Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 20, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Ault STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Lon Cahill, Fire Prevention Bureau; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; John Lane, Administrator Advance Planning; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 6 , 1980: Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve the minutes of October 6, 1980 as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the Consent Calendar, review of plans per intent to rezone procedure for Zone Change 902. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: Mr. Murphy brought to the Commission's attention that Conditional Use Permit 1047, Variance 1600, Tentative Parcel P~lap 80-767 - Continental Cities would be asking for a continuance. Bill Foley, representing Continental Cities, explained that it was their intent to have a fu71 hearing on the matter prior to a continuance. Commissioner Pickelson stated that he did not have any objection to a continuance, but he had questions he would like to raise. Commissioners decided to take this item in order on the agenda. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 3-80, ITEM "A" AND EIR 639 - CENTURY AMERICAN CORPORATION: Request to amend the Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Office Professional on property located on the northeast corner of Wanda and Katella. Jack McGee presented this application, explaining that this item had been presented and reviewed by the Commissioners earlier in the year, and was recommended to the City Council for approval. The property is about two acres in size, located on the northeast Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Two L corner of Katella and Wanda. The applicant has requested an amendment to the Land Use Element from Low Density Residential uses. Office developments currently exist on two other corners of this same intersection. Earlier this year, the same applicant made a similar request for amendment to the General Plan. After a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation for approval, the Council denied that request, determining that additional environmental information is necessary. Expressed concerns of the Council included area ground- water seepage problems, effects of office development on neighboring residents, circulation and the desire to restrict development to one story in height. In response to the Council's concerns expressed at the previous public hearings, an environmental impact report has been prepared in conjunction with this application which focuses on drainage, circulation, and esthetic issues. Further, the applicant has given additional general information about the development proposal. The project is to consist of one story office buildings adjacent to the streets, with parking areas to be between the buildings and neighboring residences. The applicant has also stated a desire to include a bank within the development. The site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods that are oriented away from it and the arterial streets. Being isolated in this way and of a configuration unsuited to ideal residential subdivision, the site should be considered for other uses. Respect must at the same time be maintained for the existing residential neighborhoods surrounding the site in terms of building orientation and design compatibility. Mr. McGee further explained that it is felt that office uses can best solve the question of most appropriate use for the property, as long as the development plans are prepared with sensitivity to the surrounding area. Handled properly, it is possible for office uses to be quite compatible with existing uses. Mr. McGee pointed out that a letter had been received from the City of Villa Park, stating that their City Council had discussed this matter at th ei r meeting of October 16th , and their position i s that the existing Low Density Residential Designation is preferred. They stated that should the Commission and City Council be inclined to approve the change in designation to Office-Professional, they recommended that the architecture of the office be compatible with adjacent low density residential areas. In addition, the Villa Park City Council recommended that the safety needs of pedestri ans and bi cycli sts along Wanda Road be consi dered during the planning process. Mr. McGee then stated that the Staff's recommendation in this matter is that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to certify that EIR #639 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and Local Guide- lines for implementation of CEOA and that the City Council should find that some adverse effects may be experienced by the implementation of thi s project. The adverse effects can, however, be mitigated by proper site planning, including building heights and driveway and building placement. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Three Secondly, Staff re commends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 3-80 Item "A" to change the land use classification from Low Density Residential to Office-Professional be approved with the understanding that when specific plans are developed that all construction be limited to one story in height and that efforts be made to keep the project design residential in character. Commissioner Master observed that the EIR addresses a bank building and with it come some significant traffic problems. The original plan that was presented several months ago dealt strictly with an office-professional building. He pointed out that office- professional would generate only 1/4 to 1/5 the traffic generated by a bank. He commented that he was concerned about that intersection. Most of the ingress and egress will be on Wanda Road rather than Katella. They never originally considered a bank use and have not approved that. Mr. McGee answered that generally the office-professional designation would be implemented with office-professional zoning, which would not include a bank use. However, there are existing office- professional designated areas which are zoned C-P which would permit a bank. How the land use designation is implemented specifically would be a future determination for the Commission and Council. The applicant has requested a bank use. This is an indication of what the applicant's desires are and is not a direct part of the Commission's consideration. The Commission is looking at the general designation of land use for this property. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if anyone had ever done a layout that cou]d be justified on that district. Mr. McGee answered that they have never gotten any definite proposals on this. