Loading...
2011 - November 7Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange November 7, 2011 Page 1 of 10 November 7, 2011 Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff, and Steiner ABSENT: Commissioner Merino STAFF PRESENT: Alice Angus, Community Development Director Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION Chair Steiner opened the Administration Session of the Planning Commission Meeting at 6:45 p.m. Chair Steiner stated there was an additional memo received from Associate Planner Doris Nguyen on the agenda item for the Chapman University Specific Plan Amendment. The Commissioners reviewed the memo. Commissioner Gladson asked if there had been any additional correspondence received by Staff on the Chapman University item. Ms. Nguyen stated she had received 1 phone call. Chair Steiner asked on the additional information received, referencing cross section J, was the information being modified to state that the building height could go up to 62'? Ms. Nguyen stated at the property line the building could be at a height of 40' and at the set back the height could be 62'. Chair Steiner stated on the east side of Glassell, as he read it the Specific Plan, that allowed for 62' and for the art building a height of up to 55', and he asked if that was the extent of the change that had been noted in the additional information received from Staff? Ms. Nguyen stated the last sentence of verbiage was being changed to clarify the height allowances. It was the last section of the last sentence; the change was in reference to the height allowances at the property line and the set back area. At the property line the height allowance was 40' and at the set back 62'. Chair Steiner asked what would change? Ms. Nguyen stated the change was being made to the 2 °a sentence in the last section. Commissioner Grangoff stated instead of what was in the original Staff notes, they should refer to the information that they had just been presented. Chair Steiner asked if they should be using the replacement Agenda. Ms. Nguyen stated there had been a typographical error, the tentative tract should read tentative parcel map and that change had been made and that was the reason for the replacement agenda that had been provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Gladson stated the draft Resolution Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 2 of 10 should be correct. Chair Steiner asked Commissioners Gladson and Grangoff if they had attended the work study session with Staff. Commissioners Gladson and Grangoff stated yes, they had been thoroughly briefed. Chair Steiner asked if the email regarding the Chapman University item had been the only correspondence received. Ms. Nguyen stated the email had been received prior to preparation of the Staff Report and she had received 1 phone call after that time. The phone call was in reference to the Walnut Center and the caller had questions regarding the termination of tenant leases. She would defer those questions to the representatives for Chapman University during open session. Community Development Director Alice Angus stated there had been some question as to whether the Administrative Session of the Planning Commission meeting was necessary, and over the years the time of the Administrative Session had been cut down. She had wanted to bring it to the attention of the Commissioners as there had been some discussion as to the need for an Administrative Session. Chair Steiner stated he found the Administrative Session to be helpful in clarifying things. Commissioner Buttress stated the information discussed or questions addressed were also brought forth during the open session on the dais. Chair Steiner asked what had been the history of having an Administrative Session as part of the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Angus stated the Administrative Session had been a part of the Planning Commission meeting for almost 11 years, the time for the Administrative Session had been shrunk down to 15 minutes; and much of the information they reviewed during the Administrative Session was also information that was discussed on the dais. Chair Steiner stated generally if there was a significant issue it was handled through a 1 on 1 phone call with Staff. Commissioner Grangoff asked why were the Administrative Sessions made part of the PC meetings? Ms. Angus stated she did not know the answer to that question, but would find out. Commissioner Buttress stated with the City Council the Administrative Session would note a Public Comment section; it was noted on the agenda. Ms. Angus stated generally the Administrative Session of the City Council Meeting would be used as a work study session with an agenda. Commissioner Buttress stated with the City Council in Tustin, the Council met at 1:00 p.m. in closed session, with Public Comment heard during the Administrative Session. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated at the Design Review Committee meetings the Administrative Session of those meetings allowed her to give a heads up with any conflicts that might arise, any withdrawn items, a review of the minutes and an opportunity for any policy or procedural information that might need to be discussed. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 3of10 The Administrative Session of the DRC was fairly short. After adjournment of the Administrative Session, the DRC re- opened at 5:30 p.m. for their regular session; for the agenda items to be presented. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated the Administrative Session benefited the Commissioners in discussing any conflicts that might arise and could be handled prior to the actual meeting. Commissioner Buttress stated many of the PC Commissioners were fairly new members and it was an opportunity to ask questions or gain procedural clarification. It also allowed them to discuss possible conflicts prior to being out on the dais. Chair Steiner stated the information that was provided by Staff on appeals and such had also been very helpful. Ms. Angus stated she had wanted to bring it to their attention as it was something that was being looked at. There was no further discussion. Administrative Session adjourned @ 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None REGULAR SESSION Consent Calendar: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2011 Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of October 17, 2011 as written. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Merino MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 4 of 10 NEW HEARING: (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2009 -0004; ZONE CHANGE 1256 -09; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 0001 -09; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2010 -147; AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV 1821 -09) — CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #6 The applicant proposes the 6th amendment to the Chapman University Specific Plan (SPA 6) to add six parcels and allow the future development of the Center for the Arts. The project includes the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, and Mitigated Negative Declaration. No construction or demolition is proposed with this application. This application would only amend the Specific Plan. Such proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the Chapman University Specific Plan if this amendment is approved. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1821 -09 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25 -11 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2009 -0004; Zone Change 1256 -09, Specific Plan Amendment 0001 -09, Tentative Parcel Map 2010 -147 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV 1821 -09) to amend the Chapman University Specific Plan to add 6 parcels and allow for the Center for the Arts. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and asked if there had been any additional communication received? There was none. Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission. Ken Ryan, address on file, stated he was with KTGY and representing Chapman University on the project before them. They had submitted an application for the project that was before the Planning Commission for the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments back in May of 2010. They had been busy working hard with their team of consultants, the University, City Staff and the community. The Staff Report had been reviewed along with the Conditions of Approval and the Environmental Analysis and Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 5of10 they were very satisfied and comfortable with the mitigation measures included. Mr. Ryan stated the project before them proposed to add one acre of land to the Specific Plan along Glassell and Walnut. He presented a PowerPoint and referred to the slides as he continued with the presentation. The green area on the diagrams would allow for the Center for the Arts to be built. It was an area that would be used for theater, dance, and music departments, for the University's College of Performing Arts. Currently the use was throughout the campus and other venues that the campus owned. The space would be used for University purposes and also for special City events. The process was a Specific Plan Amendment that would allow for the Performing Arts Center and basically added the boundary to the Al planning area on the University campus. As Staff had indicated, the action that was before the Planning Commission was related to a General Plan Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The design aspect was being processed separately. A couple of significant aspects was to understand the context; and from a massing perspective, the arts facility would be 90' tall, and they would be going underground 50' in order to ensure the height of the building would be consistent with the existing buildings on site. The total visible height of the building would be 55' in height. He presented a graphic that outlined the heights of the other existing buildings on campus. In addition, the vision at University Drive and Glassell was an open space element, a great lawn that was indicative of other Universities around the country. Mr. Ryan stated the Zone Change would adjust the Specific Plan boundary to include the University owned parcels that were currently outside the Specific Plan area that were on the east side of Glassell, between University Drive and Walnut. It would adjust the academic plan boundary and list permitted uses; including all University owned properties on the east side of Glassell. It would adjust the Glassell Street overlay boundary and the amendment before them related to just a specific portion of the campus, which he explained through graphics he presented. The area was along Glassell and Walnut. It was the area that would be added to the Specific Plan and it was the only change before them, in terms of a modification to the Specific Plan boundary. Staff had indicated the discretionary approvals that were before the Commissioners. In terms of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, he presented a graphic that outlined the change. The current General Plan Land Use designation of public facilities and institutions and the Old Towne mixed use maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre was being modified to the A -1 designation as part of the Specific Plan Amendment. He presented an overlay that showed the original Specific Plan adoption, and stated the University had owned a couple of the parcels