the Planning Commission. Commissioner Master asked what the conditions were to insure ingress/ egress? „~* Mr. McGee said those conditions would have to be created and made a part of the approval. Along with the creation of the new lot, there is an additional building for an insurance company being created. There is a parking structure being added and there are two small storage units being added, which we have-not seen. Flanning Commission Minutes ' December 1, 1986 •Page 9. Mr. Minshew did not understand the reason why the developer requested a change in procedure. Mr. McGee believes the developer is attempting to get a determination before the end of the year because of the new tax laws going into effect. Commissioner Master asked if this is consistent with what was done before? The Commission would like the Zoning Administrator to conduct the public hearing on the lot split, the conditional use permit for that lot split, but the Commission would like to see any modification to the site plan. Mr. McGee stated the building is not a discretionary item. Anyone could come in and get a permit for a building. It's the conditional use permit that is the only discretionary handle on modifying the site plan. This item is scheduled for a January 5 Planning Commission Meeting and the earliest Zoning Administrator hearing would be December 18. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission allow the Zoning Administrator to act on the conditional use permit as it pertains to access to the lot, but all site plans be referred to the Planning. Commission for action. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:Chairman Greek MOTION CARRIED Mr. McGee said staff will notify Nexus of this decision. Chairman Greek returned to the meeting. 3. Nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman: Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission nominate Don Greek as Chairman for the remainder of the year. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart,, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission nominate Don Scott as Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the year. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED TN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p~m. to reconvene at 4:30. p.m. on December 3, 1986, for a study session. ~_,