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. J.R. Morrow, 1440 E. Chapman, Orange, representing Century American, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He stated that they have reviewed the recommendations of the City Counci 1 as of the March 25th City Counci 1 meeting and the concerned citizens. They have greatly revised their plans and have completed an EIR and soil impact report, both of which have been reviewed by the city's professional staff. A letter has been written to the residents regarding the plans which they have for this property. He explained that he had also personally visited the residences of those who adjoin this land and spoke with those residents to review their plans and alleviate any concerns they might have had about the development. The three major concerns that were expressed at the City Counci 1 meeti ng were some possibl e drainage problems , the impact of an office building on a residential neighborhood, and the building height. In response to these concerns Century American has done the following: On the drainage problem, they have engaged the services of Lighten and Associates and their results, as well as the results of an earlier study done by PJP Laboratories and the City of Orange Public Works Department investigation state conclusively that the source of the water is not from a potable water supply. The soil condition was such that there was no saturation to a depth of 29 feet and that was the depth of the test borings that they did on this site. No work was done on adjacent parcels. The conclusion was that the problem stems from seasonal changes in the ground water level. He explained that the city has a copy of the soils report. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Four Also Westec Services were engaged to provide the EIR for the project. They examined the issues of esthetics, traffic circulation and ground water seepage. The results of that study and the conclusions of the professional staff were that the property is isolated in such a way that its configuration is not suited to a residential sub- division and the site should be considered for other uses. They stated further that offices can best solve the question of the most appropriate use for the property and they will not adversely affect traffic results or any other residential concerns that there might be. The third question on the building height - the building has been re- designed to a single story with a residential roof line and the placement of the building pads themselves have been changed to allow for maximum privacy to the residential area behind them. They have considerably changed the design of the building. There will be no window views into back yards. Mr. Morrow further stated that some of the neighbors had stated that they would not object to the same plan if it were single story in height. He also explained that he had personally gone to the City of Villa Park and spoke with their people. Tonight is the first ~- objection he has heard from them for office-professional use. He pointed out that Century American feels that the changes presented now are in answer to the residents and Commissioners and the City Council and, hopefully, this will now allow for the highest and best use of this property so that they ensure that the development will add to the attractiveness and value of the area. He pointed out that it had been mentioned earlier by someone on the Commission that they had not seen a site plan or an elevation. He explained that he had brought both of these items with him to show to the Commission. He went on to say that all of the residents that he had gone to see had seen the site plan and have seen their elevation. Richard Goerke, 2924 Trenton, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that his house is on a pie-shaped lot that overlooks the vacant lot. He would be receptive to a nice looking building there, rather than the dump trucks which now dump there. He wondered if this application is approved for a one story building, must they then stick with that. He stated that he is also concerned with the traffic problems that would be generated. Marilyn Allen, 1480 Kathleen Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she feels that something must be done with this property. She also agreed that this land is not suitable for residential use because, with the traffic situation, people would be moving in and out. However, she did have some real concerns. She was concerned about traffic. She was also concerned that what they put in there is what Villa Park will eventually put into the packing plant area. Perhaps they may put in very busy shops or a large condominium development, which would also increase the traffic situation. She also stated that she understood that Villa Park will be putting in a linear park strip across Katella and wondered why this same type of thing cannot be put in here also. Isabella Johnson, 1434 Kathleen Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission. She is concerned with the water under the houses. They have put extra drains in and also a pump. She explained that it takes forever for the water under the house to dry up. They have learned that they never removed the cement basement on the land in question and she L• Planning Commission Minutes October 20 , 1980 Page Five would like to see copies of the soil report and Environmental Impact Report. She wondered if construction behind their property would make their problem worse. Philip Singerman, 10302 Robinhood Circle, Orange, stated that he lives in the second house north of the site. When they purchased their property, he was concerned about this open strip of land. He called the City of Orange six years ago and was told this was residential property. At that point they purchased the home where they now live. He agrees that something should be done with this land but feels that this should be South ern Pacific Railroad's responsibility. He would like to see it remain residential. Switching to office-professional now would not be in the best interests of the local residents. It would be a very appropriate thing to make a green belt of it. Richard Allen, 1480 Kathleen Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that at the March 25th Council meeting, Councilman Smith was quite concerned about pulling the plug on rezoning this area. The strip from Katella to Collins on Wanda, belonging to Villa Park, along with the area around the packing house had not been established use at that time. He wondered if this would open the door for a strip all the way down Wanda Road. Mr. Allen wondered if it has been firmly established that the strip will be a green belt. He was told that he would have to ask Villa Park about this . Mr. Allen felt that a green belt would provide a much more pleasant and compatible use of the land than the office-professional use being considered. The applicant responded to the opposition. He explained that they have had some interest from a bank and savinas and loan. Should this go further, they would continue with a conditional use permit at the appropriate time. However, at this point it's too early to give any kind of indication about who might be tenants in the proposed office building. He addressed Mr. Goerke and assured him that the building will be one story in height. Regarding traffic concerns, these were addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and city professionals have addressed themselves to this problem and feel this can be worked out. Regarding a strip park vs. office-professional property, this property is 145' in depth. The strip from Katella to Collins is considerably less than that, and that strip is definitely designated as a linear park . Mr. Morrow also told Mrs. Johnson that he would provide her with a soils report and he explained that the current drainage does drain toward the street and they will design with that fact in mind. They plan on maintaining this property in a professional manner and it will not detract from the general area. He felt that the questions which had been brought up at the March 25th Council meeting have been pretty well covered by Century American. Commissioner