Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION A'IINUTES City of Orange November 20, 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 6, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Minutes of November 6, 1989 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners Greek, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-89 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to amend the Orange Municipal Code by deleting from the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) references to the City's Grading Ordinance and adding to the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16) references to the Manual of Grading, Landform Guidelines, and Landscaping Manual. The specific changes are de]_etions from Title 17, Sections 17.74.070, 17.74.080, and 17.74.090 and additions to Title 16 Chapter 16.40. The proposed Ordinance properties in the City. (This item was continued Commission Meeting, April 1989, June 5, 1989, July P4eetings, and August 14, 198 Amendment will apply to all from the April 17, 1989 Planning 24, 1989 Study Session, May 15, 17, 1989 Planning Commission 9 Study Session.) Mr. Godlewski stated the Manual of Grading is basically the same Manual that was submitted some time ago. The primary change is on Page 24, Section 8.2 - Planting of Slope Areas and Landscaping. Staff has tried to incorporate language that will facilitate everything they would like to see in Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 2 the way of landscaping in graded projects. It includes the requirement for plans and also outlines a procedure for processing those plans. The actual. details that have been discussed in study sessions would be included as a follow-up to this document and would take the form of a Resolution similar to the Engineering Standards. Commissioner Scott reviewed Pages 24 and 25, Section B and does not feel the wording is clarified as far as zoning adjustments. Should that be spelled out in more detail? Mr. Godlewski thought an Administrative Adjustment would be a better procedure. Commissioner Scott also referred to Subsection C - a "qualified" person, but yet in Subsection F it says "no final inspection until the landscape architect is certified". He felt these two sections were in conflict. Commissioner Hart also noted that conflict. Mr. Godlewski said in talking with the Parks Department staff there is a certain requirement for a landscape architect to do the certifying of a landscape installation. Chairman Bosch thought the answer would be to change F instead of saying "landscape architect" to say "the plan designer per Paragraph C". He had a further concern in C: It should say "where allowed by the State of California Business and Professions Code." Mr. Johnson said the intent of A,B,C,D,E,F,& G are various aspects of the approval process. C relates to the preparation of plans; F pertains to the release of the facilities that are not to be done until either a bond is posted or the landscape architect has certified. Chairman Bosch would like to see something in both Sections that they're not trying to contravene the State Business and Professions Code, but at the same time recognize there are situations where a non-licensed professional and landscape architect is protected by license as a term. That could be facilitated by including same language that extend in C and at the same time in F remove landscape architect. Put designer per subparagraph C in there. You would be covered both ways; you still have either the certification or the bond. Commissioner Greek saw the problem of accepting the certification of someone who has nothing to lose but. a City business license, it doesn't give much credibility. The consistency may be defined more of where a detailed plan is required. The purpose is to relieve City staff of Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 3 physically counting the plants. Perhaps it isn't unreasonable to require a landscape architect for both the plans and for the certification. Commissioner Scott asked if the magnitude of the development would have something to do with the certification? The Commission agreed that it would. They discussed lots with slopes in excess of 5 feet, but distance was not clarified and it should be. Mr. Johnson said the finished vertical slopes are in excess of five feet. A 2:1 slope is the standard. Commissioner Hart commented on A. He thought the standards were to be maintained by the Director of Public Works. When there is an inspection, the same person can go out and do multiple inspections. Mr. Johnson thought this was an area where Community Services has implemented additional staff for inspections. Public Works works with Community Services in order to make sure the plans are adequately reviewed and correlated with their plan checking process. But with the new one stop plan check system, there will be a plan check coordinator that will be responsible for coordinating this with the various Departments involved. Mr. Godlewski stated in Section A there are two references to two different Departments. Plans are required to be submitted to the Director of Community Development, which is Jack McGee. They want a one point submittal process so that landscaping plans, grading plans, and building plans all come in to the same Department (Building counter). From that point they are currently disseminated to other Departments, and with the anticipated one stop, they again will start at that counter. The Director of Community Services, Gary Wann, is gearing up and has the staff and expertise to evaluate landscape plans. Staff suggests those standards be maintained in that Department. Commissioner Hart was dubious of one Department establishing the issuing