Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/2/1987 - Minutes PC~• w City of Orange Orange, California PLANl't I NcT COMMIS I ON M I NjjTES November 2, 198? Monday - ?: 30 p. m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Scott at ?:30 p. m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Greek STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Associate Planner & Commission Secretary; Ron Thompson, Director of Community Development; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, AND OCTOBER 19, 198? Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of October 12, and October 19, 1987, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED Staff received a letter from the Mohler Corporation regarding Item #1 -- General Plan Amendment 4-87"A", Zone Change 1080 and Conditional Use Permit 1625 (application on Orange-Olive Road at Whitecap>. They have requested a continuance of this item until late December or early January. Given the length of the request for a continuance it would be appropriate to re-advertise the item for a public hearing. Several people were in opposition to this project. The " proponent, Bob Colin, asked if it would be possible to continue this item until the first of December instead of late December. He also stated he would be willing to pay the additional re-advertising costs if necessary. Mrs. William Snyder, 16341 Cumberland Road, owns the Orange-Olive shopping center at 2681-2703 Orange-Olive Road. She asked why the item was being continued again. James Mohler, President of Mohler Corporation, said the major reason for the continuance is to close escrow before proceeding with the hearing. The appraisal by the lender has taken one month; the loan should be completed within two weeks. w ~. M Planning Commission Minutes •November 2, 198? - Page 2 Colleen Durham, 2706 North Dunfield, commented a similar situation came up last year, but was also dropped. She asked if the residents would be re-notified for the December ? meeting. Mr. McGee clarified notices would be sent out per the Commission's request. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue Item #1 to the December ? meeting, with requirement of re-notification and subject to the applicant's volunteering to pay for the cost of that re-notification. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-87"B", ZONE CHANGE 1081, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1626 - MOHLER CORPORATION: Request for a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential C2-6 units per acre) to High Density Residential <15-24 units per acre), and a zone change to R-3 (Residential Multiple Family). Additionally, approval of a Conditional Use Permit is requested to permit the construction of 2-story structures exceeding 20' in height, within ?0' of a single family residential zoning boundary, and to permit the relocation of an existing house from one portion of the site to another. Subject property is located on the east side of Orange-Olive Road, between Heim Street and St. James Avenue, addressed 258? Orange-Olive Road. (Continued from the October 19, 198? Planning Commission Meeting.) NOTE: Negative Declaration 1174 has been prepared for this project. Joan Wolff, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, which was revised since the meeting of October 19. The revision was due to the applicant's withdrawal of a variance request to relocate the existing residence without providing enclosed parking as required by the zoning ordinance. Since that time, the applicant has proposed to restore an attached garage, which had been converted into a work room previously. Mohler Corporation is proposing to develop a .58 acre property located at 2587 Orange-Olive Road with a 2-story, 12 unit apartment complex. They are also proposing to move a single family residence, which currently exists on the property, to another location on the site. After relocation, the ~ ~ Planning Commission Minutes •November 2, 1987 - Page 3 (~,~,~, residence will take access from Delta Street only. The site consists of two parcels, one of which is a through lot with frontage on both Orange-Olive and Delta Streets. The other parcel has frontage on Orange-Olive only. The site is currently zoned R-1-7 single family residential, minimum lot size 7,000 square feet and is surrounded on all sides by single family residences in the R-1-7 zone. In order to proceed with the development plan as proposed, the applicant must first obtain approvals from the Planning Commission and City Council to amend the City's General Plan, to change the zoning on the property and to issue a conditional use permit. Specifically, the project proponent is asking to change the property's general plan designation from low density residential, which currently allows development of 2 to 6 units per acre, to a high density residential classification, which would allow 15-24 units per acre. They are requesting a zone change to change the classification from R-1 to R-3, and asking for approval of a conditional use permit to permit a structure which exceeds the one story, 20' height limitation within ?0' of a single family residential zoning boundary, and also a conditional use permit approval to permit the relocation of the existing single family residence. They are also requesting approval of an administrative