Loading...
2002 - June 17 c ,Ij-rJj). fT.';. ::l (1 :') yJ APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange June 17,2002 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero. Smith None Karen Sully, Planning Manager, Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hobnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, Khanh Le, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: - None IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: - None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: la. REMOVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 2002 FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to pull the Minutes of May 20, 2002 from the consent calendar to be addressed separately. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: lb. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 6, 2002. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the Minutes of May 6, 2002 as corrected. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Ie. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF MAY 20, 2002. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve the Minutes of the May 20, 2002 as corrected. Planning Commission Minutes June 17,2002 AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Bonina None APPROVED MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: 2. CONDITIONAL USE OF PERMIT 2408-02 - CALIFORNIA CENTRAL ACADEMY A proposal to establish an after school learning center for students first through twelfth grades to enhance student academic performance. The proposed facility consists of approximately 506 sq. ft. of administrative office and 1,320 sq. ft. of tutoring area, located within an existing office complex. The General Plan land use designation is General Commercial (GC). The property is zoned C-TR (Limited Business District- Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area), located at 1801 E. Heim Avenue. This item was continued from the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class I - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 18-02 approving Conditional Use Permit 2408-02. Chair Smith asked if anyone was present who was opposed to this application. There was no one and full reading of the Staff Report was waived. Planning Manager Karen Sully introduced the application for California Central Academy, as above. She indicated that the Commission continued this item based on the applicant's request at the last meeting to increase the size ofthe facility's classroom from three (3) to five (5). The applicant has since gone back and done additional study and determined that she would like to keep the application as originally proposed with the three (3) rooms, with eight (8) students per room, for a total of twenty-four to forty (24- 40) students. Ms. Sully also explained that the staff conducted a site visitation to the other two locations - Cerritos and Fullerton. A parking count and student drop off and pick up analysis was done. It was determined that for the amount of students and classrooms for those existing facilities, the pick up and drop off was very minimal. So it can be relayed that there would be no impact to this facility as the project is proposed. Chair Smith asked to hear from the applicant. Ms. Jennifer Y 00, Program Director of California Central Academy, 17100 Norwalk Boulevard #103, Cerritos, CA 90703. Ms. Yoo stated that she did not have anything else to add. Chair Smith called for Public Comment. There was no one. 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 17,2002 Chair Smith asked Ms. Y 00 once again to summarize if she liked to add anything else. APPROVED Ms. Yoo stated that she had nothing to add. Chair Smith closed Public Hearing. Commissioner Pruett wanted to clarify that the parking issue refers to the type of use of the building. The use that the commission is approving is the educational use, which means that some other type of school can come in there, that is not a drop off and pick up type of school, it could create some parking issues. Commissioner Pruett supported the condition requiring a student drop off and pick up management plan and believes the use to be appropriate. Commissioner Bonina addressed Mr. Gary Sheatz, the Assistant City Attorney, and asked how condition number four (4) will be manifested, whether there is any documentation of an agreement between the tenant and the city. Mr. Sheatz replied that there isn't any documentation, that there is no indemnification agreement that is entered into between the city and the applicant. The condition is only applicable from the city's stand point, with the issuance of the entitlement. The city is seeking indemnification if the city were ever sued based on the fact that the city issued this entitlement to the applicant. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt Resolution No. PC 18- 02, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2408-02, considering that it is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This approval includes the Findings and Conditions for Approval as outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Resolution. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2404-02 - JOHN GREEN (OGGI'S PIZZA & BREWING COMPANY) A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 75 (On-Sale General Brew- Pub) License for the opening of a restaurant with on-site brewing and consumption of Micro-Brewed beer, a game room with ten video game machines, and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. The proposed project site is within the Mall of Orange southeast of Wal-Mart. The location consists of two vacant tenant spaces, which will be combined for a total of 5,900 sq. ft. of restaurant area. The General Plan land use designation is General Commercial (GC). The zoning of the site is Limited Business - Tustin Redevelopment Project Area (C-TR) District. The site is located at 2295 N. Tustin Street (within the Mall of Orange). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities). 