Loading...
2009 - February 18 C.1500..&..:&.3 Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 10f8 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange February 18, 2009 Wednesday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner Commissioners Cunningham and Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:50 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #2, Approval of Minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 19, 2009. Chair Steiner stated he would abstain from the vote on the minutes as he had not been present. He asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz, with only two voting members present, could a motion be made on the minutes? Mr. Sheatz stated a motion could be made. Item #3, Orange Lutheran High School. Commissioner Merino asked if the item could be pulled from the consent calendar? Assistant Community Development Director Ed Knight stated code required a Major Site Plan Review to be placed on the consent calendar, but in speaking with Mr. Sheatz a notice requirement went out as a public hearing, not as a public meeting, and the item should be treated as a public hearing. Chair Steiner agreed the item could be moved to an Agenda Item as a New Hearing. Commissioner Merino asked if a motion was required to move the item from the Consent Calendar? Mr. Sheatz stated it was not necessary and could be moved through the power of the Chair. Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions on the item for Staff. Chair Steiner asked if Staff had heard from any of the neighbors? Associate Planner Robert Garcia stated he had not heard from any of the neighbors. Mr. Knight stated that Staff had not heard from the public regarding any issues with the project. Commissioner Merino stated he had received a few emails on the item. New Hearing: Item #4 Argosy University. No discussion on the item. Administrative session closed at 7:00 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None Page 1 of 8 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 20f8 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: (1) MND 1796-07, GPA 2007-0002, ZC 1245-07, MJSP 0521-07, CUP 2685-07, DRC 4254-07 & A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - HOBBS MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING The applicant has requested that the project not be heard at the February 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Steiner stated he understood that the applicant had made the request not to have the item be heard. He asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz if it was necessary for a motion to be made on the item. Mr. Sheatz stated it was not necessary CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 19, 2009 Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 19, 2009 as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden and Merino None Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Cunningham and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: Chair Steiner stated due to a procedural component on how the item was noticed, the item would be moved from the Consent Calendar and heard as a New Hearing Item: (3) MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 484-07, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4402-08 & ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 1794-07 - ORANGE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL LOCATION: 2222 Santiago Boulevard NOTE: MND 1794-07 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 MND finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to Page 2 of 8 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 30f8 the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-09 approving the construction of an additional 35,495 square feet. Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing with any questions for Staff. Commissioner Merino stated in looking at the Mitigated Negative Declaration he had received some concerns from the community in regards to what was an existing, perceived parking issue in the surrounding neighborhoods of the school. It appeared that the parking issue was addressed through the conditions contained in the Staff Report. He had a concern in one of the Conditions of Approval. He noted he had visited the school, met with the applicant and had walked the project. He asked if there was a provision that if at a later date the applicant wanted to add classes that could potentially affect the enrollment of the school? He had understood that the current proposed project had not presented a large impact on student attendance, however, the potential was there and he had not reviewed a condition that would address any future growth? Mr. Garcia stated those conditions were in place with the project's Master Plan which had been approved under CUP 2262 and an amendment. Conditions that were currently in place with this CUP would remain in place. Commissioner Merino stated the project allowed for the applicant to expand the gross square footage of the project and as part of the project they had not raised the number of classrooms or student attendance. He asked if he had understood correctly that there would not be a significant parking impact on the campus. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, no additional parking needs would be required with the proj ect. Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant were to come forward, at a later date, with an interior remodel to add classrooms within the existing square footage of the project, would it trigger the original CUP and require the applicant to present the project with a review of the parking element. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. As a modification to an existing CUP, the applicant would be required to go through that process. Chair Steiner clarified, if the project would have an impact on an increase in student population. Mr. Garcia stated if the applicant increased the number of classrooms which was capped at 49 or if the applicant requested an increase in students which was capped at 1150. Page 3 of 8 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 40f8 Chair Steiner asked if currently both variables were controlled. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino stated to alleviate any concerns from the public, in the event that the applicant would want to consider a remodel in the future the applicant would be required to obtain the necessary City Permits, which would include the moving of any interior walls that would add more classroom space. He asked Mr. Garcia if his statement was correct. Mr. Garcia stated he was correct. Chair Steiner opened the hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Gregg Pinick, address on file, stated he was in full agreement with the Staff Report and the suggested Conditions of Approval. The proposed project would complete a plan that had been approved with their CUP 10 years ago and it was the 6th and final Phase. The project would not add any students to the student attendance population. The Commissioners might be wondering why the change was being made after 10 years, and the biggest reason was due to the needs of students. The school had more students involved in the athletic programs and in instrumental band and that created a need for re- shifting of space and the addition of storage and office space. Noticing to the neighbors had been done on July 2, and there was a meeting that 3 people attended. They were supporters of the plan and one resident had a concern that was alleviated regarding parking. They had contacted anyone who had shared a concern with the project. Applicant, Darel Hebenstreit, address on file, stated he was the architect that had been involved with the Orange Lutheran High School project for the past 10 years. Rather than present a lengthy presentation, he asked if the Commission had any questions for them or would they prefer he went through a presentation of the project? Chair Steiner stated his preference would be that he remain available for any questions the Commissioners might have. He asked if there were any questions for the applicants. There were none. He opened the item for any further discussion. Commissioner Merino stated the concern that he had which had been brought forward to him through emails had been addressed. The proj ect would not raise the student threshold, and there would not be additional parking issues, which possibly the community had concerns about. His other concern was could the applicant develop a stealth project within the walls of the campus and sneak in additional students? That concern had been addressed. From what had been presented, he felt it was a good project and one that he could support. Chair Steiner stated he had met with the applicant and the concerns that he had were allayed; regarding parking. He had been informed that if the project was approved there would be an increase in the number of parking spaces with the proposed layout as a part of the project. He had concerns with respect to the communities concerns regarding parking, and he felt that would be taken care of through the campus discipline issues with Page 4 of 8 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 50f8 regard to the school's guidelines for student parking. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 05-09, approving Major Site Plan Review No. 484-07, Design Review Committee No. 4402-08 and Environmental Review No. 1794-07-0range Lutheran High School with the conditions contained in the Staff Report. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to add to the resolution that the number of students attending Orange Lutheran High School would not be raised with the approval of the project. Chair Steiner stated he felt it was redundant with regard to the earlier CUP; as long as the applicant had no objection it could be added. He received a nod from the applicant that they would not be opposed to that addition. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioners Cunningham and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2729-08 - ARGOSY UNIVERSITY A proposal to occupy an existing 31,629 square foot office building having 149 parking spaces with a university. The proposal requests to be allowed to have an ultimate enrollment of789 on-campus students and 100 staff members. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the school use and for the code alternative parking standards proposed. LOCATION: 532 and 601 South Lewis Street NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) because the project proposes to occupy an existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-09 approving the construction of an additional 35,495 square feet. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino asked if the building that the proposed project would be using was Page 5 of 8 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 60f8 currently unoccupied, and would the applicant be the sole occupant of the building? Mr. Ortlieb stated yes, that was correct. Chair Steiner asked for an explanation of what was meant by class sessions, and how many sessions would be held in a day? Mr. Ortlieb stated a session would be a class and there would be 60 minutes between sessions, equivalent to a break between sessions or classes. Chair Steiner asked how many classes the applicant anticipated holding in a day. Mr. Ortlieb stated conceivably if there was a rotating schedule, it would be Y2 of the total classes that would be offered at the site. Chair Steiner stated he could reserve that question for the applicant's clarification. Typically in an educational institute there would be ongoing classes throughout the day which would overlap with other classes and he wanted clarification on how the applicant anticipated the sessions to work. Chair Steiner opened the hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Susan Whittaker, address on file, thanked Mr. Ortlieb for the Staff Report. She stated Argosy University was formed in September of 2001 by the merging of three academic institutions; the American School of Professional Psychology, the University of Sarasota and the Medical Institute of Minnesota. Building on a successful foundation, Argosy University was comprised of four colleges within 19 campus locations across the United States and also offered degree programs on-line. All the degree programs offered through the College of Psychology and Behavioral Science, College of Business, College of Education and College of Health Sciences were designed to instill knowledge, ethical value, interpersonal skills and professional practice. Argosy University was very excited to locate in Orange. The project would be in a redevelopment area and it was moving into a vacant building. The University offered new employment opportunity for residents and higher education opportunities. The University would attract and strengthen business in the area as students and faculty would be seeking nearby services. The proposed project contributed to the balance and functional mix of uses in the City. Ms. Whittaker stated their traffic engineer was available for any questions. To answer the questions regarding class sessions, she explained that there would be sessions starting at 8:00 a.m. to Noon, there would be a one hour break with the next session beginning at I :00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., with the final session beginning at 6:00 p.m. There would be a 60 minute break between sessions. There was a concern received from a representative of the apartment complex across the street and their concern was parking and what would occur in the event that there was a parking shortage at the University, she felt that there was a condition, Condition No. 8 that was a condition to require annual reporting of the parking situation for the first two years of the project and that condition would address any parking issues or concerns. Page 6 of 8 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 70f8 Commissioner Merino stated he had met with the applicant. He asked what was the anticipated student attendance for those classes that went to 11 :00 p.m. Ms. Whittaker stated that was part of the parking study and she deferred her questions to the applicant's Parking Engineer. Applicant, Tony Petros, address on file, stated according to the enrollment projections provided by the University they had been told that the class enrollment would be from 50-70 students during the week. Commissioner Merino asked if he understood correctly, that the highest number of students attending in an evening session would be 70 students. Mr. Petros stated that was correct based on the numbers provided by the University. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment. Peter Zwicorzowski, address on file, stated he was the President of the Corporate General Partner of the City Plaza Apartments. They were pleased that there was a quality tenant wanting to occupy the building across the street from the apartments. It would be remiss of him to not address his concerns regarding parking on the public street. He stated that Mr. Ortlieb had been very responsive to his emails and also Ms. Whittaker had been very responsive to his concerns. The office building scope was being broadened, which typically the employees of that building worked 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., or 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; many of the residents of the City Plaza Apartments parked on the street as did the residents of the City Park Apartments. He understood that there would be an evening class and he felt there could be some competition for parking on the street. He was concerned with any negative impacts on the street. To compound matters the side of the street that the University would occupy was within the city limits of Orange, the apartments fell within the city limits of Garden Grove. It was difficult to get both Cities to work together to resolve potential parking issues. He was hearing Ms. Whittaker loud and clear regarding the annual report, however, it was a voluntary compliance. If there were any concerns it would mean that the residents would have already been impacted by a parking situation. He wanted to have his concerns on the record and he wished the applicant success, they wanted to be good neighbors and continue to allow their residents to park on the street. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion. Commissioner Merino stated he had anticipated parking being an issue, however, with the maximum number of students at 70; at least in the initial phases of the project, the impact would not be too great and he was satisfied that the parking situation would not present an impact to the neighborhood. There was a potential to revisit the item if there would be a significant change or issue. Staff was acknowledging that as well. Page 7 of 8 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2009 80f8 Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 02-09, Conditional Use Permit No. 2729-08-Argosy University with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioners Cunningham and Whitaker (5) ADJOURNMENT MOTION CARRIED Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, March 2,2009. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioners Cunningham and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:40 P.M. Page 8 of 8 Pages