adjustment permit for a car port which exceeds a ten foot height limitation for an accessory structure on the property line. To provide some background on this site, in 1985 the City Council denied a proposal to develop a mini-warehouse facility on the property. That project included applications for a zone change, conditional use permit, variance and tentative parcel map. The Council's denial was based on the finding that the two story mini-warehouse was not compatible with adjacent single family usage. In 1986, the property was also subject to a Planning Commission hearing, at which time the Commission denied an application to develop a two story, 14 unit apartment complex. The denial of the General Plan Amendment, zone change, conditional use permit and tentative parcel map applications were based on their finding that the density of the project was not compatible with the surrounding single family uses and zoning. That project was withdrawn before it was heard by the City Council. The current applicant was not involved with either of the prior proposed projects. The current proposal is for a 12 unit apartment complex and the relocation of an existing single family residence on the site. The density of the proposed apartment project is 21 units per acre. The project site will need to be subdivided to accommodate both the apartment complex and the single family residence each on a separate parcel. . , ~~~* +I~ Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 198? - Page 4 Plans show a reconfiguration of lot lines that will create one parcel approximately .58 acres in size with approximately 15? feet of frontage on Orange-Olive Road for the apartment development, and another parcel of approximately ?600 square feet in size with about 85 feet of frontage on Delta Street for the residence. The subdivision of property will require that a parcel map be filed; however, the applicant desires to meet that requirement at a later date. The 12 apartment units will be contained in two separate buildings, each two stories and 24' in height. They will have setbacks of approximately 20' from the northern property line and 50' from the southern property line. In this situation, because of the proximity of the site to R-1 property, a 70' setback is required for the two story development. Parking area is shown on the southern portion of the site. The parking provided meets the code requirements in terms of the total number of spaces provided and number of spaces enclosed; however, it does not meet the code requirement with respect to the height of the car port, which exceeds the 10' height limitation for an accessory structure located on the property line. Therefore, an administrative adjustment permit is requested to allow an 11' height on the property line. <If the structure were to be set back three feet, it would meet the code requirement. The ten foot limit is only for structures immediately on the property line.) The density of the project is consistent with high density general plan designation and the project complies with all development standards of the R-3 zone except for the height requirement. The public hearing was opened. Bob Colin, J.P. Associates, represented Jim Mohler of the Mohler Corporation. The project they are proposing is compatible with the trend of the development in the area. With regard to the property already developed on Orange-Olive, he has not noticed any adverse affect on the residential properties. The .site plan shows they have not over-built the site; they have plenty of landscaped area, more than adequate setbacks. The reason they asked for an 11' wall for the carports is because it is hard to maintain any kind of head clearance with anything less than 11'. It would be a minimum requirement to get the carport and slope of the roof. If they move the wall in three feet, it will overcrowd the site. They are trying to accommodate their neighbors by building something that will be a good project without being a problem for them. Those speaking in favor: ..a r ('"~ Planning Commission Minutes •November 2, 1987 - Page 5 Harold Paulus, 2563 Orange-Olive Road, sold the property to both property holders. He has seen this area develop as he has lived on that property since 1936. Many changes have taken place during his lifetime. He does not particularly like apartments, but he sees what is coming. He likes the plans for the proposed development. It shows good potential, Those speaking in opposition: Mrs. William Snyder, 16341 Cumberland Road, she and her husband own property at 26$1-2?03 Orange-Olive Road. It is obvious Orange-Olive Road has changed. The traffic has increased a lot since they bought the shopping center in November, 19?8. Traffic is expected and handled properly with a commercial situation, but questions how it will be handled with residential development. Another concern is the lack of schools in the area for children. She would not object to the property being changed to commercial use. Railroad tracks are right across the street and she questions if the apartments will maintain their viability. Some of the units might deteriorate over the next ten years, Marian Olson, 2?06 North Dunbar, spoke about the three duplexes that were built down the street becoming an eyesore; they are rundown and not being taken care of. Terry Depaola, ?36 