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2002 APPROVED RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 15-02 approving Conditional Use Permit 2404-02. Chair Smith asked if anyone was present who was opposed to this application. There was no one and full reading of the Staff Report was waived. Planning Manager Karen Sully introduced the application for Oggi's Pizza and Brewing Company, as above. Ms. Sully wanted to bring to the commission's notation the memo distributed on June 11,2002. The staff has made some refinements to the conditions of approval, dealing with the hours of operation, signage, and that the brew master be excluded from the requirement that "employees can not consume alcohol" because of the nature of hisfher job. The staff asked that these modifications be incorporated into the draft resolution for project approval. Commissioner Pruett asked if it would be appropriate to identify the business name on the identification Sign. Ms. Sully answered that it would be. Chair Smith called the applicant to speak on behalf of his application. Mr. John Green (co-owner ofOggi's Pizza & Brewing Company, 23641Via Linda, Mission Viejo, CA 92691) presented the project, along with Jay Lindsey. Assistant Manager of the Mall of Orange, Shawn Green, his son, co-owner, and George Hadjis, franchise owner. Mr. George Hadjis (2139 Via Teca, San Clemente) explained Oggi's history and current business status. He wanted to emphasize that Oggi's Pizza is a "sports-themed restaurant", not a bar. Mr. Hadjis stated that they offer pizza products. pasta, salads, micro-brewed beer, wine, and alcoholic beverages. Their product mix is eighty percent (80%) food and twenty percent (20%) alcohol, making them primarily a food restaurant. Mr. Hadjis explained the franchisees are Valerie, John, and Shawn Green, who have been associated with Oggi's as franchisees for three years in Mission Viejo. Chair Smith asked ofMr. Hadjis whether he is representing the applicant in such a way that he is familiar with the conditions of approval and revised conditions, and whether he is in agreement in compliance with those. Mr. Hadjis answered yes. Commissioner Pruett asked if condition number ten (10) be modified to state that part of the advertising sign include the name of the company, Oggi's Pizza and Brewing Company. Mr. Hadjis replied that he could comply with that if the commission agrees to accept that part of the name is "Brewing Company." Chair Smith asked if the beer is made at the site. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 Mr. Hadjis answered that most of the beer is made at the location. But they do have a central brewer called Bayhawk Brewing Company in Irvine, who makes overflow beer, and sold, via Wine Warehouse as the distributor. Chair Smith asked if there are any more questions and if Mr. Hadjis had anyone else on his team who would like to speak. There was no one, so Chair Smith opened the floor for Public Comment. SPEAKERS IN FAVOR (in alphabetical order): Jav Lindsev. Assistant Manager, Mall of Orange. Mr. Jay Lindsey (4961 Y, Park Place, Yorba Linda) stated that the Mall of Orange has been in business for thirty-one (31) years and is a family type mall. Being a family type mall, they have not had any problems that are typical of other malls. The Mall screened the applicant very well. In the case ofOggi's Pizza. they did a site visit at Mission Viejo and established that Oggi's Pizza would be a business that would fit into the mold of the Mall of Orange tenants. Answering questions from the commission, Mr. Lindsey addressed two issues: the hours of operation of the mall and the entrance into the mall. Mr. Lindsey stated that the restaurant would have its own separate entrance after mall hours. Chair Smith asked ifthere is anyone else from the public who would like to speak. There was no one, so Chair Smith asked for closing comments from Mr. Hadjis or Mr. Green. They had nothing to add. Chair Smith closed the public hearing and the discussion was brought to the commission. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt Resolution No. PC 15- 02, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2404-02, considering that it is categorically exempt from the provisions ofCEQA. This approval includes the Findings of Public Convenience and Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages and Conditions for Approval as outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report with the following amendments: I) Make amendments based on the Memo of June II, 2002 as follows: 2) Condition #4 revised as follows: "Sale and service of alcoholic beverages shall cease at least one hour before closing". 3) Condition #10 revised as follows: "There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages. which are clearly visible to the exterior, shall constitute a violation of this condition except for permitted business identification signs. The business identification sign reads Oggi's Pizza & Brewing Company (Co.)". 4) Condition #12 revised as follows: "The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot areas adjacent to the premises over which he has control". 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 5) Condition #19 was added as follows: "With the exception of the Brew Master, employees and contract security personnel shall not consume any alcoholic beverages during their work shift". AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett. Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2411-02 SHOOTERS WORLD EVAN'S GUNSMITHING'S A proposal to allow an indoor recreational firearm shooting range and a full service gun store at a 6,340 sq. ft. industrial building. The proposal includes ten shooting stalls, a 216 sq. ft. gunsmithing room, two offices, two ready rooms (shooter lockers), and a 209 sq. ft. showroom. The General Plan land use designation is Industrial <no The zoning of the site is General Manufacturing (I) District. The site is located at 1637 North Brian Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 20-02 approving Conditional Use Permit 2411-02. Chair Smith asked if anyone was present who was opposed to this application. There was no one and full reading of the Staff Report was waived. Planning Manager Karen Sully introduced the application for Evan's Gunsmithing's Shooters World, as above. Ms. Sully noted that the applicant is currently operating at a different site on Enterprise and they have recently purchased the building at Brian Street. The applicant is currently