of permits and the other Department making inspections. Mr. Godlewski explained the Building Department ultimately takes everything back and checks all comments before issuing a permit. Commissioner Greek prefers to see the plan review standards and permits under Community Development rather than setting up another Department to handle landscaping. He was not Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 4 under the impression this was going to be a separate Department. He did not understand why it couldn't be handled by some one currently doing inspections, either Building or Public Works. Commissioner Hart said this was tied to the Grading Plan. That ought to follow through. Mr. Johnson said the procedure that is being proposed is not a new procedure. There have been no formal guidelines for landscape review and approval. It was staff's intent to make sure this is an integral part of the development. Recently with the addition of Jeff and Howard on board to primarily make sure that landscaping in the assessment district areas and in the tract development areas in general is done per standards. To say Public Works or Planning should be involved, he felt it was shifting the emphasis of responsibility and jurisdiction to a point where there would need to be a change in personnel and procedures. Commissioner Scott stated from past experience inspectors in Public Works don't have any idea what one plant is or another. In the past, staff relied heavily on Parks and Recreation for landscaping requirements. He supports Parks and Recreation as being the inspectors for landscaping. Chairman Bosch said the key is coordination by a single Department. The key element involved is not only appearance but erosion control on slopes. He prefers to see it under one Department, bu t as long as the City keeps the responsibility for final sign off coordinated by one Department it could work. Commissioner Scott said the City works with a check off list before final completion. Commissioner Greek would like some measure of confidence for himself that the people enforcing this will follow normal procedures. He was not aware of hiring additional staff for these inspections. Mr. Johnson said there were into the maintenance assessment district mode. That has thrown another layer of administration onto not only the maintenance of infrastructure, but also landscape facilities. That is one of the major reasons for hiring additional staff. Chairman Bosch touched on Item A involving vertical slopes in excess of five feet. He would like a better definition than in excess of five feet and other than the maximum slope allowed in the City. He asked for specifics. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 5 Mr. Johnson said one of the problems they are faced with are the different soil conditions, thus allowing for different ratios. It is going to be somewhere between 1:1 and 2:1 slopes in this area. He would be receptive to anything they proposed for clarity. There is the varying slope conditions; 2:1 is considered safe from a structural standpoint. Aesthetically, they may be going to 3:1 slopes in an effort to create some variance in the look. It is hard to come up with a specific ratio that can be used as a guide. Chairman Bosch asked if it were left alone, would it be the interpretation that any piece of property coming in for grading plan approval that had more than a five foot differential across the property would require a landscape plan? That was Mr. Johnson's interpretation. Commissioner Greek argued that by saying it was a five foot slope. If someone built a retaining wall and it was five feet, landscape plans would not be required. It's a graded slope of a five foot vertical and requires a landscape. If you go across the lot and take up three feet in the front yard, two feet in the backyard, then a landscape plan would not be required. Mr. Johnson said it could be changed to read all cut and fill slopes in excess of five feet measured vertically would require such and such. Commissioner Greek said some kind of slope protection is needed. Mr. Johnson said they drew the line at five feet. Anything under five feet was not subject to the type of erosion that would create failure. They probably will still landscape that area, but in many cases the builder would pass those costs and responsibility on to the individual property owner. Anything over five feet, would have to be done in a manner that was an integral part of the tract. Chairman Bosch said it should apply at the beginning when the overall tract is being developed, whether the builder passes it on or not. Mr. Johnson has different ways for retaining wa Chairman Bosch excess of f ive Ordinance should found that the smaller slopes are treated in by the homeowner. There are no guidelines lls. A policy is needed for these walls. felt uncomfortable with the wording "in feet." There is vague wording and the be clear. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 6 Mr. Godlewski suggested adding the statement, "Landscape and irrigation plans shall be required for all projects involving vertical slopes in excess of five feet in height and where equal to or greater than a 2:1 slope." Anything less than a 2:1 slope is not going to be significant in what is trying to be resolved -- erosion control. Otherwise, landscaping would be required where there is a difference in lot elevation from the front to the back of the lot of 6 feet. Commissioner Scott questioned B. Zoning was going to be changed to Administrative Adjustment. (Yes.) Chairman Bosch went through the proposed changes: A. - modification to sentence per Mr. Godlewski's wording. B. - Administrative in lieu of Zoning. C. - delete qualified by education and experience; add when allowed by the State of California Business & Professions Code. F. - replace landscape architect with designer per Paragraph C. It still needs to be clarified who is the standards, maintenance, inspection, approval authority. Commissioner Hart said Public Works' opinion was that it belonged in the Community Services Department. Who is going to be ultimately responsible for it? Commissioner Scott stated the responsibility lies with the Director of Community Services. If he doesn't write it off, the occupancy will not be permitted. Commissioner Greek still prefers changing Community Services to Community Development. They have not had a chance to discuss this and has strong reservations. Commissioner Scott appreciates the concern, but cannot see Jack McGee inspecting and knowing what plants are suppose to be planted where. Commissioner Greek argued which Department is going to be responsible; not the person. The City is starting to create another Building Department; it will not help the system, but will create another problem. Commissioner Scott said landscaping has always been within the Parks and Recreation Department. They have done all the checking for the last 20 years to see if it conforms. Jess Garcia, Community Services, said they have been doing landscape inspections for the last 14 years. They lost the position; then had it reinstated in their Department. All plan checking is being done by that person now. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 7 The public hearing was opened. Bob Bennyhoff, 1Ob42 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, has been trying to get this passed for the past year. The grading plan was done one year ago. Community Services has been reorganized and he hopes the City gives the new Director a chance to do his jab. Ae understands that the fine print will come back before the Commission once the Master Landscape Plan is worked out. Let's get the grading plan in Ordinance form on the books. The public hearing was Closed. Commissioner Master asked if the revisions on Pages 24 and 25 were to be included in the motion? Chairman Bosch said there was a consenysus on it, but it would be proper if the maker of the motion includes the modifications of those pages in the motion. The modifications to read as follows: Page 24, 8.2, R. Landscaping a. First sentence changed to read, "Landscape and irrigation plans shall be required for all projects involving 2:1 or greater slopes in excess of five feet in height..." Page 25 - b. Replace the word Zoning with Administrative, "An applicant may apply for an Administrative Adjustsent..." c. Delete "qualified by education and experience" and add "when allowed by State of California Business and Professions Code, "Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or other person when allowed by the State of California 8usineas and Professions Code." f. Delete the words landscape architect and replaced them with designer per subpara~r~ph c, "No final inspection or occupancy clt~arar-ce mill be granted until the designer per subparagraph c has certified ~to the City..." Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 8 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to amend the Orange Municipal Code by deleting from the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) references to the City's Grading Ordinance and adding to the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16) references to the Manual of Grading, Landform Guidelines, and Landscaping Manual. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1766-89 - YORBA PARR MEDICAL GROUP: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a four story building, 52 feet in height, at a distance of 125 feet from the R-1 zone. Subject property is a 3.65 acre parcel located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, east of the 55 Freeway and south of Santiago Creek, at the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Yorba Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1287-89 has been prepared for this project. (This item was continued from the June 19, 1989, September 18, 1989 Planning Commission Meetings, and the November 13, 1989 Study Session.) Ms. Wolff stated they have received additional information from the applicant since the study session last week. A set of revised plans have been received, as well an updated ALTA survey, and copies of some easements which cross the property. Commissioner Master asked when the additional information was received? Ms. Wolff responded the plans and survey were received Friday; copies of the easement came in late Monday afternoon (November 20) . Commissioner Scott reviewed the plans received September 12, 1989. There was a question regarding handicapped parking. The most recent submittal of November 17 still did not address handicapped parking. Commissioner Greek stated one of the conditions was a request for the approval of the ALTA survey by a title company. Was that received? Ms. Wolff has not received that survey. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 9 The public hearing was opened. Applicant Jack Gray, 19132 Lomita Avenue, Administrator of the Yorba Park Medical Group, represented the practicing physicians and owners. They were looking at the proposed complex because of need and of the outdated facilities. They need a modern building as well as equipment to go with it. They also need more space to take care of the patient load. At the present time they have approximately 18,000 patients, most of them from the City of Orange. Engineers and consultants were present to answer technical questions. Dr. Harper, 2501 East Chapman Avenue, addressed the staff report. The large deficiency from previous meetings was the absence of a traffic study. They were told the traffic study had to encompass more than their project. They hired a traffic engineer who gave them a report. The two principle conclusions was that their project would generate an insignificant amount of additional traffic on Chapman Avenue, and there was little to be gained by adding a northerly extension of Yorba Street through their property. Planning staff informed the applicant a provision must be made for a northward continuation of Yorba as a secondary highway and should be constructed to handle 50 m.p.h. traffic. Many of the conditions have been read and agreed to by the applicant. He questioned condition 20 - a reservation agreement to provide for a north continuation of Yorba Street. The most recent agreement was not only narrower, bu t also had a 3 year limitation, which he felt was left out of the memorandum. A 3 year limitation on that reservation agreement is appropriate. Condition 21 has to do with the Chapman Avenue easement. He was aware of the Chapman Avenue widening. There should be two on ramp lanes where one currently exists on the front of their property. This will require some dedication of property from them, but no one has been specific. He doesn't know how much it is and would like to know. Chairman Bosch noted on the applicant's site plan a 12 foot adjustment of property line. Mr. Johnson stated 12 feet is the width of the lane that is needed to provide that additional enhanced right-of-way for the ramp. Dr. Harper also asked about the TSIP fees and do they pay those fees before a building permit is pulled? Chairman Bosch told Dr. Harper those fees are paid at the time a building permit is pulled. Fees are based on square Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 10 footage. He referred him to the Planning Department for assistance. Dr. Harper referred to condition 24 - Chapman General Hospital's ingress/egress easement. There has been one there since 1966. Is that inadequate for what staff perceives to be necessary? Ms. Wolff said there were some changes proposed to the existing reciprocal access. Staff has received a letter from the hospital agreeing to such changes as might be needed. But because there is a recorded easement for that, staff felt the need to have an agreement on both sides that access rights were preserved. Dr. Harper asked if they needed a letter of intent or a drafted document from their lawyers? Mr. Herrick has not seen the original access agreement. If it is specific as to areas and if those areas are being changed, it would have to be a new recorded document. Dr. Harper said the easterly portion (30 feet) of their lot has been encumbered by an easement to allow for ingress/egress on the part of Chapman General Hospital. Chairman Bosch clarified their reason for the condition. Dr. Harper asked if condition 25 were different from condition 24? Ms. Wolff explained the difference between 25 and 24. Condition 25 formalizes that such an agreement should be recorded. This document of conditions was prepared prior to receiving all the information that had the easement posted on them. Perhaps the conditions should be changed in light of the additional information received. Dr. Harper said condition 27 speaks to a 100 foot throat. That is a new term and he had to ask what that meant. That means they will have five lanes in each direction for that northward continuation of Yorba, which has been found to be unnecessary. Mr. Johnson noticed the driveway that serves the Chapman General property is so close to the intersection that anybody trying to get out of that location is crosswise of people coming in to it. The 100 feet would give a margin of error and some stacking distance to provide the storage and would not back cars out into the street. The problem is trying to control people going out and getting hung up on the east side. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 11 Chairman Bosch explained the plan that was submitted shows a 100 foot dimension on the drive, but it doesn't seem to meet their understanding of the definition of a throat. It isn't the width of the driveway; it's the distance back from the property line which vehicles stack at the red light. Dr. Harper referred to property owner will bear and Yorba. He thought customary manner. How muc Condition 31 refers to that if it's where he sidewalk is located? condition 28, which states the all signalization costs at Chapman it was going to be pro rated in a h is this? a 48" sidewalk. He is in favor of thinks it is. He asked where the Condition 32 needed additional language. The reservation agreement is for three years. They would be in violation for that one year because their building sits on that reservation agreed property. Commissioner Hart received the two easements. It appears it has not been quit claimed, which appears the building is built on a road easement that was granted in 1873. It clouds the agreement that the applicant would like to have for off site parking. In reading the easements, there is already 60 feet for roadway purposes. The current building is on the easement and it appears the parking proposed for the new building will also be on that easement. Mr. Glass, Traffic Division, responded to the concerns of the applicant. Regarding the TSIP fees, they are payable upon the issuance of a building permit. Fees would be based on the additional square footage at so many dollars per square foot. Item 27 - the intent of a throated driveway is to have a driveway that would go into the property the distance of a 100 feet without vehicular conflicts caused by other aisles or parking. Staff recommends to eliminate the southerly right turn ingress and would also eliminate the