Loading...
2006 - April 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange April 3, 2006 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Pruett, and Bonina Commissioner Imboden Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Planner Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3981-05, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 110-06 - KIZZIAR RESIDENCE Ms. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, stated there was one item to be continued to a date uncertain. Chair Bonina moved to continue the Design Review Committee No. 3981-05. Vice-Chair Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Pruett None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF JANUARY 16, 2006 AND FEBRUARY 22, 2006. Page I Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 Chair Bonina made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Pruett None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2530-05 - NORTH ORANGE COUNTY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Planner, provided a full reading of the Staff Report to the Commission. She mentioned the request before the Commission was continued from the previous meeting of March 20th. She stated this item was simply a request to share parking facilities with the site adjacent to the subject property on Lincoln Ave. She explained the plans needed to be looked at together, and each exhibit was prepared upon the request of Staff. She mentioned the Commission should look at Attachment Two that showed the Vicinity Map, and the location of the church property, and the property they are requesting to share parking which is located along Lincoln Ave. Chair Bonina asked Staff about the additional off-site parking. Ms. Fox explained that once they were in the parking lot, all of the stair cases led to public sidewalks on Lincoln Ave. The parishioners would traverse westerly, and could go up the sidewalk of the church. Commissioner Pruett stated what was confusing was the map they were looking at did not show the street was closed onto Lincoln. Ms. Fox replied this did give this reflection, but it really wasn't this way. She then pointed out on the Zoning Map and explained to the Commission that there was not a through way from Orange Ave. She also stated the only way to get back to the public sidewalk would be to traverse and go onto the church property. She said they tried to demonstrate this in the pictures they provided. Chair Bonina asked Staff if Photos No. Six and Seven were located in the triangle piece previously mentioned and where the additional parking of 22 spaces would be. Ms. Fox stated this was correct. She said there was a total of 22 spaces divided into three Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 parking lots. Chair Bonina asked where the additional parking lots were located. Ms. Fox replied in Attachment Three, it showed the Professional Office Development. She explained the two parking lots most westerly, and the one to the northeast, and both had access from Main Street. She stated the parking spaces labeled one through four, the cars would enter from Main Street, and the spaces labeled five through 16 also come in from Main Street. She stated there was no direct linkage or sidewalk, and that it brought you forward to Lincoln Ave. from those lots. She continued the spaces labeled 17 through 22 were accessible from Lincoln Ave by car as well as by foot. She explained all the pedestrians would funnel towards Lincoln Ave. because there was no easy way to gain access. Chair Bonina wanted Staff to confirm that Photo No. Two showed the ramp from the most westerly area onto the church property. Ms. Fox replied this was correct. She also stated the church currently ensures the parishioners that require special assistance have access to those spaces first. Staff has also encouraged their staff make the shared parking site the priority site for them to park in order to keep the church property free. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Monie Dushange. Fancher Development Services. 1342 Bell Ave.. Suite 3K. Tustin. He thanked Staff for their report and their recommendation for approval. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Pruett commented that he was probably the only Commissioner to remain on the Commission when this application originally carne through. He said there was some concern about the parking, and the shared parking agreement was not a part of the original proposal. He stated he thought the applicant had addressed all the issues. He then stated the project was categorically exempt from the provisions ofCEQA, and therefore he moved to adopt Resolution No. 13-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2530-05. Vice Chair Enderby seconded the motion. Chair Bonina asked Staff if there were any temporary buildings to be considered on the site. Ms. Fox replied there were some modulars that would require a subsequent parking study to be prepared. She stated there were modulars used for classrooms, and one of the future Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 expansion projects of the church would require the applicant to come back before the Commission. She added that Staff would go through the initial study process again. She mentioned that one of the things required in the prior conditions of approval was a revision and upgrade to their parking study. Chair Bonina asked if Staff had reviewed the prior approval in regard to a timeline relative to the temporary buildings. Ms. Fox answered there was no timeline as a condition on the prior project in regard to the temporary buildings. She continued it was more related what steps the applicant would need to take in the event they began future improvements. She said they had an anticipated timefrarne of five years, but this was not a condition. Chair Bonina stated his concern was unless there was something specified on temporary buildings, there was a two year window where a temporary building would have to be removed or extended in some official way. Mr. Gary Sheatz explained this could not be done since this issue had not be noticed, and would not be fair to open it up as an issue. Ms. Fox stated that Staff would continue to work with the applicant to ensure they were moving forward with their Master Plan. She thought these may have been under the County's prior approval, and may come under a different manner than the City doing the approval. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Pruett None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED INRE: NEW BUSINESS: (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2570-05 - ORANGE COAST COMMUNITY CHURCH. Ms. Leslie Roseberry stated the applicant requested a C.U.P to allow the establishment of a church as well as shared parking within an industrial development (Orange Industrial Park). She provided the Staff Report to the Commission. Commissioner Bilodeau asked how Staff knew if the other adj acent tenants did not park on Sundays. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 Ms. Roseberry stated the property owners indicated the parking spaces were available for the church on the weekends. Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff if there was a letter indicating the other owners lacked the ability to operate on weekends. Ms. Roseberry mentioned Attachment Six that contained a table of the other tenants and what their days and hours of operation were. Chair Bonina then acknowledged a letter received from Angels Crest Enterprises, property owner of Orange Industrial Park. In part, it appeared they were in support of the use as long as it was outside of the hours of 8:00 am through 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday for the additional use of parking. Commissioner Pruett commented the Commission was approving something that was providing rights to and relinquishing the rights of others and wanted to make sure the other tenants understood that while they might not park there today that they recognize there could be a restriction on their use of their property on the weekends. He stated this included future tenants and/or owners. He asked Staff how to ensure this was understood. Ms. Roseberry replied the only sure way this could be understood was to contact each tenant and future tenants. However, she continued, each of the tenants as well as the property owner and the surrounding properties and tenants within 300 feet received a Public Notice for this meeting. She said they relied on the property owner and the applicant to ensure the information they provide is accurate. She also stated the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land. Commissioner Pruett agreed and asked if this would be disclosed if the property owner sold his property in the future. Ms. Roseberry did not know what the real estate disclosures would be required. Mr. Gary Sheatz stated the disclosure would be required if it was recorded. He explained you could record the entitlement or the Conditional Use Permit with the County Recorder. He said most cities did not do this, and would have this type of entitlement in the file. He said the due diligence of the future property owner would be to review all the entitlements in the city file because not all entitlements were reported and could be variances or C.U.P.s, and would be maintained by the city. He stated a disclosure would not be provided by a real estate agent because it was not recorded. Commissioner Pruett thought the issue was if there was an agreement. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 Mr. Sheatz commented this issue was a bit different. He said in the past, the City may have required adjacent property owners, if it was a shared agreement, to have it recorded. He stated the problem here was this was common ownership which is what made this difficult. He added that you could not have this agreement with yourself so the City would not require this. Ms. Roseberry stated in Attachment Five, there was a letter from the management firm that indicated the Orange Industrial Park Board of Directors had reviewed the request for the shared parking, and the Board had approved their request. Ms. Sheatz suggested in accordance with this letter mentioned by Ms. Roseberry, any future lease agreements that they provide future tenants with this notice. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he would support this project. He also mentioned he wrote traffic studies for a living, and in any other city, this type of application would require a parking study be conducted. He explained the parking lot would be surveyed on a Sunday, and prove the empty parking spaces existed. He said they were taking a person at his word. He agreed with Commissioner Pruett that the other tenant's use would be restricted. He thought parking studies should be conducted in the future. He asked if this site was addressed in the General Plan Update the City was going through. Ms. Roseberry stated she would have to get back to the Commission with an answer. Chair Bonina asked if the property owner had some level of control over the Conditional Use Permit. He also asked if the property owner had an ability to rescind this or was there a life to the C.U.P. Ms. Roseberry replied that C.U.P.s run with the land so if this church moved out and another church moved in with the same need, this would be okay. If the church moved out and no one moved in, it would not go away, but would have to be revoked by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sheatz agreed and stated the property owner could have the C.U.P revoked by the Commission. Commissioner Pruett asked what other uses could be provided by the Conditional Use Permit. The reason he asked this was because several years ago, the Commission approved a Christian dance club, and the C.U.P. was taken over by some other people and turned out to be a serious problem, and ended up going through a process to revoke the c.u.P. He added this was a difficult time since this involved assaults, etc, and his concern was that someone could come in and take advantage of it since it was so broad. Ms. Roseberry stated this was only for shared parking for a church. She stated if the applicant misused the c.u.p, they would go through Code Enforcement and if necessary, would come back with a revocation. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Rick Resewski. 2182 Aspen Ave.. Tustin. He stated he was the Pastor of the congregation, and he was excited about the possibility of the new location because they have been in existence for about 20 years and found it difficult to secure a spot. He said they had parking problems in their previous locations. He wanted to assure the Commission they had been there on several Sunday mornings, and the place was vacant. He said there were 341 parking spots, but they would only use a small portion of these. He said it was centrally located for their congregation, and they were pleased with the possibility of ministry and growth in the future. He stated the sanctuary would limit the amount of parking. He added they would only use a few parking spots during the day, and a few during the night. Commissioner Enderby asked the applicant what the size of the congregation was. Mr. Resewski replied there were about 150 people. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if this site was currently used as off-site parking for Angel Stadium on game days. Mr. Resewski answered no. He said it was a bit removed from the stadium, and had no indication it was used for this purpose. Chair Bonina asked if there would be any additional gatherings during 9 to 5. Mr. Resewski replied the gatherings would be during the evening. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bilodeau recognized this project was categorically exempt from the provisions ofCEQA, he moved to adopt Resolution PC 14-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2570-05. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. Chair Bonina noted that Commissioner Bilodeau made a good point that there was quite a few church applications needing a shared parking scenario. He thought they should look at this process closer in the future. Commissioner Pruett did not think it was necessary in every situation. He thought it was a matter of a particular situation and Staff needed to look at what might be appropriate for each project. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Pruett None None Commissioner Imboden April 3, 2006 MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting at 7:41 pm to a Joint Study Session with the City Council and other Commissions to Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 5: 00 pm for the Capitol Improvement Plan discussion. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Pruett None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED Page 8