leasing the location at Enterprise and he is in the process of relocating his business. Ms. Sully continued to explain that the business is essential to numerous law enforcement agencies and the general public, and is one of a kind in the City of Orange, with the exception of the Orange County Sheriff s shooting range. Ms. Sully stated that the project was looked at in terms of parking and determined that there would be fifteen (15) parking stalls required--five (5) for employees, and ten (10) for each shooting stall. Staff feels that the applicant can manage parking on site. Additionally, the staff has submitted to the commission a memorandum, dated today's date, June 17,2002 with some refinements to the proposed conditions of approval, specifically dealing with the requirements of California's OSHA, and that the applicant comply and conform with all of the OSHA's requirements. Ms. Sully also added that the applicant indicated earlier today that he wanted to adjust his hours of operation to extend to II :00 p.m., Fridays and Saturdays to accommodate the Orange Police Department, 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 who will occupy the facility after the 9:30 p.m. closing. Staff has adjusted the condition accordingly to accommodate this request. Ms. Sully continued to explain that the applicant also indicated that they may have special promotional activities. groups that come and use the shooting range, that may extend past the hours indicated. The staff has included a condition that would require the applicant to submit a written request one (I) week prior to such an event or activity. Ms. Sully indicated Mr. Mario Chavez-Marquez, Assistant Planner. and Ms. Barbara Brown, the Representative from Crime Prevention, are present to answer questions, if necessary. Chair Smith asked if there were any questions from the commission. There were none. Chair Smith continued by addressing Mr. Chavez-Marquez, asking if he had anything to add to the report. Mr. Chavez-Marquez wanted to clarifY that the extended hours stated on the Memorandum item number eighteen (18), dated June 17,2002, are revised to reflect 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and 10:00 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. on Sundays. Commission Pruett asked if the new request is closing at II :00 pm., or whether those after hours, for the Police Department, will fall under special contract. Mr. Chavez-Marquez expressed that it will be up to the Planning Commission as to whether the commission wants to restrict the hours. Chair Smith asked to hear from Ms. Barbara Brown concerning the police department's review and comments on this project. Ms. Barbara Brown from the Orange Police Department Crime Prevention stated that the police department does not object to the applicant's facility. But she added that the applicant is required by the City's, the Justice Department's, and the Police Department's Security Ordinances to comply with certain requirements, which are outlined in the staff s conditions. Chair Smith asked if there were any questions for Ms. Brown. There were none. Chair Smith asked the applicant, Mr. Evan Carolyn, to come and speak on behalf of his application. Mr. Evan Carolyn, co-owner of Evan's Gunsmithing Shooters World (1870 Nordic Place, Orange), stated the purpose and benefits of the shooting range. Chair Smith asked if Mr. Carolyn is familiar with the revised conditions in the memo of June 17, 2002. Mr. Carolyn stated that he has spoken to Ms. Sully and is aware of the revised conditions and he agrees with all of the conditions. Chair Smith stated that in her personal research, she has found that Evan's Gunsmithing has a reputation in the community to have a secure facility and he has a plan of security for all participants. Chair Smith asked Mr. Carolyn to share this to the public for the public record because it is not stated in the staff report. 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 A question and answer session between Chair Smith and Mr. Carolyn covered such topics as safety, identification requirements, emergency plan, and first aid and CPR training for employees. Commissioner Bonina and Mr. Carolyn covered the additional topic of the sale of firearms and ill requirement for the purchase of firearms by the public. Commissioner Brandman and Mr. Carolyn addressed the issue of people with records or who "should not be there" accessing the facility. Mr. Carolyn explained that with the high presence oflaw enforcement on site is a deterrent for those people. He also added that they do not have a high volume of traffic coming in and out of the facility. Commissioner Pruett and Mr. Carolyn talked about the time of operation in the amended condition. The conclusion is that the closing time would remain as requested before (11 :00 pm). with the added resolution that law enforcement officers and other agencies may have access to the facility after the public closing hours. Commissioner Brandman readdressed Mr. Carolyn concerning the age for admittance. Mr. Carolyn replied by stating that the California law requirements is eighteen (18) for center fire riffles. twenty-one (21) for concealable firearms, which are handguns, and the purchase of ammunitions that accommodates both of them. The screening process requires that the people demonstrate the ability to safely handle the use of the firearms before accessing and utilizing the range using their own firearms, or to rent a firearm from them. One of the qualifications to rent a firearm from them is that the person has to demonstrate the knowledge of safe handling of a firearm, provide a certification from the NRA that they've been through a training program. If someone came in without any knowledge of how to use a gun, he would direct and require them to receive training and certification before allowed utilization of the facility. Addressing the next concern from Commissioner Brandman. Mr. Carolyn stated that they do not have any formal way to run every individual check on each person who enters the facility, he is not even aware that there are provisions in the law to address this. But they require identification in the means of a driver's license. Chair Smith asked if it is correct that he does not present the formal hunting courses, but there are other opportunities in the community that does. Mr. Carolyn answered that there are some that they do on site, but because of the down sizing and the special accommodation for the law enforcement agency, they it is correct that they do not offer the hunting courses. Chair Smith asked Mr. Carolyn if he was a gunsmith and if there is anyone else on his staff who is. Mr. Carolyn replied that he is a gunsmith and he also has another personnel on staff who is a gunsmith. Chair Smith opened the floor for Public Comments. SPEAKERS IN FAVOR (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker. 1600 W. Struck, Orange; Pat Doolev. 