East Whitecap, contradicted one of the statements made by the proponents. The existing apartments on Orange-Olive are not near homes, She does not think renters next to homeowners is a fair position for homeowners to be in. Renters do not have the same care for their property as a homeowner would. Apartments would not fit in with the way the rest of the street has been developed. Max Lisaac, 2619 North Delta, spoke on the traffic density. Adequate parking has not been provided for the existing apartments and cars are parked on the street. The two-story design has not been acceptable in the past and he does not see why it should be acceptable now. They are very concerned about the impacts on their property values. Ifen Olson, 2706 North Dunbar, is concerned about the lack of play area for the children to play in, He is concerned about the highly traveled area and that could put the City at a higher risk for liability. Rich Tourney, 2629 North Delta, is also concerned about the apartments being built. Nobody buys a house to have renters move in next door. •~ ,, G C Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1987 - Page 6 Bob Colin spoke on the issues of traffic. The concern for traffic will still be there whether it is single family residences, apartments or commercial use. They will be working with the Traffic Department to resolve any problems that are encountered. The complex will have security gates to help alleviate parking on the street. He does not feel there will be a deterioration or vandalism problem. Property values will not be affected by new apartments. Property along Orange-Olive is always being developed and is not suitable for single family residences. The Design Review Board process will address the concerns of building height and placement of windows. Commercial development would have been easier, but is not feasible for the site; it's a difficult site to sell. The owner is willing to work with the neighbors to discuss and resolve their concerns. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master thinks the property along Orange-Olive is not identified as single family residential. Commercial development has not been a viable thing either. There has been a compromise with duplexes and condominiums. Commissioner Bosch tends to agree with Commissioner Master that transitional uses are seen along Orange-Olive Road. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1174. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve General Plan Amendment 4-87"B". C~ C AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch believes the impact of the second story dwelling units as independent units on the single family residences is a detriment to the project as it is currently designed. He thinks the applicant has demonstrated a fine quality project elsewhere in the community. He also feels the site is too small to accept the load. The Conditional Use Permit is to allow s wr ,~,~. ,:~*, Commissioner Bosch excused himself from the meeting for Items #3 and #4 due to a potential conflict of interest. PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1082, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-328 - THE IRVINE COMPANY: Proposed pre-zoning request to the P-C <Planned Community) and R-O <Recreation-Open Space> zones in anticipation of annexation to the City and a proposal to subdivide the site into 3 parcels. The site is 25? acres in size located east of Newport Avenue and south of Canyon View Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1175 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Brian Austin, Project Director with the Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, stated this was the next increment of annexation and hopefully development Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1987 - Page 7 understanding of what the impacts might be in special application. The property is of such a size that it would cause unwanted impacts on the neighboring properties. There may be a different design with a similar density to eliminate those impacts and still allow it to take place. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Zone Change 1081, but deny Conditional Use Permit 1626. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch understands that puts the applicant in a difficult position: By approving this motion to deny the project as presented, but recognize the appropriateness of the site for the level of land use intended if the development standards could be met. Mr. McGee clarified the motion to the audience. It is assumed the motion would limit any project on the site to one story. Legal notices will be mailed to the same residents notifying them of a City Council hearing on both General Plan Amendments. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ,. . , ~'~ww+- Planning Commission Minutes ~w November 2, 1987 - Page 8 ~~ that will occur in the East Orange area. It f ulfills our promise to proceed with the development and annexation of the area south of Santiago Hills. It does include the one development parcel and the majority of the pre-zone is the regional park. It also includes area for the Jamboree Road right-of-way and some adjacent areas that would be graded within the development of that road. They anticipate on parcel one a low density, single family residential development of approximately 90 units. It will be compatible with the adjacent developments there. They are hoping it will be ready to be processed by the builder .somewhere around the first of the year. On the County parcel <the regional park>, they are working with the County to finalize the M.O.U., which would set the parameters for dedication of that. They have asked for the Recreational-Open Space zone on that piece with the understanding that it will proceed to be regional park. If for some reason that development of that property as regional park is not forthcoming, they request to come back for a different zoning designation that would be consistent with the General Plan. They plan on proceeding with the annexation around the first of the year, hoping it will be completed with LAFCO. He addressed a couple of conditions on the tentative parcel map. For clarification purposes, Conditions #4 and #5, requiring the dedication and right-of-way improvement of Newport Blvd. and the future extension of White Oak Ridge, they are processing the parcel map now to be able to convey the property to the merchant builder to the County for the road right-of-way. It is their intention that the builder would provide the improvements to Newport Blvd. and White Oak Ridge. They anticipate that when the builder's map was processed through the City, that he would be similarly conditioned to make those improvements. Any bonding that we would be asked to provide at this time, would hope it would be rolled over to that builder so the improvements would be done in conjunction with that development. With respect to the Newport frontage related to the regional park property, they would hope to be able to in the negotiations on the dedication agreement for the park to get the County to acknowledge they have some responsibility to make road improvements here as well. Upon conclusion and incorporation of that language into the agreement, they would then hope to ask the City to relieve them of that obligation, with insurance that the County will proceed. He introduced Ron Roberts, an Associate Project Manager with the Irvine Company. Mr. Roberts has been assisting Mr. Austin on this project and will be assisting on some future projects. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Johnson about the policy of rolling over obligations of constructing the streets once the bonds have been posted for the improvements. r ~. Planning Commission Minutes ' 'November 2, 1987 - Page 9 Mr. Johnson discussed these conditions with Mr. Austin. Their concern is that once the property is split, the City would not have overall control. They would still be looking to the developers of the property to build the roads because they have no control over what the County does. He also mentioned their discussions regarding Condition #6. He understands the County will be taking their access for the park off of Canyon View Avenue. He thinks it would be in order to strike Canyon View from that Condition. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1175. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Pre-Zone Change 1082 and Tentative Parcel Map 87-328, subject to the conditions as shown on the staff report and the engineer's plan check sheet, deleting Canyon View as shown on Item 6. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Draft Annexation Agreement between City of Orange and Irvine Company addressing Orange Sphere of Influence and 7500 acre East Orange General Plan Study Area: Vern Jones, Advanced Planning, presented the staff report. Over the past several months the East Orange Steering Committee have been working with the Irvine Company to develop an Annexation Agreement, which would cover the 18,000 acre Sphere of Influence in East Orange, as well as the 7,500 acre East Orange General Plan Amendment study, which is located within the 18,000 acre Sphere. Two of the priorities from the City's standpoint in developing the Agreement was to insure that the Agreement would ultimately result in the development and annexation of the entire 18,000 acres to the City of Orange, and further to insure that the 7,500 acre General Plan site would be annexed in a timely manner. At an August 17 Planning Commission Minutes 'November 2, 198? - Page 10 ,joint study session, the Planning Commission did have a chance to review and comment on the Draft Agreement at that time. Since the study session, a couple of revisions have been made to the Agreement, which basically boil down to two areas: <1> the Agreement was reformatted to separate those items and issues related to the 18,000 acres Sphere as opposed to the 7,500 acre General Plan Study; <2> a revision was done to clarify and ensure that the ?,500 acres would be fully annexed in a 10 year time frame. City Council took action at it's October 13 meeting to approve the Annexation Agreement and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Commissioner Hart wanted to know if the essential change was the assurance that the 7,500 acres will be annexed within 10 years? Mr. Jones stated that was correct. The Commission needed to make their comments for concurrence and filing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the report and transmit their concurrence to the Annexation Agreement. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master commented on behalf of his participation on the steering committee that it has been a very cooperative working relationship for this Agreement. He feels it is a significant major step to a very cooperative working Agreement with the Irvine Company. Cora Newman, Director of Resource Entitlement for the Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, wanted to support Commissioner Master's comment. The Irvine Company really appreciates all the time and effort the City made on this Agreement. They agree and support the Agreement and feel it is a major step forward. Commissioner Bosch returned to the meeting. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-387 - BARKLEY ASSOCIATES: Proposed 5-lot industrial subdivision of 2.1 acres of land on the north side of Barkley Avenue, west of Batavia Street. ,. '~ Planning Commission Minutes 'November 2, 1987 - Page 11 Roger Rhodes, General Partner of Barkley Associates, thanked the City for giving them the opportunity to work on their eight project. Their plan is to have a 5-lot subdivision similar to the project they just completed on Freedom Avenue. They concur with staff's findings and would be happy to answer any questions. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Tentative Parcel Map 87-387, subject to the six conditions in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS REQUEST FOR FINDING A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE - HOWARD F. THOMPSON ASSOCIATES: Request to find that a current proposal to expand an existing 50,000 square foot office building in the M-2 zone is in substantial conformance with Conditional Use Permit 1415 approved for the site on April 1, 1985. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission finds the current proposal to be in substantial conformance with Conditional Use Permit 1415, as approved for the site on April 1, 1985. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Review of report on the status of temporary/modular units at Chapman College, and request for extension of time on Conditional Use Permit 1463 for two modular units near the corner of Orange Avenue and Walnut Street. Commissioner Hart reviewed the report that required a building permit be issued as one of the conditions on the staff report; however, Reggie Meigs stated a building permit was not required. Mr. McGee said their standard procedure is that they do not require building permits. They may require electrical or plumbing. The condition for building permits on the zoning administrator decision is a standard condition that .. ~. Planning Commission Minutes •November 2, 198? - Page 12 would be applied. He assumes the Building Division is thinking about electrical, plumbing and other permits to meet the condition. The zoning administrator's condition is in a much more generic context than what the Building Division is responding to. Commissioner Hart responded the building has already been approved by the State in it's original condition so they see no need to go through the procedure again except for hook ups. He can understand why a building permit would not be required as other permits would be. Mr. McGee stated that in the future their condition would be altered to say "appropriate permits issued by the Building Division". Commissioner Hart said it still does not relieve the City or Chapman College of doing something about the lapsed approvals. Commissioner Bosch agrees that it is a dual responsibility. He suggests one of the things to be looked into are conditions relative to a statement and demonstration of what the temporary unit is meant to be temporary for. There ought to be a collateral instrument that accompanies the applications which demonstrates that and incorporate that into the ordinances appropriately. Performance bonds were discussed. Mr. Thompson suggested returning with a policy to review for approval in handling the trailer requests. Commissioner Scott asked about the request for extension. Mr, McGee stated they have requested a two year extension on their original two year permit. It would have normally gone to the Zoning Administrator; however, he concurred with the Commission's request to act upon that. Commissioner Hart believes a report should be reviewed before acting on the request for extension. Punitive powers are needed before making a decision. Mr. McGee thought in order to expedite the request for Chapman College, they could come back to the Commission with a statement of where they are in providing permanent facilities for those particular uses. He will communicate with Chapman College. Commissioner Bosch informed the Commission he forwarded his letter to Chairman Greek for comment regarding Chapman College. Staff will finalize the letter and prepare it for signature. . w .,,. ,~,.~ , Planning Commission Minutes ~ 'November 2, 1987 - Page 13 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission adjourn to an adjourned regular meeting at 8:00 a. m. , November 3, 1987, for a joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session for a Housing Study Report Presentation and the Southwest Strategy Study in the Weimer Room; then adjourn to the next adjourned regular meeting November 9, 1987, 5:00 p. m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the General Plan Update. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p. m. /sld 0