Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/6/1986 - Minutes PC~. . • .,, __ ~,, City of Orange ^.r ~fige, California October 6, 1986 Monday - 7:30 p.m. 7:he regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mason at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Stan Soo-Hoo, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson,-City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary r IN RE: 0 IN RE: C-. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 Moved by Co~unissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of September 15, 1986, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1,486 - CHAPMAN COLLEGE: Request to expand the College facilities and exceed the building height in the P-I zone on a 1.2 acre parcel on the west side of Center Street at Sycamore Avenue.. This item was continued from the September 3, 19$6 meeting. On September 3, EIR 1040 was recommended to be certified and Zone Change 1057 was recommended for approval. The conditional use permit request was continued to this date to permit the City Traffic Engineer to conduct a parking and circulation study to determine existing and anticipated impacts on the parking issue associated with the request to build an 88,000 square foot Learning Center facility. Mr. Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer, presented his Division's findings to the Commission. Exhibits of the study were referred to during his pre- sentation. An on- and off-street parking survey was conducted on September 17 and 18, 1986, in the area bounded by the east side of Glassell Street, south side of Walnut Avenue, west side of Shaffer Street and north side of Maple Avenue. It involved the recordation of vehicle license plate numbers on each of the study streets and the number of vacant parking stalls in each of the four parking lots and dormitory parking area. The survey data does not reflect additional parking facilities or traffic management plans which may be required in conjunction with the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION 1KINUTES P~nning Commission Minutes `OctGber 6, 1986 Page 2. It was concluded the present maximum off-street parking deficiency ranges from 346 to 382 parking stalls depending upon the determination of the "available" dorm parking stalls. Present off-street parking should therefore accommodate 932 to 996 vehicles as opposed to the existing 650 off-street parking stalls presently available. If the proposed Learning Center is the consolidation of existing facilities/staff, parking demand will remain constant, but if the expectation of this new facility is to increase students and faculty, an additional number of up to 352 parking stalls are required. A residential parking permit program was suggested as a reasonable approach to reducing the intrusion of traffic into the neighborhoods. The program would allow only residents and their guests to park on the adjacent or area streets. Students would be forced to park in campus parking lots or on adjacent streets to the school. Chairman Mason asked Mr. Dennis if he thinks restricting parking on area streets (seems like peak times are between 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.) to a 2-hour limit, would that help the residents at all? Mr. Dennis replied no. If we want students to use the campus facilities, a restriction would have to be on a full-time basis. The only reasonable restriction would be through the parking permit program. Residents and their guests would have the availability of parking on the .streets adjacent to their residences. The students, however, would not. They could park on ® the streets immediately adjacent to the school and within the parking facilities, but not on streets such as South Orange, South Center, or South Grand. The 2-hour parking penalizes the people that live in the area. Chairman Mason asked how can you possibly regulate neighbor's friends? They are not going to have a parking sticker. Mr. Dennis said this was not a sticker program, but a placard program specifically designed for use in the vehicles. This program is currently operating in Anaheim, Garden Grove and L.A. County. Commissioner Scott asked if the visitor would place the placard on his dash, similar to the beach areas? Mr. Dennis replied yes. Commissioner Master wanted to know the purpose of the placard and asked aren't we then faced-with an enforcement problem if it isn't monitored by someone? Mr. Dennis stated by using the parking permit program, it would help the police department enforce parking control.. There would not have to be an increase in the level of enforcement for it to be effective. Commissioner Scott asked if there were any fines? Mr. Dennis said a bail schedule would need to be established by the City Attorney's office, Police Department and City Council. Chairman Mason asked for an explanation on Page 1 of Exhibit 2 - dorm '~ Planning Commission Minutes _ October 6, 1986 Page 3. parking lot ~~5, which shows 302 stalls, but it was noted that only a small fraction of the lot was being used. Mr. Dennis said the students probably travel to and from the campus, going to work or school, parking on the street adjacent to the campus. Mr. Dennis pointed out there is a "Catch 22" situation involved in the study regarding parking. If