parking for a distance of 100 feet. Another factor on the southerly driveway is that should the City construct the enhanced intersection prior to some other development on the center where that driveway might be eliminated, there will probably be double left turn lanes into the center. It would be undesirable from a traffic operation and potentially unsafe. Item 28 is a fairly standard condition. The developer is doing some modification. He does not know the costs until he knows what is being modified. They are probably not changing the driveway geometries very much, if at all. Staff is recommending the 48" handicap walkway. If a wheelchair user crosses Chapman Avenue, they must go in through the travelled way; there is no sidewalk there at present. The sidewalk is to be constructed on the private Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 12 roadway entrance on the east side, which would correspond to where the City's cross walk locations will be and where the City wheelchair ramps on Chapman would be. He pointed out the sidewalk location on the map. The City is putting handicapped ramps out there. The cross walk is currently on the east leg of Chapman and there is not a cross walk on the left leg. They do not want cross walks on the west leg. Derrill Harness, 3764 Elizabeth, Riverside, addressed the easements. No. 3 was when Mr. Chapman sold the property to Mr. Haywood and they reserved unto themselves the right for roadway purposes for ingress and egress. He doesn't see it as a conveyance as a public road. Commissioner Hart said they also dedicated an easement along the south side (Chapman Avenue). But there is no indication that was a public dedication. How would that not apply on Yorba as well as on Chapman? Mr. Harness explained Chapman Avenue was then conveyed later on to the City by the owners of the property, but not that portion of it. #4 easement does not give a reference to any document. He talked to Randy Owens of the Title Company Thursday and Friday. His contention was that the road easement was also part of #3. They used #3 for both #3 and #4. On #5, Chapman conveys to Warren and reserves themselves. He had trouble saying that it's an offer for dedication to the City because it doesn't say it is. They reserved it unto themselves as private. Whoever owns the property now would own that. They use quiet title action in these cases and remove clouds of this sort. Commissioner Greek would like to see the old tract where these easements are recorded. That's why the Commission asked for specific information. They asked for a title company to review the map and check the easements and then get some kind of certification from the title company so the City could process this without having problems come up later. He would also like to see the parcelization shown in the legal description to see if there is a problem and if all these parcels need to be combined. If they are separate parcels, do they have the same ownership? Mr. Harness said there were quite a few legal descriptions. He combined the exteriors and tied it to the center line of Chapman and Yorba. There is a dimension to the sou thwesterly prolongation of the westerly line, which is along Santiago Creek. Then there is a 50 foot dimension parallel as far as the righ t-of-way is concerned. He did not set the property corners. They did a boundary survey Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 13 and located all the existing topography and features on the site from that. A couple of monuments were located at or near the existing corners. Commissioner Hart stated there was a list of easements by number, bu t missing are #7, #8, and #11. What do those refer to? Mr. Harness needed to look at the actual title report, but in most cases they would not be easements. They would be covenants or restrictions, or liens or something not pertinent to the property. #7 was a record of survey - one of the documents used in their boundary survey; #8 was another record of survey; #11 is a waiver for any claim or damages by reason of the location, construction or landscaping of the State Highway adjoining parcels 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8. Commissioner Greek thought the City should get involved with the A.B. Chapman tract. Commissioner Hart heard Mr. Harness say some kind of quiet title action is in order to clear the easement. It probably needs to be done before any kind of agreement with the City and developer is entered into about the City providing parking somewhere else. He did not feel the City should be buying land that they already own. Mr. Harness would have to defer to the title company as far as that was concerned. Commissioner Greek asked how close the applicant was to having their map approved by the title company? (Mr. Harness did not know. It was submitted to the title company last week.) Chairman Bosch did not think the City should participate in quiet title. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was not opposed to the project; however, it might be appealed if a couple questions are not answered if the Commission grants the project. He is concerned about the 4 story building. To his knowledge it's the first 4-story building on the east side of the 5 Freeway. He's looking for a policy statement that this does not open the gate for 3 or 4 story buildings. The Traffic Engineer they hired said that 1,900 cars was insignificant except that intersection has approximately 70,000 cars a day. It looks like there will be considerable amounts of time before there is any enhancement at that intersection. He's wondering how long it will be before there is an enhanced intersection? Something needs to be Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 14 done with the intersection, bridge and on ramps. If the building were to be built in two years, would the City be able to enhance the intersection within two years? Mr. Johnson did not have the ultimate answer, but he knows the State has had some on-going studies. Several proposals have been reviewed. Any enhancement of the intersection of Yorba and Chapman would have to be done in conjunction with the change in the freeway ramp system in that area. He doesn't know how long that will be. The State is also projecting widening of the 55 Freeway, but that is in the future. You're not going to see any changes to the ramp system or enhanced intersections within the next two years. John Kramer, Administrator at Chapman General Hospital, 2601 East Chapman Avenue, said Condition 25 was of particular interest to them, which deals with the easement for the hospital for the ingress/egress. They are comfortable with what they have developed with the Yorba Park Group and the access to the Chapman General Hospital property. He stated for the record that even though there are separate owners on the property, and Yorba Park Group and the hospital are separate entities, there is a distinct medical campus atmosphere. He believes they need to keep it as a medical campus. He would not be in favor of seeing a road go through the middle of the campus; it would be a detriment and hazard for patients. If there has to be a road, he would like to see nothing more than a two lane road. He has trouble understanding the amount of traffic required to have a double left turn lane. They do not have that problem now. Dr. Scott Smith, 2455 Maplegrove, addressed the height issue. He understands the proposed building is going to be 7 feet taller than the building that is now occupying the site behind the hospital (CIGNA). There is a 3 story building on the other side of the hospital that would compliment the height of the medical campus. He was disturbed about the idea of Yorba going through to the north. He is worried that if people are encouraged to make that left hand turn by putting a northerly route there, they would be compromising people's health and safety. They have a couple of choices to make: they could relocate to Santa Ana or try and keep the medical campus here and try to keep the medical care available to the residents of Orange. Dr. Dennis Long, 2501 East Chapman, reiterated Dr. Smith's concerns about the need for health care at this facility. There is a responsibility for their group to provide health care to the City of Orange. He feels the Commission is more concerned about traffic rather than health care. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 15 Chairman Bosch has not heard anyone talk to the quality of health care or the quantity of provision because people think positively of that. But the Commission must consider the project from a planning point of view. There may be more than one right answer that would best bend medical space adjacent to a medical campus. Is the parking lay out correct, is the building height a key issue -- those are the issues before the Commission not to question whether or not health care is appropriate at that vicinity. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hart did not see the Commission considering this particular plan. They are considering the adequacy of a 4 story building within 100 feet of a R-1 zone. Commissioner Greek wanted to know if Mr. Garber was in attendance. He asked if he could stand up and say that he is a licensed traffic engineer and he has prepared the report and is willing to sign a letter to that effect. Currently the Commission is using an unsigned report. Lewis Garber is a registered traffic engineer and also a registered civil engineer in the State of California. His traffic engineering license is 610; civil engineering license is 16150. He prepared the report and stands behind the conclusions drawn by the report. Commissioner Hart said they were considering the 4 story building and not the site plan. He has trouble with the site plan, but not with the building. Chairman Bosch finds a connection because of the height, but impacts must be addressed. A plan has conditions that refer to that plan. It's hard to accept the conditions if they're not applicable to a specific plan. GIs. Wolff concurs with that statement. When the Commission looks at Conditional Use Permits, it is to determine under what conditions a certain use may occur. That would relate back to the site plan. Commissioner Hart considers the gray area of easements and does not see how they could act on the building that may not have enough parking when all the issues are resolved. He has no problem with the height of the building. Commissioner Master also concurs on the building height. The other issues surrounding it need to be considered as they are still a problem. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 16 Mr. Herrick understood one of the issues is whether or not these roadway easements were ever conveyed to any public entity for public road purposes. In speaking to people in the community, apparently some of these roads were established with easements with similar type of language. If he were examining the documents themselves received this date, there is no indication in those documents that they are public roads. Private roads are one of the uses that people make of easements. The documents would appear to be consistent with private roadways. However, if there has been a past practice of using that type of language in establishing public roads, it should be on public record somewhere where that occurs. His office does not have the capability of doing a title search on the property. The documents appear to be the