Mickelson commented that in the EIR, one of the comments, paragraph 4.2, page 21, stated that the subject parcel is presently owned by the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. Any future develop- ment on the subject parcel would, therefore, be subject to a general leasehold agreement rather than outright sale or purchase. This ~; would not allow for conventional residential financing. He pointed out that it is interesting to note that the hearing in the City of Villa Park regarding the packing house, which is also owned by the , Southern. Pacific Transportation Co., and also on a 30 year leasehold Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Six agreement, had no problem with apparently getting or projecting financing for residential use. He was only making a comment that any other future developments dealing with Southern Pacific, apparently there is financing available. Question was asked if these were single family residences and Mr. Master answered that there were two alternative plans - one was single family detached and two others were condominiums - 69 units vs. 73 units. Com- missioner Mickelson commented that this definitely makes a difference in the financing picture. Chairman Coontz asked the applicant to reply to this question. Barry Cottle, representing Century American, stated that it is their understanding that the packing house is not owned by Southern Pacific. Commissioner Master stated that it was his understanding that it is owned by them. John Lane explained that there is a little difference in the two situations. The property in question here includes an additional width of former railroad right of way that is actually also owned by the railroad company. The. are a in Villa Park, as he understands it, has a combination of railroad right of way and land owned by the Villa Park Orchards Association. That Orchards Association property may be under a different type of an arrangement, although he understands that development would be under a leasehold arrangement also. Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak for or against this application. Commissioner Master pointed out that the EIR makes a recommendation that is not in the Staff recommendations. Because the traffic study is based on 1979 data, just after the washout, he believed, the EIR recommends under paragraph 3.2.3. , page 17, which kre read, that an additional traffic analysis be performed, consisting of an update of an existing traffic volume, using the City of Orange annual traffic report and the intersection capacity utilization. He pointed out that the numbers seen in the EIR are not ICU, based on the linear points between intersections. He thinks this is a particularly important thing regarding potential uses other than 0-P. The Staff recommendation did not have this item included in it. He then asked Mr. Murphy if there had been discussion about something being done on the divider strip at Katella just south of Wanda. Mr. Johnson answered him, stating that definitely if the present property owner wants to cut a left turn lane, he would have the right to do so, but there is not much room. Mr. Johnson also explained that the island is a Villa Park island. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson that the Commission recommend to the City Council to certify that EIR #639 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and Local Guidelines for implementation of CEQA, for reasons as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner Master again referred to his concern about what was recommended in the EIR itself regarding whether it is axiomatic that it happens with the more specific site plan and requested zone change or whether it should be part of the GPA. Mr. Lane answered that their position generally is on General Plan Amendments that they do not condition them as such. He pointed out that obviously times are changing in the land use and zoning areas and theoretically they don't condition zoning either. However, in the past the City of Orange has added conditions to zone changes. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Seven Theoretically they would do the same thing in the General Plan Amendment. If the Commission chooses to add an additional condition, this would be acceptable. Commissioner Master asked that the maker of the motion make an amend- ment that would include consideration as recommended in the EIR regarding a traffic study, upon further plan development. Com- missioner Hart accepted this. Commissioner Dickelson didn't have any objection to this addition, but felt that it was redundant, because if they would accept the EIR as being completely certified, the mitigation measure is in there. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson commented that the Commission's only real means of assuring single story is to use the Resolution of Intent on the zone change later on. He asked Mr. Murphy if this assumption was correct. Mr. Murphy answered unless they would have the A suffix in effect at that point in time, which they plan to do, which could be attached to any zone, and limit it to single story developments. Commissioner Mickelson responded that he felt that they are very much in need of that, because they need to make it very clear when they take such an action that this was the intent. He felt that at the present time, they need to make a finding in their motions be- cause that is the only thing that is available to them. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 3-80 Item "A" with the understanding that when specific plans are developed that all construction be limited to one story in height and that efforts be made to keep the project design residential in character. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1047, VARIANCE 1600, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 80-767 - CONTINENTAL CITIES: Request to allow high-rise office development in the C-2 zone within 660 feet of the R-1 zone, an accessory wall sign which would exceed sign area limitation, and division of lot into 3 parcels on the east side of Parker Street, south of the Garden Grove Freeway. (Note: Draft Environmental Impact Report 646 has been prepared for this project.) Mr. Murphy presented this application on behalf of the Staff. He explained that this is a request to allow development of an office complex which exceeds 2 stories and 30 feet in height and which is within 660 feet of a single family residential zone. (Applicant proposes to construct three buildings with heights of 16, 22 and 8 stories, as well as a parking structure with a maximum height of 6 stories.) Applicant's request is also to allow an accessory wall sign with freeway orientation which would exceed the sign area limitations require d by the Orange Municipal Code and to allow creation of three parcels from one lot. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Eight Mr. Murphy explained that the Commission will also be considering a Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for the project. He pointed out that the subject property is located on the east side of Parker Street, between the Garden Grove Freeway and the Orange- Santa Ana City Boundary and contains approximately 8.3 acres. It is presently vacant and is zoned C-2. Parker Street is a secondary arterial with a width of 80 feet and Town and Country Road is a primary arterial with a width of 100 feet. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to allow an office development which exceeds 2 stories and 30 feet within 660 feet of a single family residential zone (in the City of Santa Ana). He pointed out that on May 13, 1980, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance which requires a conditional use permit for developments which meet such criteria. Applicant is also requesting a variance to allow additional signing than that which the code permits, and permission to create three parcels from one existing lot. The applicant is proposing to develop three site in three construction phases. Phase 1 structure, to contain 302,110 square feet o approximately at the center of the site. P at the western portion of the site, south o and Country Road and involves construction with a floor area of 425,310 square feet. be located immediately north of Phase 2 and of an 8 story building with 150,000 square office buildings on the calls for a 16-story f floor area located ease 2 would be located f the extension of Town of a 22 story structure The final phase would proposes construction feet of floor area. Mr. Murphy explained that off-street parking would be primarily within a 5 level parking structure with one level below grade to be located along the southern portion of the site. The potential to increase the capacity of the structure by adding a sixth level is also discussed, as well as the possibility of providing additional parking under one of the structures (most likely Phase 3). It was also pointed out to the Commission that the applicant, as a supplemental request, also seeks a variance to allow deviation from sign provisions contained in the Orange Municipal Code. Specifically, the applicant's preliminary signing program for Phase 1 calls for signs on two building faces: the west face for exposure to Town and Country Road would contain one sign to be located near the top of the building and the northeast face would contain two signs, one to be located near the top of the building and the other to be located over the ground floor. These latter signs would be oriented toward the freeway. Though all signs are within the basic size limitations established by code, (not to exceed 20% of the wall area) section 17.84.220 B.3 of the code specifically restricts the area of the second sign on the northeast facade to 20 square feet. The applicant wishes to exceed this area. Mr. Murphy explained that the final part of the proposal is to allow a three parcel subdivision of the site which would generally divide the site in accordance with the construction phases. Phase One would include the parking structure, while the latter two phases would basically contain the office structures themselves. Obviously, agreements would be executed to allow access to the parking structure by all three structures. Planning Commission Minutes October 20 , 1980 Page Nine L~ Staff's recommendation with regard to the existing Environmental Impact Report and the project is for approval, based on the distance of the project from the residential area to the south and the separator of Santiago Park and that the existing trees in the park area would be a buffer between the commercial and residential zones. The basic distance from the high rise buildings would be approximately 650 feet, and from the parking structure, approximately 425 feet. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Commission has received two pieces of information, one a second letter from the City of Santa Ana regarding their concerns relating to the traffic analysis in the EIR; and another letter received from the California Department of Transportation with reference to the traffic study and the impact on the Garden Grove Freeway going north. Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff needs more time to respond to these two letters and to put together responses to the Commission with regard to the questions that were asked in those two letters. He pointed out that the Com- mission has already received initial response from the City of Santa Ana i n the way of comments on the traffi c problems , height of the buildings, questions of parking, glare and privacy. Chairman Coontz asked three questions: 1. With regard to the bulk plane ratio, she wondered if that were 2:1. Mr. Murphy answered that the tallest building being 22 stories, would be approximately 3:1. The other buildings fall within the 4:1 ratio. 2. Regarding the proposed ordinance which will be coming before the City Council, the recommendation is the establishment of a height limit of 30 feet in C-P, C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones. The height limit can be exceeded in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones only when a bulk plane standard with a ratio of 4:1 measured to the nearest residential zone is met. Since that was a Staff recommendation and it was touched upon very recently, she wondered why the Staff was now recommending as they are . Mr. Murphy replied that this application came before the Staff long before the height limits study was prepared. Their initial review indicated to the applicant that at the time there were no policy statements regarding height within the ordinance. The Staff's position at this point in time would be even though the ratio of height to distance on one building within the project exceeded the 4:1 ratio that the buffering of the Santiago Park and the creek bed adequately covers this particular situation, as opposed to the normal, which is a basically flat land residential immediately adjacent to commercial developments. Chairman Coontz asked if this project was on the books prior to the Staff's making a study on the bulk plane ratio and Mr. Murphy answered that this was so. 3. When was Santa Ana apprised of the fact that this application was coming before us? The answer was that they had 45 days to respond. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that Santa Ana was given the initial notice on June 19, 1980. This was a notice of preparation. Commissioner Master mention of 5 levels that there was just asked for clarification with regard to the above grade and 2 below. Mr. Murphy replied one level below grade. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Ten Henry Lambert, President of Continental Cities, the applicant, addressed the Commission, explaining that he wanted to ask the architect to present the project. Maris Peika, 70 Universal City Plaza, Universal City, architect for this project, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He gave a brief description of how they came up with the concept for the project. They wanted to design this as much in the center of the property as possible. They wanted to be as close as possible to the commercial district to the south. Mr. Peika explained that there are two levels below grade, one on the surface and three levels above. They also wanted to build the buildings away from the freeway. He explained how they came about building three buildings in staggered heights. They are using pre- cast concrete for the buildings and parking structure. The balance is being done in blue-green glass which has a reflection on the outside. Commissioner Master wondered if they have considered tenants occupying whole buildings. Mr. Lambert answered that they have tried to design the buildings in such a way so that they could house a variety of tenants . Commissioner Master questioned with regard to traffic and mitigating measures. He asked about whether