we provide parking adjacent to the facility, you also have a tendency to increase traffic and circulation on the street it accesses. If, on the other hand, you move the parking to a less convenient location and do nothing with the residents' streets adjacent to a new facility, then the users will tend to utilize the adjacent area streets. Your recommendation should contain some mitigation measure (_i.e., permit parking) for the immediate residential area. There is no way that we can contain the parking to the immediate school area. Commissioner Greek thought the report was excellent and was happy to see some numbers that he was looking for. The public hearing has been closed; however, a request was made from the Old Towne Association to re-open the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to re-open the public hearing for additional input on the parking. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, .Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mason re-opened the public hearing. Jerry King, of Jerry King & Associates, 3187 East Airway, Costa Mesa, representing Chapman College, made a video presentation and slide show of the street scenes around Chapman College to coincide with the parking study. The college is very pleased with the study that was made by the City and acknowledges the parking availability on campus. The college would like to see a traffic management plan proposed and to begin working with the City on this program. Currently the college. offers free parking to the students to encourage .them to use the parking lots. It was noted by the study that the peak period for traffic congestion is 10:00 a.m. on through the noon hour. A restricted lot on Center for faculty and staff has been proposed and the college is encouraging students to park in the lots. Currently the parking requirement is 996 spaces; we would like to provide an additional 50 spaces as a cushion for a total of 1,046 spaces. The changes and movement between classes will not represent any increase in the demands of parking on the campus. Chairman Mason asked if the free parking this year is being offered to all full and part-time students? Mr. King stated that a permit is issued to all students so that they can ® be identified for their use in parking in the lots and there is no charge for this permit. Those speaking in opposition: w Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1986 Page 4. Dale Rahn, 350 N". Harwood, urged the Commission to take two actions -- reconsider the EIR and deny the CUP for the following reasons: (1) nothing in the municipal code prohibits the reconsideration; (2) your request for a new parking and traffic study clearly shows that you do not believe the EIR is adequate; (3) thoroughly examine the alternate building sites as needed. Only an expanded. and adequate EIR can accomplish that; and (4) the EIR submitted by Chapman lacks an adequate master plan for the campus. John O'Dell, 414 N. Shaffer, felt the slide show and video did not reflect a true picture of the parking impact on the streets. M.J. Martini, 638 E. Walnut, gave the Commission six polaroid pictures .showing the existing shadow of Hashinger HaII at around 6:15 - 6:20 p.m., which buried the houses across the street. He also felt the video did not show an accurate account of the parking problem that is encountered on the surrounding streets. Lois Wells, 2170 N. Pine Street, expressed concern of constructing the 4- ~I~ story building in an area designed for 2-story buildings. The City would be setting a precedent for other building in the area if this building were allowed to be constructed. She cited invasion of property, traffic displacement and eventual deterioration of the community that is immediately involved in this type of an impact. Russell Barrios, 235 E. Maple, stated Chapman College is not a bad neighbor and he has sat on various committees of the college to specifically increase their enrollment program. Something needs to be worked out regarding the parking problem. Chapman needs to solve the problems. Rules are rules and they have to be applied equitably across the board. Debbie McLaughlin, 406 N. Shaffer, felt a domino theory exists near Chapman College. The college is buying most of the homes in the neighborhood to expand their campus; there is no free market. The CUP should be denied and the project should not be approved until the college files a definitive master plan with the City, She understood the staff report to say the campus can only accommodate 938 spaces. Mr. King shoots that number up to 1,046. Where do they intend to put these additional 50 spaces? Sherry Suste, 409 N. Shaffer, wants to have equal rights. The Planning Commission, back in January, made an applicant lower their building 4 feet because they were within 120 feet of homes just like this building, but this building is a lot bigger. Teresa Smith, 169 N. Shaffer, is concerned about the parking situation. The video presentation was done on a Friday -- a free day for most students. She urges the Commission to reconsider their actions and deny the EIR, which fell short in many areas, and to examine alternative building sites which would allow the campus to build on the sides of the college., particularly Glassell where there is P-I property already