1198 N. Grove St., Orange; Dave Frizzle. 525 Wayfield, Orange; T.J. Johnson. 1026 N. Tustin, Orange; Gary Luther. 1532 W. Yale Ave, Orange; Nancv Silliman. P.O. Box 1154, LKWD 90714 (?); Randv Tucker. 1130 I Acacia Pkwy; Paul Vallandigham. 849 N. Highland St., Orange. 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Evan's Gunsmithing Shooters World is needed because the closest facility is in Chino. . The business benefits the law enforcement agencies. . The surrounding businesses do not object, actually they support because it increases the presence of the number oflaw enforcement officers in the area. . There have been suicides taking place at other facilities, but not at Evan's. . Evan's has a "supertrap" system that is unique to the area's facilities. . Evan's has a strong safety program and a process check system. Chair Smith asked ifthere is anyone else who would like to speak. There was no one. Chair Smith asked the applicant come back and add any closing comments. Commissioner Brandman noted that she is impressed with what she has heard so far, but she asked for further clarification concerning her earlier question concerning inexperienced public members who want to use the facility. Commissioner Brandman and Mr. Carolyn discussed the question in further details. Commissioner Pruett directed another question concerning the operating hours, he proposed changing the language to. "The use of the facility after normal business hours of operation is limited to law enforcement agencies. Written requests for special promotional activities that extend beyond the hours of operation shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Police Department's Vice Unit one week in advance prior to set event". Mr. Carolyn expressed that would be acceptable. Mr. Carolyn asked that the phrasing be modified to reflect, "prior to utilization", a person is required to be checked. He explained that anyone is allowed to have access to the facility because it is a public business, but to have access to the service or range facility, then the person would be subject to be checked and identified for security reasons. Chair Smith also wanted to propose documenting site security in writing: "To ensure security, prior to utilization of the service and shooting range facility, all persons shall be required to present to range staff a California license or other valid identification, and shall submit all firearms to safety inspection by qualified staff." She also added a second part to her proposal, pertaining to staff being certified in CPR and first aid: "To ensure site safety, at all times, at least one staff member on duty will be certified in CPR and First Aid." Mr. Carolyn accepted the additions to the conditions. Chair Smith closed the public to the floor and brought the discussion to the commissioners. Chair Smith wanted to state for the record that the conditions she and commissioner Pruett spoke of will be added to the list of existing conditions. Commissioner Pruett commented that the commission may want to express to the police department their thoughts and plans for the standard policies to be established as conditions of approval, that they need to be approved by the crime prevention coordinator in conformance to the building security ordinance. Ms. Brown addressed Commissioner Pruett and asked him to clarifY his question, whether he's asking that the police department maintain whether Mr. Carolyn has properly identified of all individuals? 9 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 Commissioner Pruett explained by pointing to condition number 10, which states. "The following conditions are in accordance with standard policy established for indoor recreational firearms shooting range and a full service gun store: that the plans shall be approved by the Crime Prevention Coordinator as being in conformance with the Building Security Ordinance No. 7-79." He asked if this statement includes how the store is managed. Ms. Brown answered that this only pertains to the security of the building, the roof, the doors, and where the guns are displayed. Commissioner Pruett went further to ask if that meant the police department is not involved in any management plan in terms of how the facility is managed for the security of its use. Ms. Brown replied that the police department is only involved in how the guns are displayed during and after business hours. Chair Smith asked for any further questions or comments. There were none. MOTION Moved by Chair Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adopt resolution PC 20-02, Conditional Use Permit 2411-02. This approval includes the Findings and Conditions for Approval as outlined in the revised memo dated June 17, 2002 from Planning Commission Staff Report with the following modifications/additions to the Conditions of Approval: I) Adding "To ensure security, prior to utilization of the service and shooting range facility, all persons shall be required to present to range staff a California Drivers license or other valid identification, and shall submit all firearms to safety inspection by qualified staff'. 2) Adding "To ensure site safety, at all times, at least one range staff member on duty will be certified in CPR and First Aid". 3) Disregard proposed change to Condition #18 concerning the business operating hours in the amendment memoranda. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday 10:00 A.M. to 1l:00 P.M., Saturday from 10:00 A.M. to 1l:00 P.M., and Sunday from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. 