reservation of a private easement right. Chairman Bosch asked if a condition of approval should be made to require appropriate language relative to title search or evidence of removal, quit claim or quiet title to assure the City these do exist or they can be vacated or have been vacated prior to any permits being issued on the property. Mr. Herrick stated that could be done to give a level of comfort that there are no existing easement rights that would be interfered with by the project referencing potential City rights. Commissioner Hart said there was the feeling that this project could not be conditioned by the improvement of Yorba. Mr. Herrick stated that was correct. Yorba Street is a study street. The reservation agreement approach preserves the City's rights with respect to it as a study street. It has not yet been an approved street on the Master Plan. This is an effort to preserve the City's rights if the study bears out and eventual determination is made. Commissioner Greek wants to wait for clarification on the parcels. There are 10 separate parcels that currently exist under the guise of one lot. It should be reviewed. Doug Rigsby went to the title company and asked them to deal with the issue of parcelizing into one piece. They made no issue of the need to have that as a single parcel. They also went to the potential lenders who will be lending for this project. The attorneys for those lenders thought it was necessary to have this made into one single parcel. There is no problem with having these as individual parcels. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 17 Commissioner Greek said the problem was with the City ordinances. You are not allowed to build a building over a property line. Mr. Rigsby said Randy Owens couldn't certify this parcel map (ALTA survey) unless he was prepared to write insurance against it. They are not at that point yet and that's why he wouldn't certify the document. Commissioner Greek prefers to postpone action until all documents are received. Commissioner Master commented on the reservation for a period not exceeding the Conditional Use Permit. Is that a problem for the City? (It was a reasonable request.) Commissioner Scott said it was suggested that alternatives be looked at as far parking was concerned. It was not even addressed. The handicap stalls are still not shown; the plot plan is incomplete. It needs to be dimensioned. Commissioner Hart thought a check list was needed; it is still an incomplete application. Chairman Bosch concurs with all comments. He doesn't have a problem with the height only if there is a specific statement in the findings indicating the purpose for this location relative to the specific use of the medical center, which is extraordinary resource and difficult to place in the City; and only with the statement including this location immediately adjacent to the freeway along the major arterials so we're not setting a precedent with this, but there is a specific reason to do this. He is concerned with not having what looks like a minor issue but could be a giant one relative to the easements not being tied down. It makes a difference in terms of the City's rights and investment. If the City does retain rights to an easement there, it's a lot different than the City in the future when they wish to exercise the easement providing an improved piece of land for parking adjacent to the existing site. An improved piece of land which based on the change in the building location, could also support a parking structure for a second building on the site of equal size. He worried about that since the medical building has been shifted to the rear of the site at least once, maybe twice, from previous applications. He concurs the easement needs to be tied down as to who has the rights over it before moving ahead. He concurs with no problem of tying the reservation of rights to two years along with the C.U.P.. The clear right to develop is still questionable. M anning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 - Page 18 Commissioner Greek still wishes to postpone action for a couple of months. He would like to personally contact the title officer and talk to him to get a feeling of confidence and see how long it will take him to review the ALTA survey. Chairman Bosch asked staff and the applicant how long they might think it would take to have the clarification for the Commission, as well as addressing the plan problems relative to the parking (i.e., throat design not conforming to the needs in that area). Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission postpone action on Conditional Use Permit 1766-89 to the second meeting in January, 1990, and instruct the staff to research the easements that may or may not exist; and instruct the applicant to complete the ALTA survey indicating parcel locations and provide a better identification of the easements. The insufficiencies of the site plan, parking and dimensions shall also be addressed. Mr. Gray requested a recess to consult among themselves, which was granted. They have spent a lot of time preparing information and felt they have fulfilled the request. They would like the Council to approve the project with listed conditions, and then they would work with the City Attorney to see that the conditions are met prior to obtaining a building permit, with the addition they have the three year limitation regarding the terms of the reservation. The motion was called for: AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Scott NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Master IN RE: ADJOURNMENT MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission adjourn the meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. /sld