there were major tenants being considered. He also commented on how Fluor Corporation was solving some of their traffic problems, and that is by van pooling. This is voluntary and it has worked out extremely well, for the company as well as for the employees. He pointed out Fig. 6, page 9, commenting that he saw on the scale a building of 301 feet. He wondered if this was correct and was told that it was. It was then explained that with regard to the building heights, the 16 story building is really a 15 story building with a penthouse housing the mechanical apparatus for the building. Commissioner Master wanted to know if the scale was linear both vertically and horizontally and he was told that it was. Commissioner Master complimented the applicant on the excellent model of the project, but stated that he would have liked to have seen more of the surrounding area around this project. It was explained that there is an aerial photo of the surrounding area in the EIR, which illustrates everything much better than they could have done in the model. Mr. Lambert explained a little about the company who is developing this project. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reliance group, which is a three billion dollar company that sits on the New York Stock Exchange. One of the reasons for choosing this site was that they thought i t was an opportunity to do something that was architecturally special. He explained that they did not want to flood the market so they had planned three buildings instead of one large building. Michael Thompson, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, Associate Planner for the City of Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project. He complimented the Commission on their sensitivity to some of the problems with this project. Some of the issues that have been identified in this public hearing are the same concerns which the City of Santa Ana has which would make this project compatible with c Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Eleven the surrounding area. Their major concern is traffic. They sent a memo expressing four major concerns in this area. They feel there are severe problems with the on ramp situation to the Garden Grove Freeway. The second area is systems analysis. They felt that the problem is a comprehensive one and should not be confined to a study of specific intersections or should be done in isolation. Transit planning and transit system management strategies were also areas of concern for the City of Santa Ana. The idea that Com- missioner Master brought out of pooling, bus transit and other such areas is important to them. The whole idea of a strategy to handle the traffic problem from their standpoint is a matter that needs a comprehensive. approach. They feel that the intensity of the project is to necessitate significant commitments in terms of mitigation on the street, significant participation by the developer in making improvements that are going to be necessary to insure that the impact of the intensive use is not going to spoil the adjacent residential environment or cause problems on the existing street systems. Mr. Thompson further explained that the Santa Ana Planning Department has also identified some other area that are of importance. The light and views cape are important. The kind of glass the developer is talking about using still has reflective and glare problems. The buildings loom over the residential environment across Santiago Creek. They are also concerned with the adequacy of off street parking. The project is intense and unique enough that it needs more than minimum parking area. Mr. Thompson pointed out that there was additional concern expressed by the Santa Ana Fire Department. They were consulted briefly by the people making the Environmental Impact Report. It is incumbent on the developer to take the space to make these buildings fire safe. These problems were not addressed in the EIR and should be covered. r Commissioner Mickelson explained that the Commission had just gone through their height limitations study and analysis and one of the cities used for comparison was Santa Ana. They have recommended to their City Council almost the same thing that Santa Ana is now using. He stated that assuming that the applicant was going to ask for a continuance (which had been mentioned earlier) he would like to have Santa Ana respond in some way to them as to what the technical criteria would be if this site were in Santa Ana, just for the sake of comparison. He would like to compare their proposed technical data to Santa Ana's current technical data. Mr. Thompson replied that they would be happy to supply this for the Commission, together with various samples of cases which they have worked on to demonstrate to the Commission how they utilize that information. Ray Warren, 2545 Valencia, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he will be directly affected by this project. He commented that the model is truly an exemplary factor when dealing with such a large project. However, it doesn't show the amenities surrounding the project. There will be tremendous impact on the surrounding area. He pointed out that this is truly a magnificent project in the right area, but he felt that they are putting in a complex that will develop an LAX situation. The traffic situation and ingress and egress will be incredible. He didn't know how this can be done. The layout of the structure boggles his mind. He pointed out that the parking structure should be facing the freeway, but they are going to place parking structures backing up to residential areas. He didn't feel that this is very good planning. C~ Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Twelve There is deep concern over the flow of traffic in an R-1 area. He explained that their area is a very quiet one and they are afraid that all of this will be lost. Linda Halbrick, 2329 Santiago, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She stated that she was told about 5:00 p.m. today that there would be an issue regarding their street. She had some points she wished to bring up: 1. The flow of traffic that would be created from people working there and customers going and coming from the building to the Garden Grove Freeway. There is easy access going east, but going west or to the Santa Ana Freeway would be through residential streets. 2. On the corner of Valencia and Hoover is Hoover Elementary School. These children walk to and from school every day. There will be much traffic generated from the project and will create a problem for school children. 