4) Add to the condition outlining the hours of operation: "The use of the facility after normal business hours of operation is limited to law enforcement agencies." Drop (a) to add, "Written requests for special promotional activities that extend beyond the hours of operations shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Police Department Vice Unit one week in advance prior to set event." AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2410-02, AND MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1692-02 - ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH (JIM BEAUDOIN) 10 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 The proposed project is a three-phase expansion plan at the St. Paul's Lutheran School campus that would allow the existing school campus to expand to three classrooms per grade. In addition to increasing the number of classrooms at the school, Master Plan implementation involves construction of a new gymnasium/multi-purpose facilities, renovations and expansion of existing play areas and athletic amenities, expansion of the existing parking lot and drop off area, and driveway relocation. The new building area totals 30,636 sq. ft. Student enrollment would increase from 475 students to 680 students, the number of faculty and staff would increase from 30 to 45, and the number of on-site parking spaces will increase from 78 to 95. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Public Facilities - School (PF - S). The zoning of the site is Single Family Residential (RI-7). The site is located at 901 East Heim Avenue. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1692-02 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et. seq. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is May 29 through June 17,2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 21-02 approving Conditional Use Permit 2410 ~2 and Mitigated Negative Declaration. No. 1692-02. Chair Smith opened and asked ifthere are people who are opposed to the project. There were, so a full reading of staff report was required. Planning Manager Karen Sully introduced the project, as above. Ms. Sully also indicated that there has been numerous correspondence, including e-mails.letters.andphonecallsfromneighbors.primarily in opposition to the project. Ms. Sully added that staff has thoroughly examined the project and feel that all the mitigation measures are in order and have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The staff has worked with the church staff, the principal of the school, who is aware of the issues. Ms. Sully indicated that Ms. Anna Pehoushek, Senior Planner would continue to further elaborate on the proposal, including the enumeration of the concerns from the correspondence. Ms. Pehoushek reiterated Ms. Sully's presentation first and then added that the majority of the concerns from the community were the parking and traffic situation. Ms. Pehoushek added that a traffic study was prepared for the project; it evaluated the intersection of Heim A venue with Canal Street, Orange Olive, and two driveway access points into the school. The study concluded that existing levels of service at those intersections are high, which functions well, and will continue to remain high following implementation of the project. A copy of the traffic study was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The staff has proposed a number of conditions for the commission's consideration pertaining to existing parking problem and driving activities. The conditions are intended to minimize the exacerbation of these problems associated with the implementation of the school's expansion plan. Conditions #5-8, II, and 18-19 are intended to reduce the amount of school related parking on neighborhood streets, minimize congestion at the entrance to parking lot from Heim Avenue, make neighbors aware of the events at school, control the use ofthe gymnasium, educate parents about appropriate parking and driving behavior, and establish a formal traffic management plan for the school that requires monitoring of traffic and parking activities by the school staff. The Planning Commission also attempted to address other issues expressed by residents concerning trash enclosure, and after school noise nuisances through conditions #10 and 12. Staff recognizes the potential conflicts between the school and neighborhood, but believes the adoption of the proposed conditions of approval and mitigation II Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will address possible adverse conditions associated with the project upon the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Smith and Ms. Pehoushek discussed the parking lot layout and the calculation of the parking spaces in detail. Chair Smith wanted to clarify the timing of the phases of the project. Ms. Pehoushek replied that the first phase is scheduled for this summer, the second phase is scheduled for next summer, and the third phase is the most tentative. Commissioner Romero asked Ms. Pehoushek to explain the drop off and pick up scenario with the elimination of spaces I through 9. Ms. Pehoushek explained that the rational is that the drop off pick up spaces closest to the drive way would be prone to congestion and inhibiting turning movements off of Heim Ave into the parking lot, so by eliminating those spaces, it would free up that initial congestion. The suggestion is that people can not drop off students in those I through 9 spaces. Commissioner Romero suggested that the commission and Ms. Pehoushek refer to the Salem Lutheran School parking plan as a reference. Ms. Pehoushek and the commission discussed the drop off area and the removal of the first nine-drop off areas in lengthy details. The comments included concerns for the ease of traffic, a drop off management plan enforced by the school, and physical plans of the lanes. Mr. Hohnbaum continued to explain that the traffic management plan is proposed mitigation; it has not been approved by the city. There have been numerous correspondences between the applicant and the city planning staff, attempting to clarify the main points of such a plan: the staggering classes, the way the school enforces or proctors the cars when they come on site, where the parking drop off spaces will be located, and traffic flow through the parking lot. One of major concerns of this project is the major congestion backing out of the parking lot onto the street. The city would like to eliminate this problem as part of the pick up drop off plan. Commissioner Pruett referred to the Salem Lutheran School traffic plan and asked if, as part of the traffic plan, the parents were required to sign an acknowledgement ofthe plan. Ms. Sully responded affirmatively. Commissioner Pruett asked if there has been consideration for the parking lot to be situated east to eliminate cross traffic. He also asked about the egress with left and right turn of the westerly driveway. He asked if there has been any consideration to make it a right turn egress only. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that these issues have not been studied, but can be. In reply to Commissioner Pruett's question, Mr. Hohnbaum answered that a street needs to reach a service level D before it requires signalization. He added that coincidentally, the city is currently working on signalizing the Heim and Olive intersection (near the project). Chair asked the applicants to come forward. 12 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 Terry Sherry. applicant. current president of the school. residinl! at 6319 Abbevwood. Oranl!e. Mr. Sherry expressed that the Board of Education of St. Paul started exploring the idea of expanding the school a year ago, after having to deny admission to the school for some children because of the lack of space. Since the mission of the school is to educate the children, nurture their faith, and equip them to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, they felt they were compelled to accommodate the growth of the school ministry. The Board of Education also felt this was a good opportunity to address and resolve several issues to enhance the educational experience of the children, and to improve on the school's position as a good neighbor in the community. Mr. Sherry went on to explain the benefits of the expansion plan, which includes: . Smaller classroom size to help the students and teachers; . More money to open parking lot, to reduce traffic in the morning and afternoon, which will benefit the students, parents, and neighbors; . Wednesday morning chapel services will be held on campus in the gymnasium instead of in the church where it is currently held, requiring students to walk two blocks from the school to the church; . The sports events will be able to take place in the gym, despite any type of weather; . The band will have dedicated rooms to practice; . Award assemblies can be held indoors. Mr. Sherry also noted that they do not plan to rent out the gymnasium for any other uses other than the school's periodic activities. He concluded that they have addressed the city's requirements in the planning of the expansion, and that the leadership at St. Paul's Lutheran school believes that this proposal is a win-win situation for students and parents of the school and the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Smith asked for any questions. Questions between the commission and Mr. Sherry covered topics such as: . The height of the fence adjoining the athletic field and the neighbors is six (6) feet. . The improbability of changing the direction of the sports field due to limited space. . Existing and proposed parking spaces to accommodate special functions. . The use of the church's parking lot for school's events. . The intention to keep the modular trailers in the new plan and the possibility of moving them to provide more parking spaces. . The proposed access to the parking on the sports field through two (2) lanes on the west side of the field. . The issue of whether neighbors have complained about disturbances from the fields. Chair Smith asked Mr. Darrel Hebenstreit to come forward. Mr. Darrel Hebenstreit of Architects Oranl!e. 144 N. Oranl!e St.. Oranl!e. addressed the Commission. He wanted to answer some questions that have been brought up so far: I) Concerning traffic flow, page 5 addresses this. He wanted to point out that: a) The existing school has no designated drop off spaces, b) The location of easterly driveway, page 5-33, get cars off of Heim St. by taking the current driveway and split entrance into two dedicated entrance points, and by taking the first five (5) drop off area spaces and turning them into a landscape area, forcing people to drive further into the driveway before stopping to drop off students, c) The two driveways, entrance and exit points, have been moved as far apart as possible to minimize potential conflict ofleft maneuver out and left maneuver in. 2) Concerning the overflow parking on the fields: 13 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 a) Creating a row of cars and a drive aisle on the western-most boundaries will result in an addition of twenty (24) additional cars. b) Using the western-most field as a parking field results in a hundred and forty (140) parking spaces. 3) Concerning the orientation of the field, he explained that the orientation of the field was designed based on: a) The field is only used for flag football only, so there aren't any goal posts; b) Regulation size; c) The sun angles affecting advantage if it is faced in the East West direction. 4) Concerning the modular houses, they can not be moved because there are only two (2) sewer points of service and one (I) is already tied up in the classes and gymnasium. Mr. Hebenstreit also noted that they have more parking spaces and drop off area than required by code. The Commission, Mr. Hebenstreit, and Mr. Hohnbaum engaged in a dialog that included: . The drop off spaces I through 9 and how it affects traffic. Mr. Hohnbaum expressed that he would like to sit down further and study the geometries that would affect the traffic flow if only five (5) spaces are eliminated as Mr. Hebenstreit suggested, compared to nine (9), as the staff have suggested. Mr. Hohnbaum explained that the concern is back up in the entry throat. Mr. Hebenstreit expressed that the current plan is to have four (4) staff members involved in the traffic control management system, one at the entrance driveway, I at the exit driveway, and two at strategic points. . The current student population is 480 students and the goal is 680 students. . The time of the start of classes is staggered between the kindergarten and other classes, morning, afternoon, and full day classes, resulting in a staggered drop off time. . The current lack of a drop off plan. . The placement of the handicapped spaces in the parking lot. . The possibility of having one (I) sport field instead of two (2). . Mr. Sherry wanted to address the question posed earlier about making the right hand turn only out of the drop off area. He expressed that they wanted to motivate people not to make the right hand turn only because they just end up going to the next street and make a u-turn, creating more traffic problems. Chair Smith called for Public Comment. SPEAKERS OPPOSED (in alphabetical order): Susan Campbell. 