zoned and available. Chuck Haupt, 314 E. Palmyra, is concerned about the off-street parking problem. He doesn't think Chapman College has addressed the issues of conforming to certain guidelines. The alternative site consideration was not addressed. '" Planing Commission Minutes . October 6, 1986 Page 5. Also, the Planning Commission should deny the EIR and CUP because of unaddressed issues. Hard facts are needed before proceeding with this project," Mary Trousdale, 143 N. Shaffer, commented on the vintage homes being restored because the people love and appreciate their neighborhoods. She is not opposed to a Learning Center, but the problem is the massive bulk of this building. Lynn O'Dell, 414 N. Shaffer, submitted a letter from Debbie Sigler, 171 N. Center Street, who could not attend tonight's meeting but wanted her opposition recorded. Ms. Sigler is opposed to the granting of CUP 1486. The proposed building is a disincentive to historic preservation and would like a master plan for all of Chapman College's future planning and construction of buildings be submitted prior to approving zone changes or granting CUP's. Mrs. O'Dell addressed the parking issue in reference to approvin? the CUP -- you will be playing a game of "parking space catch up". The parking code has not been met and traffic aspects are still not addressed. Dave Trousdale, 143 N. Shaffer, is opposed to granting the CUP to allow the construction of the Learning Center at its present location under the current design. He is not opposed to the Center, but against where it is to be built and what it will look like. He compared Chapman College and the historic neighborhood to San Jose, who encountered similar problems with their expansion of San Jose State College. He urged the Commission not to alter the characteristics of Old Towne. Steve Taylor, 363 N. Center, verified to the validity of the shadows as seen in the photos. He feels the 63 foot building is an invasion of home- owners' privacy. The focus of the campus will change from the interior to the neighboring streets. The EIR did not fully address alternative sites and locations. Many people have been denied CUP's for their small projects; the enormity of this project dwarfs other projects the Commission has turned down before. Dale Ferguson, 419 E. Maple, is opposed to the large building and parking. He questioned how many students attend the college, how many faculty members there are, is there a master plan, and is the parking adequate. Cozette Taylor, 363 N. Center, is concerned about the parking problem in her neighborhood. In addressing some of the public's concerns, Mr. King stated at the , September 3 meeting individual concerns were expressed by those living on Shaffer wanting to be included in the. parking study. The college acknowledges a need for parking and is willing to face and meet. the requirements of the City. They would like very much to work with the City in alleviating the parking problem.. There is a difference in the numbers for parking. When the project first came before the City,, the college had .acquired additional building lots next to the campus so that they could provide the parking that is required. He feels off-street parking requirements can be met. Planning Commission Minutes . October 6, 1986 Page 6. j Enrollment might increase, but it would be during evening hours. By staggering class times throughout the day and evening, it will eliminate peak hours of traffic congestion. And the college is encouraging students to use the campus parking lots. Their offer is to exceed the required amount of parking. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to re-open the action on the EIR. Mr. Minshew explained the hearing would need to be re-published and set for another public hearing at a future date. Mr. Soo-Hoo said the zone change action was based on the $IR approval -- should-the EIR be rescinded, the zone change should also be taken back. Mr. Minshew agreed that it would be a matter of reconsidering both. Chairman Mason wanted to know if the Commissioners were uncomfortable because of new evidence that was presented tonight that they did not have when they voted the first time. Commissioner Master was uncomfortable with the parking situation, the additional requirements and the staff report in particular. Chairman Mason asked Commissioner Master if he didn't think they could mitigate that with the conditions of the CUP? Commissioner Master doesn't think they are going to mitigate the situation because unless the Commission makes it a condition that occupancy does not take place until that problem is solved; he has not heard the applicant say there is a plan they had in mind or would accept. Chairman Mason interjected, but we could make that a condition. That it would come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing - the parking plan and implementation of that plan. We could condition that on the issuance of the building permits. Commissioner Master still does not feel comfortable enough with it. It is going to be a viable thing. Commissioner Greek needed to know absolute numbers. Mr. Dennis told us the total number of parking places required is 1,348; that is adding 352 to his 996. A couple of weeks ago it was 1,160. What is really required? That question has not been