adjacent to Glassell and those parcels, in addition to other parcels owned by the University, would be incorporated into the A -1 designation. Mr. Ryan stated although the Major Site Plan and Design Review was not before the Planning Commission, he wanted to present a plan view of how they proposed the facility would fit into the zone. The market on the corner was not a part of the project and they had incorporated landscaping and set backs to accommodate that. He reviewed the open Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 6of10 space area and noted where architectural structures would be laid out and the facility itself would be located within the General Plan and Zone that was before them. The site laid out, spatially, very nicely with the other buildings on campus. There would be access through the parking structures and no parking on Glassell. The street scene along Glassell fit in with the overall community. The new building was proposed to be 55' high and was consistent with the zoning in the area of a maximum of 62'; the Law School was 90' high, the Chapel Tower was 75', the Chapel was 47', the Center for the Arts was at 55' and Beckman Hall Tower was 89'. The 55' maximum height of the proposed new building was consistent with the core area of the campus. Mr. Ryan stated they had conducted community outreach and noticed 7,000 residents in Orange with their Neighbor to Neighbor newsletter. They invited 7,500 neighbors to attend various neighborhood meetings, they discussed the project on a number of occasions; on November 9, 2010, April of 2011, and most recently in August with their neighbor to neighbor meetings. They had also met with the OTPA and OBHS to review the project. He was available for any questions the Commissioners had. Commissioner Gladson asked Mr. Ryan to explain the vision for the circulation included in the Specific Plan Amendment for access to the new use? Mr. Ryan stated that was reviewed thoroughly and there were a couple of things that were important, one being timing of when events occurred. Typically events at the facility would occur on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Those would be non -peak period times, and on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday both parking structures were half full in terms of parking; and that issue was evaluated very deeply. Many of the people arriving to the events would be walking to the facility and that was included in their traffic analysis. If driving to the event, the Lassinger parking structure would be utilized, and that facility was primarily empty on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. When the structures were half full during the other weekdays, parking would occur at the two parking facilities, which were equal in distance from the arts facility, and there was extra capacity per the City code, 427 spaces required for a worst case scenario and another 15% was added with the total spaces of 495 being required. Lassinger had 895 spaces and Barrera had 694 spaces, which gave a total of 1589 spaces provided. They felt comfortable with the extra capacity provided based on the events that would occur at the facility. Commissioner Gladson stated she believed with the Staff presentation there was reference to a tenant that had concerns over the loss of their apartment, and she asked if Mr. Ryan could explain the loss of the 24 apartments that would occur with their proposal. Mr. Ryan stated they had been very forthright with everyone living in the Specific Plan area and those that would be added to the Specific Plan Amendment. Those were areas that would be added and changed. For Walnut Center, over 2 years ago, they had spoken with those folks and had recently had conversations with them that there would be the Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 7 of 10 need for them to move once construction had begun and it had been discussed for some time. In regard to the apartments, The Wells -Fry Apartments had 16 units with 12 students and 4 non - Chapman residents; the non - Chapman tenants had been contacted over 2 years ago and would be given a 60 day notice as residential tenants prior to constructions. The students would move out on May 31, 2012 when their lease expired. In terms of the Glassell apartments those had 8 units, with 8 students that were living there on a month to month lease. With their leases expiring on May 31, 2012, they would find new accommodations as well. Commissioner Gladson stated if she was understanding correctly; the 24 units would not be replaced somewhere else on the campus? Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated two existing parking lots would be demolished and he asked how many spaces would be lost? Mr. Ryan stated 121 spaces. In the capacity analysis and availability of parking they had reviewed that. Along with issues related to special events and how that would impact parking, they were satisfied that their would be adequate parking available. Chair Steiner asked how would buses fit into the parking plan. Mr. Ryan stated that was evaluated in the Environmental document. Exhibit No. 17 addressed the bus issue and buses would park on the south side of Walnut for loading and unloading. Across the street were the residential University units and the buses would park at 2 to 3 buses only on the south side of Walnut, any additional buses would park at the Idaho lot at Cypress. Chair Steiner opened the item for Public Comment. Pamela Wade, address on file, stated she was present with her mother, Charlene Wade. Ray Wade had the barber shop that had been there for 50 years. It was across from where the new construction would occur. She wanted to view the slide that had the Palm trees on it and she asked if all the parking across the street would be removed? That was parking that was used by shop patrons. Regarding the lights, there was an issue with the lights from the pool area of the University; the lights from the football stadium would shine down, but the pool lights were pointed directly into their home. She asked if those lights could be directed downward and she asked how the lights for the new facility would be handled. She asked with the construction, what type of time frame would the construction take and how would that affect their barber shop; as it was the primary source of her mother's income? She stated they had not received the invite to the neighborhood meeting in August. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Ryan to address the concerns presented by Ms. Wade? Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 8of10 Mr. Ryan stated on the parking there would not be a change to parking along Glassell. There would not be facility parking along Glassell, but parking would still be permitted there; anyone coming to the Chapman facility would be directed to the parking structures. In regard to the pool lights, he felt that with the new facility at the proposed height, the lights would be blocked from shining toward the residential property. They had conducted shade and shadow studies with a conclusion of no impact. For the construction time line, they would adhere to all City standards for construction and the staging and hours of operation with the total construction time being approximately 24 months. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion or action. Commissioner Gladson stated she felt it was good for the Commissioners to discuss the proposal in terms of the openness of how they operated as a Planning Commission; it was an important Amendment to the Chapman Specific Plan. It had taken a year, and a year well spent to get it right and to review all the details, to go through the proposal with a fine tooth comb and she had spent the weekend reviewing the minutia of the Environmental documents and Staff Report. She had looked for any holes that troubled her; and she wanted to ensure that they, as a Planning Commission, were doing their job and as representatives of the City Council, that they had covered all their bases. The proposal before them was a critical Land Use proposal and they needed to determine if it was an appropriate Land Use for that specific area of the University campus. It was also capturing property that the University owned and the proposal to incorporate it into the Specific Plan. Some of the issues she had were related to the site plan and that was not within the Planning Commission's purview and she would leave that to the DRC and Staff to work out. Ironing out some of the issues on Walnut and how buses would maneuver into the area had been a bit concerning to her. Commissioner Gladson stated she had driven along Walnut prior to the meeting and she had reviewed the slides and was comfortable with that particular issue. There were a number of really tight mitigation measures that spoke to Ms. Wade's concerns about construction time lines and requirements of various City Standards and she had a comfort level on how those components were outlined to ensure compliance. It was not something that was passing through the Commission without careful consideration. She had been concerned with the loss of the 24 apartments and one of the things that she had shared with Staff earlier in the day was if that would hurt the City on a different level; but as it was a University campus plan, it would not. It was important for Chapman to consider that in the future as other things happened on their site. Those were her observations and she appreciated hearing feedback as they wrestled with their deliberations on making a decision. Commissioner Buttress stated she had concerns about the parking and was pleased with how well those issues had been addressed and her questions had been answered. With a structure and changes that were being made there were issues which had been addressed; Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 9of10 and one of those being the bus issue. On her questions with the Specific Plan change, she was comfortable with what was presented and the issues addressed. Commissioner Grangoff stated he was comfortable with the Staff's recommendation and he wanted to clarify with Staff that they were approving the change to the Specific Plan and the building would not be going before the Planning Commission? Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated that was correct. The Planning Commission was reviewing the framework of the Specific Plan. The building and site plan would go before the Design Review Committee and to the Community Development Director for a final determination as outlined in the Chapman Specific Plan process. Commissioner Grangoff asked if the public would be able to provide comment at the Design Review Committee meeting. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated yes, they would have that opportunity. Commissioner Buttress made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of PC Resolution No. 25 -11, adopting General Plan Amendment 2009 -0004; Zone Change 1256 -09; Specific Plan Amendment 0001 -096; Tentative Parcel Map 2010 -147 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV 1821 -09)- Chapman University Specific Plan Amendment #6, and subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Merino MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2011 Page 10 of 10 (3) ADJOURNMENT: Adjournment to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday November 21, 2011. Commissioner Gladson made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on November 21, 2011. SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Merino MOTION CARRIED Meeting Adjourned @ 7:36 p.m.