16342 E. Heim Ave, Orange; Will Campbell. 16342 E. Heim Ave, Orange; Cutberto Carbaial. 2551 N. Dunbar St. , Orange; Judv Demaret. 2591 N. Dunbar St., Orange; Mervin Demaret. 2591 N. Dunbar St. , Orange; Richard Drake. 2618 N. Dunfield St., Orange; Tom Everts. 2538 N. Dunbar St., Orange; Leslie Fauquet. 2543 N. Dunbar St., Orange; Regis Fauquet. 2543 N. Dunbar St., Orange; Sabrina Green. 603 E. Heim, Orange; Jerry Grosso. 902 E. St. James, Orange; Joshua Jones. 16402 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Linda Jones. 16402 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Ron Jones. 16402 E. Heim Ave., Orange; 14 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 Harvev Kirchoff. 1102 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Linda Kirchoff. 1102 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Hans Langer. 2529 N. Dunbar St., Orange; Mollie Mitchiner. 2583 N. Dunbar St., Orange; Merline Risse. 1005 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Ron Risse. 1005 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Matt Ulukav. 2541 N. Delta St., Orange COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Traffic will get worse with expansion of school. . Parking issues during special events. . Parents of students' attitude have been rude, inconsiderate, and intrusive of the neighborhood. . Noise factor from the field and special events. . The school has not been considerate of the neighborhood's concerns. . The concern of the use of the gymnasium. . The placement of the garbage dump being behind resident's house. . The intrusion oflights from the school reflecting into neighborhood houses. . Concerns about schools possible attempts of purchasing more homes and land in the neighborhood. . Does not want light signals in their "rural" neighborhood. . The affects the school would have on the real estate value of the surrounding homes. . The concern with power lines being added behind the school. . Proposal to install a rod iron fence to stop parents from dropping off kids before designated area. . Proposal to install speed bumps to slow down drivers' speed. . Proposal to split the phases up and do the first one first to see how it affects the neighborhood, then continue with other phases of the plan. . The school as not made a strong effort informing and including the neighborhood of discussions and plans. . More traffic with more activities from other Lutheran schools in the area traveling to the school for various competitions. . Possibly shifting traffic to the St. James area. . Parents speeding through the neighborhood to get their children to schoo] on time and to get to work on time. SPEAKERS IN FAVOR (in alphabetical order): Ade De Blasio. Power of Attorney for Florence Reusch, 2566 N. Torres St., Orange; Charles Hallenbeck. 2600 N. Torres St., Orange; Ken Heinicke. 705 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Miriam Heinicke. 705 E. Heim Ave., Orange; Lisa Levba. 801 E. St. James Ave., Orange; Ronald Martin. 1895 N. Shattuck, Orange; Jack Perich. Chairman of Board of Properties, ]2522 Fairmount Way, Orange; Dick Simpson. 2448 Love Lane, Orange; Rich Stuetzel. 25] 9 N. Dunbar, Orange; Jackie Zerbst. 74] St. James, Orange. COMMENTS INCLUDE: . The schoo] had to get permission from the residents before the removal of the trees from their properties. ]5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17, 2002 . Agreement with comments from those who oppose the project concerning traffic and parking problems. . A suggestion for an enclosure for the trash. . Approval of the school and support of the expansion plans. . Concern about back gate being kept open for access for the younger students being walked to school. . St. Paul Lutheran School was a good school. Chair Smith invited Mr. Terry Sherry to readdress the commission. Mr. Sherry expressed his regrets concerning the parents who have been inconsiderate of the neighborhood. He also wanted to address a few issues that were brought up by the public: 1) Concerning the phases, they could not divide the phases up because the school needs to know where the money would be coming from to make the proposed expansion. 2) The parking issue will be addressed. 3) He doesn't feel there is a difference between a community versus a commuting school these days because people do not feel safe enough so they will drive one block to drop off their children at school. 4) The staff will be helping out, directing traffic to make it more manageable. 5) Concerning the garbage enclosure, he sympathizes with the neighbor and is open to moving it anywhere where waste management can access it. 6) The misunderstanding concerning phase three of the project. The sign that was posted was in regards to when the city required them to remove and replace the playgrounds; it was not referring to the phase three of this proposal. 7) Concerning the school offering to buy five (5) houses, this is not true. 8) Concerning special events or competitions with other Lutheran schools, they only compete with five (5) of the seventeen (17) schools in the area, that will not change. 9) Clarify that there is a buffer area in the grass area between the field and houses. 10) They could not shift the traffic to St. James because of the layout of the school. Mr. Sherry also wanted to comment about the conditions. 1) Regarding condition #5, he will follow what the professionals decide concerning the nine (9) drop off spaces. 