answered. Also, an alternate site was not brought out in the EIR. These two issues still need to be addressed. Chairman Mason questioned if he were not satisfied with the alternate sites that were brought out in the EIR? Commissioner Greek said they were never brought out. The statements were not considered. `" Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1986 Page 7. Chairman Mason stated they were considered because they are mentioned. Commissioner Greek said parking and alternate sites are major items and should be considered. They should have been considered in the EIR. Chairman Mason explained by certifying the EIR we were only saying that the EIR was done properly. That is all certification is. Commissioner Greek did not think the EIR was done properly and he welcomes the opportunity to ask these questions again. Commissioner Master thought-the College had been influenced to place that parking on Center Street because typically you put it adjacent to the building. The City itself may have had a hand in placing the parking there. He does not think the parking is the only problem. As a matter of location -- he thinks where it is located; not the building so much, as the traffic that results on the street because of where the parking is placed. Chairman Mason said that does not take away from the EIR that was certified because all of that information was in the EIR. Commissioner Master said what he has seen in Mr. Dennis' report is the amount of cars on the street that he has not seen before, which is new input to him. Based on the new input, he made his motion. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated the concern centers quite a bit on the discomfort with the lack of building effect on provision of adequate parking. And, in that case, the Planning Commission has the option to tighten the condition as it feels comfortable. That is completely up to the Commission and it must be acceptable to the College. If it isn't acceptable; then the CUP will not be utilized. The question about traffic -- the impact is identified. Now the Commission understands that that impact will take place as a result of Mr. Dennis' study. He does not know what it would do to continue the hearing for the EIR to include that, which the Commission already knows. Commissioner Hart is concerned that there was no site plan other than the one that was in the EIR and in adopting the EIR, the Commission adopted that site plan. He was not happy with the site plan and supports re-opening the public, hearing on the EIR to pull out the site plan and put it in the CUP where it should be. Commissioner Greek said what he is looking for is an expansion of the EIR to consider major problems. He would like to expand the EIR to consider alternate sites and parking. He would also like Mr. Dennis to tell them how many parking places are required. They are getting into that with this condition. An absolute number will have to be established and whatever mitigation factors it will take. He doesn't believe they are looking for a re-hearing on the old information; the information was never considered. Commissioner Hart informed the Commission Mr. Master has made a motion. Three of the Commissioners were comfortable with the EIR and now one of the three is not comfortable with it. Planning Commission Minutes . October 6, 1986 Page 8. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek to re-open the public hearing to reconsider EIR 1040. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Mr. Soo-Hoo stated a re-hearing of this nature would be no sooner than November 3, but asked if, per the agreement of the last meeting, the College has the preogative to appeal this matter to the City Council once again? An affirmative response was given. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to withdraw re-zoning of the property in the project area with the understanding for technical reasons the zone change may not be acted upon without compliance to the environmental regulations. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED The matter will be tentatively re-scheduled for November 3. Notices have to be sent out and the whole matter will have to be begun once again. The City will need to discuss .the timing with the applicant since the preparation of a new EIR is required. One thing the College may be considering is the appeal. If the appeal is made, the re-scheduling before Commission will be held up. The appeal period is 15 days from tonight. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - CIRCULATION ELEMENT - GPA-CE 1-86 - CITY OF ORANGE: Public hearing to consiSer amending the City of Orange Circulation Element/ Master Plan of Arterial Highways by removing Orange Park Boulevard as a secondary arterial highway from Chapman Avenue to Serrano Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1097 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Johnson gave a report to the Planning Commission. As there is no antici- pation or probability of extending Orange Park Boulevard across Santiago Creek, it is recommended to amend the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Orange Park Acres lies between Santiago Canyon Boulevard and Chapman Avenue and extends across the creek and intersects with Serrano Avenue. The proposed change in roadway status allows Orange Park Boulevard to remain at its present street-width .and precludes the need to extend the road across Santiago Creek. It is anticipated that traffic volumes on Orange Park Boulevard will lessen with the completion of Loma Street to the west. Staff does not anticipate any significant environmental impact and does not recommend any mitigation measures for this project. Commissioner Hart questioned why the Commission needs to act on this since it was in the County area, to which Mr. Johnson replied it was in our Sphere of Influence. Planning Commission Minutes _ October 6, 1986 Page 9. Moved by Commissioner Hart, 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 1097. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they approve the deletion of Orange Park Boulevard from secondary arterial status. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Greek excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. 1. Plannin Commission discussion of possible expansion to General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 4-$6 Item "A", generally located of Orangewood Avenue and Anaheim southeast from the intersection _ Boulevard. Jim Reichert, Associate Planner in Advanced Planning, presented staff's findings. to the Planning Commission. The applicant, Koll Co., is requesting expansion on approximately 8.5 acres.. The requested General Plan .designation is Major Commercial and the requested zoning is C-1. These requests are intended to comprise the initial steps leading to development of the Phase II Koll Center Orange Project. Staff feels it would be appropriate to expand the study area to include the remaining properties in the triangular area farmed.by Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard and St. College Boulevard that are not part of the project. Also, staff recommends that the expansion study area at least include a C-2 zoning alternative in addition to the C-1 zoning classification. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the applicant be informed the study area should be expanded as recommended by staff. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting. 2. Request for finding~of substantial compliance - Conditional Use Permit 1446, TPM 85-297 - DeClark: Request to find proposed plan modifications in substantial.compliance with the Planning Commission approval of August 5, 1985. The project is on Colorado Lane (a private street) north of Villa Vista Way and south of Villa Real Drive. ., Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1986 Page 10. Mr. McGee presented the staff report and exhibits were shown to the Commission. On August 5, 1985 the Planning Commission approved TPM-85-297 allowing the creation of three residential lots and Conditional Use Permit 1446 permitting the creation of two of these hots without direct street frontage. A major concern to staff is the .impacts of the creation of additional lots on the circulation on Villa Real Drive. The subdivision design purposely focused access to the site to Colorado Lane because of .this concern. Access to Villa Real is discouraged because of Ehe exclusively residential nature of the street, the high speed of travel and visibility limitations due to the curvature of the street at this location. The applicants seek to .modify the original proposal to have one of those three parcels take access to Villa Real because of the high cost of grading entailed in providing a driveway to Colorado Lane. Staff feels that approval of the modification with a finding of substantial compliance is inappropriate and a new public hearing should be conducted to consider revised conditions. Commissioner Greek asked if a variance was needed. Mr. McGee explained the Commission would hear a Conditional Use Permit and tentative parcel map at a new public hearing. Chairman Mason opened the public hearing. Patrick Michael, 225 S. Prospect, the project contractor representing the DeClark's, believes that having one parcel take access or changing the access to Villa Real is still in conformance with the original approved CUP, which was the access of properties without frontage on a public street. He wishes the Commission to rule in favor of their request. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept staff's recommendation that the proposal was not in substantial compliance. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED RE: OTHER ITEMS 1. Mr. Soo-Hoo was directed by the Commission to register their attendance to the upcoming Leage of Cities meeting. Commissioners Mason, Greek, Master and Scott wish to attend. 2. The transmittal to City Council regarding the ordinance amendment to re-establish the zoning designation titles of R-2, R-3 and R-4 met with the Commission's approval. 3. The upcoming study session with Advanced Planning will be held on Moday, October 13, 1986, at 4:00 p.m. The Commission will meet in ,~~ c Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1986 Page 11. the Weimer Room before proceeding to the Anaheim Hills site tour with the Anaheim consultant. The two-hour tour will conclude with dinner. IN RE: AD30URNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m., to reconvene at a regular meeting on October 20, 1986, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. /sld b