3. Next to Santiago of this park and this They will have to pay be using the park. Park. They have been fighting for the upgrading proposed site is right next door to the park. for upkeep of the park and Orange people will Bill Truman, 2303 Santiago, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he has lived for 37 years at this address. He went into some detail about the development of the Santa Ana Freeway on and off ramps. He felt that Santiago will become a freeway when this project goes in. The problem is not only from the south, but also to the north. William Burns, 2657 Archmont Avenue, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he lives in the area where he is because he has had four heart attacks and he moved there to be near St. Joseph's Hospital. He would like to get there quickly if he needs to. He pointed out that in the garage or parking facility area it was developed to accommodate 361 cars. If this is the case, there will be two 18 story buildings and one 20 story building, which means a total of 56 floors. He felt that not enough parking is being proposed for the buildings. What they really need for that amount of space is 5000 parking spaces. There will also be visitors to the buildings, not just the people who work there. Regarding privacy, the building overlooks his yard. He does not want to feel that he is on display. Buildings of this size will destroy his view of the mountains. There will be no more view. Regarding major streets - Lincoln, Santiago, Grovemont and Park Lane. These streets were never designed to carry the type of traffic that they will have when the buildings go up. If the buildings go up, he will go to the City Council of Santa Ana and will request that they block off all access to Santiago. Then they will have Grand, Main, La Veta and the freeways. He pointed out that Park Lane east and west is strictly residential area. This is not a street access street. He closed by saying that he received a bulletin very late that was not signed, telling about this meeting tonight. Chairman Coontz asked Mr. Truman if he would give a copy of this bulletin to the Staff. Commissioner Mickelson commented that they can bring the context of his position to the project, but he wanted to point out that some of the information on the flyer he received was erroneous. The total height of the buildings adds up to 44 floors - not 56 floors. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Thirteen Commissioner Hart explained that the project calls for 2000 parking spaces. The area about which they are concerned has 1100 families concerned about the impact of this project. Mr. Lambert responded, apologizing to anyone who did not feel they were properly consulted. They want to do this project in the best interests of those who live nearby. They want Orange and Santa Ana to get together on this situation. They would like to suggest that they get together with the representatives of both cities. He explained that the parking area will provide for 2091 spaces. He did not think that they would have to worry about anyone using Santiago Park. Linda Halbrick stated that they would like some time so that Santa Ana people can be notified as a whole and be informed and be aware of the project. This is something that will affect everyone around it. They would like time to work on this. Mr. Burns wondered what the full occupancy of these buildings is estimated at. How many people will be in these buildings? Have they adequately prepared sprinkler installations in the buildings for all floors? Chairman Coontz replied that this would be a fire department requirement. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that Orange has one of the most sophisticated ordinances anywhere for fire hazards. Mr. Lambert stated that they will have 750,000 square feet of space which would accommodate 1400-1600 people in the project - possibly 1800. These people would be using less services than if there were a residential development there. They will be paying their share and will not be using many of the services in the cities. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to a continuance. Mr. Lambert stated that they would like to use the time effectively and be meeting with people from both Orange and Santa Ana and also the local residents. They would like about 30 days. Their traffic people would also like to complete their studies. Mr. Thompson of Santa Ana felt that 30 days was probably not adequate. After more discussion, Commissioner Mickelson reviewed the calendar, pointing out that December 1st was probably an appropriate time, giving them approximately six weeks. It was agreed that the most important thing is traffic circulation and more information would be needed. There was further discussion among the Commissioners regarding height limitations. Commissioner Mickelson requested that at the next public hearing a presentation be made by the traffic consultant. He wondered why no traffic was assigned to Memory Lane. What happens to Santiago and Memory Lane when the freeway ramps and the intersection of Parker and La Veta reach condition E and F? Should not the distribution on those local streets increase if that happens? He thought that was tied in Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Fourteen with the mitigation measures suggested there, the improving of those intersections so that they can handle the capacity. Of course, the State and the City of Santa Ana question whether those mitigation measures were realistic and this should be answered. He then wondered who pays for those improvements to those intersections. He thought our Staff would answer that in conjunction with the traffic consultant. He stated that it was his understanding that Santa Ana's commercial parking has been less adequate than the City of Orange. They require less parking per square foot of office space than Orange does, yet their calculations show that we are short. Our calculations show that we are meeting or exceeding. He would like to be assured of where we are in that respect. He also wondered what would happen when the three residential towers are added that are being planned to be built some day in the future, and some of the other projects that are at least discussed, if not on somebody's drawing board. He was thinking of a couple of other sites in par- ticular. One is at the northwest corner of Parker and Town and Country. In a local context, if this project is approved, it would have at least a growth inducement to the northwest corner of Parker and Town and Country. Certainly if this site can support high rise buildings, that site can also support high rise buildings. His thought was that if others are added to this project, can we really ~ handle this. Commissioner Hart pointed out another building going up on La Veta that would egress at the westerly bound Garden Grove Freeway. Commissioner Mickelson felt that there is some cumulative effect that must be looked at. Commissioner Coontz stated that if they were talking about negotiations city to city, then Santa Ana may have a vested interest in their own tax base. She commented that this was a political statement. Commissioner Mickelson mentioned that if there is any information on that parcel, perhaps Santa Ana could make that information available to the Orange Staff. Commissioner Mickelson felt that the important factor is traffic and what happens to the area. Can we handle it, what do we have to do to handle it and are those mitigation measures really adequate? He is not doubting the word, he needs more information and better education on it. Chairman Coontz commented that unfortunately we don't concern ourselves as much with accumulative as we should and we wait until there is a large project before us and that bears the burden for all that has not been done in the way of planning. Commissioner Hart commented regarding the traffic issue that he can- not visualize going home traffic going under the freeway on Parker and coming down on La Veta and then making another turn. There would be traffic backed up in all directions on La Veta. This was disturbing to him. Commissioner Master stated that he was assuming that the applicant would get copies of the letters sent, particularly the one from Cal Trans regarding this information. He also felt that the parking structure on the side facing the residential area could be buffered by stair stepping away from the park. He thought some parking space might be lost but there could be other alternatives. He felt that plantings could be placed there so that you would not see a concrete space totally unbroken. Landscaping there would soften the stark ~ wall coming up directly across from the park. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Fifteen Commissioner Master also thought there should be a measure regarding some form of a plan for how traffic will be handled. It could mitigate some of the problems. He wasn't sure how it could be implemented, because if you have multiple tenants, a plan would have to be written into the lease. Whoever ends up managing the building might have to be the instigator in doing the van pool coordinating. However, there is a method and he could attest to its validity that it works. Fluor Corporation handles 000 people and without the van pools, it would be chaotic. Mr. Lambert stated that they would like the earlier date, which would be less than 30 days. He felt this would be enough time to accomplish what they must accomplish. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to continue this hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of November 17th, in order to allow the participants to get together and try to iron out most of the problems that have been discussed at this meeting. Commissioner Hart asked that Staff draw up a memo to the effect of what has been said and brief the concerns that have been stated here at this meeting, and to notify the City of Santa Ana and the applicant. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1060 - CLEAR: Request to allow nail care salon in the M-2 zone on the south side of Katella Avenue, east of Batavia Street. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application on behalf of the Staff, pointing out that the applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit in order to operate a nail care salon (commercial use) in an industrial zone. The subject property is a rectangular parcel containing approximately 1.76 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Batavia Street (810 West Katella). The property is zoned M-2 (Industrial) and contains occupied industrial suites. The Land Use Element of the City of Orange General Plan designates this area as suitable for industrial development. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant proposes to operate a nail care salon in the front office (432 square feet) of an industrial suite with a total square footage of 1640 square feet. All parking spaces are located in the rear of the subject building which fronts on Katella Avenue and Batavia Street. The number of parking spaces provided for the industrial building totals 59 and was based on the assumption that the building would be used for industrial and not commercial purposes. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the Staff has reviewed the proposal and has expressed concern with this use in an industrially zoned and developed building. Staff has further concerns that the parking demand that will be generated by the nail care salon may not be accommodated by the parking provided in the rear of the property. Customers are expected to park in the front of the building on Katella Street for convenience sake. Staff is concerned that this could result in traffic problems. Staff feels that this commercial use would in no way complement existing industrial uses and, as a matter of fact, would encourage traffic which is normally alien to Planning Commission Minutes October 20 , 1980 Page Sixteen the industrial area -- that of the housewife. It is felt that uses in the category of that proposed by the applicant are more ap- propriately located in the commercial zones and that acceptance of this proposal could jeopardize the integrity of the industrial area with commercial service oriented uses. Conversely, it is recognized that a number of non-industrial uses exist within this area, probably due primarily to the frontage on a highly used arterial, Katella Avenue. Should the Planning Commission feel that, due to this characteristic, a re-evaluation of the zoning in this vicinity is called for, it is recommended that the Staff be directed to initiate a study to determine the possibilities. In any case, given the present zoning of M-2, Staff does not believe a nail care salon is acceptable and therefore recommends that the request be denied for the reasons specified in the Staff Report. Should the Planning Commission feel that the application warrants approval, three conditions are set forth in the Staff Report which are suggested pursuant to the approval. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, Erwin Newhouse, 724 W. Katella, Orange, owner of the industrial property in question, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He pointed out that there is a 2-hour parking limit on Katella Avenue, which he requested several years ago. They have never had a problem with this. He has a parking lot in the rear which is only used 50%. He explained that he pays a very large in- surance premium for a parking lot that is not being used. The proposed business will add approximately four cars - two employees and two customers. This will not in any way cause any traffic problem or congestion. Mr. Newhouse explained to the Commission that he screens his tenants very carefully and feels that he runs some of the best property in the City of Orange. He always sends the prospective tenant to the City for a business license. In this case, Mrs. Clear did this and was told there was no problem and consequently went out and purchased carpeting and furniture, and then was told that the business license would not be granted. He felt that they are not talking about a typical M-2 situation in this case. This kind of business cannot be in a building where there is a common air conditioning system because of the materials they must use to build nails. This type of business does not belong in a commercial zone. There will definitely not be a parking or traffic problem caused in this case. Chairman Coontz asked if there was a rear door that customers could use if they wanted to park in the rear. Mr. Newhouse explained about the parking situation there. Chairman Coontz also commented that he knew when he rented this space that this was not allowed in an M-2 zone. Larry Clear, 130 S. San Francisco, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that he had set his wife up in this business. He spent quite a bit of money to set up the establishment. They went to City Hall and got a license for this business. He questioned the statement that there will be a lot of housewives coming in, as this business attracts more professional women and women out in the business world. This is a good area for this business because of the many commercial businesses nearby. He did not feel that there will be a traffic problem in this instance. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Seventeen Martha Clear, 130 S. Francisco, Anaheim, applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She explained how she had gone to City Hall to get a business license. She asked if that was all there was to it and was told that was it. Then, several weeks later, she received a letter stating that she did not have a business license. She also explained with regard to the parking situation, stating that they can only handle two customers at a time and it takes about lz hours to build a set of nails for a customer. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner P~ickelson commented that the parking lot in this case was never full. Chairman Coontz did not feel that the time is right for a study to change the zoning. Commissioner Hart felt that the Commission has the responsibility for the City employees to get the right i nformati on . Commissioner Mickelson thought that this could be granted with a review after a time. Moved by Commissioner Nickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master that Conditional Use Permit 1060 be granted for a period of two years, subject to being extended at that time without a public hearing, but just a review by the Planning Commission and subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 80-771 - CHURCH ENGINEERING: Request to allow creation of 14 industrial parcels at the intersection of Case Street and Blueridge Avenue. Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application on behalf of the Staff. He stated that this is a request to allow creation of 14 industrial parcels. The subject property contains approximately 10 acres of land and is located at the intersection of Case Street and Blueridge Avenue. It is zoned M-2 and is presently vacant. Case Street and Blueridge Avenue are local industrial streets with ultimate widths of 60 feet. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the applicant requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to allow creation of 14 industrial parcels. One of the proposed parcels (Parcel A) is designated by a letter in order to render it non-buildable. This was done since no access is available to it with the location of the railroad right-of-way separating it from the balance of the site. Staff understands that the developer intends to sell this parcel to the property owner to the north, in which Parcel A may be consolidated with that larger parcel and thereby be made buildable. He explained that the parcel sizes range from .3 acre to 1.2 acres in size, with most parcels in the .3 to .5 acre area. Preliminary development plans have been submitted indicating that industrial buildings proposed for the site would range from 4,356 square feet to 17,290 square feet. Review of the preliminary plans indicate that all applicable development standards can be complied with. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1980 Page Ei ghteen The Staff has reviewed the proposal and indicated the general feeling that it would be preferable to encourage development of the industrial area with larger buildings on larger lots. Smaller buildings and sites provide long term problems of storage in parking lots, blocked driveways, etc. The applicant, however, responded that the current demand is for industrial buildings within the proposed size ranges . Mr. Soo-Hoo went on to state that a comparison of this proposal and the recently completed industrial development which surrounds it shows that parcel sizes are similar. Within that development, parcels ranged from .38 acre to 1.2 acres with the predominant size being approximately .5 acre. In that this site would essentially be an in-fill of that previous project and since the Planning Com- mission and City Council felt that subdivision to be acceptable, it is logical to also assume the subject proposal to be acceptable. Staff wishes, however, to again state its position that larger industrial lots should be encouraged in future industrial sub- divisions. The conditions in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet are suggested with approval of this request. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Cal Woolsey, 3931 Birch, Newport Beach, representing the applicant, Church Engineering, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He commented that the corporate entity listed on the Tentative Parcel Map will now be called Blueridge Business Park, a Joint Venture. He also stated that they would like to have the opportunity to discuss one of the conditions of approval. Condition #14 on Addendum Sheet 1 reading: "A retaining wall of concrete or concrete block shall be constructed when grading causes a change of grade in excess of 12 inches above or below the grade of the adjacent property line." He explained that they have a minor problem with this condition in that this is somewhat restrictive in mitigating the problem of changing one lot to another. They would like to suggest other methods. They would like this to be rephrased in some way so that alternative methods of mitigating this condition, if it exists, can be approved by the city engineering staff. He explained that the site is very flat so they do not anticipate a problem. But they would like some alternative methods if they have a problem. Mr. Johnson explained that this is one of their drain code require- ments. But they do try to work with the developer on something like this. He explained why they have this specified in this manner. Mr. Woolsey explained that by asking for other alternatives, this does not mean that they would not build a retaining wall if it were needed, but they have a problem with a condition that is this restrictive. Commissioner Master asked if they could live with a modification of the condition to read, "subject to Staff and applicant review." Mr. Woolsey agreed that this would be helpful. Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Murphy if there was flexibility in the ordinance to work around something like this and Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. w. Planning Commission Minutes October 20 , 1980 Page Nineteen Mr. Johnson and Commissioner Hart both felt that there are exceptions to every rule and that something like this could be worked out without stating it specifically. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept Tentative Parcel Map 80-771, subject to the conditions recommended by the Department of Public Works and Addendum Sheet #1, plus the conditions listed in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED PUD/APARTMENT DENSITY & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STUDY: Mr. Murphy presented a draft of a transmittal for the Commission's consideration, relating to PUD/Apartment Density and Development Standards Study. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to h1onday, October 27, 1980, at 10:00 a.m. by Chairman Coontz at 11:00 p.m., and then to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 3, 1980 at the Ci vi c Center Counci 1 Chambers , 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. v n STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on October 20, 1980; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on October 21, 1980, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of October 20, 1980 was held. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Ault Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart that this meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m. on Monday, October 20, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, November 3, 1980 at the Civic Center Counci 1 Chambers , 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, October 20, 1980. Dated this 21st day of October, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. Jere`,Murphy'", City Planner & Secretary to the Planning Commission off the Ci t_y~ Hof Orange l`~