2) Regarding condition #6, he asked that the commission do not require them to close the gate based on the reasons made by the public and also because the gate serves as an alternative exit for emergency situations. 3) Regarding condition #18, concerning staggering the classroom drop off and pick up time. He is not in favor of this because he feels it may cause more problems rather than solving it. Chair Smith asked what the use of the proposed gym would be. Mr. Sherry replied that the building include a basketball court, band room, choral room, offices, storage, and chapel. It will be used for award ceremonies, and sports events. Mr. Sherry reiterated that they have no intention of renting it out to anyone for any other use. Chair Smith assumed that the school would be willing to come up with a code of conduct for the parents and students concerning all the issues. Mr. Sherry expressed that it has been brought up in neighborhood meetings. Chair Smith wanted to address some other issues, concerning the trees, light, trash, and back gate. 16 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 Mr. Sherry stated that the gate is locked except during the morning and afternoon hours where parents are dropping off and picking up their children. Mr. Sherry addressed the lighting situation by saying that it was a requirement that they add the streetlights for safety concerns. Commissioner Pruett intetjected that there is a code that does not allow light reflecting from one property onto another, so he suggested Mr. Sherry look into that and make sure they are compliant. Chair Smith closed the public hearing and called for recess. The meeting re-adjourned and chair Smith called for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Pruett addressed a comment from the public about the school being treated equal to other schools in the area. He explained that fair treatment is the hearing itself. Decisions are made on an individual case, dependent on many variables in each case, so one school may get an approval for an item whereas another school will be denied that same request. So in summary, the fair treatment is the fair hearing taking place tonight. Commissioner Pruett addressed his fellow commissioners and stated that he feels the project is too much for this property and location. His concern is the overwhelming use of the property, not to mention the traffic issues. He agreed with the public that more students would mean more traffic. He proposed the next action would be the applicant go back and address the student population issue and the traffic issue. Commissioner Bonina agreed with commissioner Pruett, stating that the school is trying to throw a lot on the property. He added that he feels the additional population may be good for the school. He proposed the applicant consider eliminating or downsizing the gymnasium to accommodate more parking spaces and better traffic circulation. Commissioner Romero expressed similar concerns about the parking, drop off and pick up situation. He however does not have a problem with the gymnasium; he likes the gym. His main worry is about the increase of student population. His sentiment concerning the traffic problem is that it is normal for all those who live near schools. Commissioner Brandman expressed her concerns about the use of the premises by other groups even though the school stated they would not be renting it out. She is also concerned about the basketball court, the low lighting for safety, and the parking conditions. But in general, she has no problem with the school expansion or the gym. She approves of the project with conditions. Chair Smith reiterated the comments made by other commissioners. She added that she feels confidant that the issues can be worked out, but the project is not ready yet because of all the issues: I) The gymnasium is too large and hopes St. Paul's will reconsider the size; 2) There is not enough onsite parking; 3) The handicap spaces are in the middle of the drop off area 4) The traffic circulation could be better addressed by examining examples from other schools such as Salem Lutheran; 5) Concerned with the placement of the baseball and other sport fields; 6) Concerned with the emergency access gate on the north side of the property; 7) Wants applicant to check the city's lighting code for street lights for safety; 8) Concerned that the school's activities may affect the neighborhood in a negative way. 17 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 Commissioner Pruett wanted to state that he does not oppose the school or its activities; he is concerned whether it is appropriate. Chair Smith wanted to add to her list of issues: 9) The right turn only egress on the westerly driveway; 10) The possibility of installing a rod iron fence in the drop off area as suggested by the public. MOTION Moved by commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero to reopen public hearing to hear from applicant concerning whether they would be open to these options. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Smith reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Sherry ifhe is open to the commission's suggestion of going back and addressing the issues brought up by the commission. Mr. Sherry answered yes. When asked by the Chair when the item could return to the Commission, Ms. Sully stated that the earliest the Commission would be able to readdress this item is at the August 19,2002 meeting. Mr. Sherry said that he is concerned about the three (3) kindergarten classes; that they would like to commence construction during this summer to avoid construction during the fall while the children are in school. Mr. Sheatz explained that the commission could not approve a portion of the proposal. Chair Smith reiterated Mr. Sheatz' comment. Commissioner Bonina encouraged the applicant to take more time to engage the community. Chair Smith once again closed the public hearing. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue the application to the next Planning Commission meeting date of August 19, 2002. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED 18 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 17,2002 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on Monday, July 1, 2002. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. 19