Loading...
2001 - October 15 (! A ~tJ 0 . 6-.,l. 3- MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange October 15, 200 I Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Karen Sully, Planning Manager, Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Elaine Steinhardt, Recording Secretary ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN - None CONSENT CALENDAR 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF OCTOBER I, 2001. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes of October 1, 2001. Commissioner Bonina was not present at the meeting of October I, 200 I, thus he abstained from voting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: INRE: Commissioners Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2383-01 (AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 1976-92 AND 2112-95) - WINE EXCHANGE A request to expand an existing retail store by occupying the adjacent tenant space to the south; addressed 2348 North Tustin Street. The proposed expansion wiII increase the size of the existing store by 3,138 feet, from 6,985 sq. ft. to 10,123 sq. ft. The zoning for the site is C-TR (Commercial - Tustin Redevelopment). 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-32-01 approving Conditional Use Permit 2383-01. Since no one was present in opposition to the application, Chair Smith waived full reading of the report. Ms. Karen SulIv. Planning Manager. gave a short synopsis of the information in the staff report. She stated that staff recommended adoption of the resolution approving the requested Conditional Use Permit. She noted that project planner Mario Chavez-Marques. Planning Aide was available to answer questions. Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2001 Aoolicant, Mr. Steve Zanotti owner and partner with his brother of the Wine Exchange, the subject business, recounted that they had moved two times to gain needed floor space for their business. He stated the adjacent business to their present location became available in September, 2001 and since they again need more space, they propose to expand into that area. He explained they need more area to display their merchandise and to provide wider aisles. He noted they wish to carry an even wider variety of wines than they presently stock. He described the business as being threefold: mail order, retail and educational. At the present time, they are having difficulty providing adequate space for all. He wants to assign dedicated areas for each facet of the business. Responding to a question concerning tasting limitations, Mr. Zanotti explained to Commissioner Bonina that they usually limit the amount of each wine tasted to y, to % of an ounce. He stated they encourage not swallowing the wine and they provide water, cheese and bread. They are also very attentive to what people are drinking. In response to Commissioner Romero, Mr. Zanotti explained they partIcIpate in wine tasting on Thursdays from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and Saturdays from 12 noon to 5 p.m. and they hope to offer wine tasting three days a week in the future. Commissioner Romero remarked that on Thursdays wine tasting ends at 7:30 p.m. and the store closes at 8 p.m. He pointed out that most businesses serving alcohol cease offering alcohol to their customers one hour before closing and he wished to condition the Wine Exchange in the same manner. Mr. Zanotti expressed confusion but stated he did not see a problem with that. Commissioner Pruett explained that when the Wine Exchange began business, the condition to cease serving alcohol one hour before closing was not a standard condition, but now the Commission is more rigid in applying that condition and is attempting to apply it equally to all applicable businesses. He noted that technically the Wine Exchange is the same as any business serving alcohol. In a discussion with the applicant, Commissioner Pruett said that wine tasting may cease one hour before their present closing time or they may extend their closing time to be sure that wine tasting has stopped at least one hour before they close. Chair Smith and the applicant discussed the wine tasting area, with the applicant explaining the area would be moved close to the wall, which he felt was a more sensible placement and he noted it would be just a little larger area than now exists. He expressed his hope to move the shipping space out of the wine tasting area and have dedicated shipping area. Mr. Bob Bennvhoff, Orange, spoke strongly in favor of granting the requested conditional use permit. He thought the business was good, a specialty use, and should be encouraged. Sergeant Miller of the Orange Police Deoartment, stated they had included their conditions as part of the conditional use permit and they had no objections to it, The applicant returned to the podium to reaffirm that they liked doing business in Orange and hoped to continue. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bonina expressed his concern for the possible lack of parking available for the expansion of the business and remarked that the parking was dense. He also wondered if there were issues relative to circulation. 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2001 Chair Smith, on a vote of the Commissioners, reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Zanotti an opportunity to respond. He said he has never been aware of parking or circulation problems at the site. Mr. Mario Chavez-Marquis. Planning Aide. pointed out the previous business occupying the subject space, operated without parking problems and adding the space to the Wine Exchange, will not cause increased square footage in the shopping center. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Before making the motion, Commissioner Pruett explained that he felt the business was operated very well and the expansion would be beneficial in alleviating the present crowding in the store but he wished to make it consistent with other businesses selling alcohol consumed on the premises, so he included the condition addressing closing one hour after alcohol service has concluded. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero for adoption of resolution PC 32-01 approving Conditional Use Permit 2383-01, based on the findings in Section I of the resolution and subject to conditions of approval I through 23 in Section 3 of the resolution, with the addition of Condition of Approval 24 as follows: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 24. All wine tasting shall occur during business hours including II a.m. to one hour before closing. There shall be no consumption of alcohol beverages on the premises after closing or prior to opemng. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED 4. ZONE CHANGE 1210-01 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1767-01 - CHAPMAN SPECIFIC PLAN (4111 AMENDMENT). A request to amend the boundary of the Chapman University Specific Plan planning area (Fourth Amendment) to include three parcels located at 415 East Walnut Avenue, 526 North Shaffer Street, and 534 North Shaffer Street. The subject properties are presently zoned Duplex Residential (R2-6). The requested Zone Change would change the zoning from R2-6 to Specific Plan (SP). The properties would fall under the residential designation of the Chapman University Specific Plan. No changes are proposed to the existing residential uses at this time. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1676-01 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. The public review period for the Negative Declaration is September 21 through October 10,2001. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC-33-01 recommending that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 1676-01 and Zone Change 1210-01. Because there were people present in the audience who opposed the subject proposal, Chair Smith ordered a full reading of the report. 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2001 Ms. Sully gave an overview of the proposed project, noting no changes were proposed to the existing residential uses. She also acknowledged the preparation of a Negative Declaration for the project. She announced that letters in opposition to the proposal had been received from Victor Iverson, Mike Shakeri, and Donald and Evelyn Brown. Ms. Sully referred to language in the Specific Plan concerning incorporating contiguous parcels in a block and she explained that the adjacency of Chapman University owned properties has been considered contiguous. Therefore, staff has recommended approval because she believes it is the University's intention to eventually absorb all of the remaining residential properties on the block and incorporate them into the specific plan. She further explained that it would be the Commission's discretion whether or not the request moves forward should the Commission desire that all parcels on the block are acquired by the University; particularly if they wished to strictly adhere to the Specific Plan procedures. Ms. Sully acknowledged that Gary Brahm and Jack McGee were present representing Chapman University. She then turned the staff presentation over to project planner Anna Pehoushek. Senior Planner, for a more in depth description of the project. Ms. Pehoushek listed the properties being discussed as located at 415 East Walnut, 526 North Shaffer Street, and 534 North Shaffer Street. The issues addressed in the letters of opposition were quality of life issues such as traffic, noise, vandalism, pollution, and potential impacts on property values. She noted that staff believes the request to be consistent with the 1989 Specific Plan's objectives. Chair Smith said Chapman University-owned vacant property on that street was presently being used as a parking lot and a drive through for traffic. Ms Pehoushek, responding to Chair Smith's question concerning what is actually allowed on that property, said the property in question is permitted for residential development. Ms. Sully interjected that staff had visited the site and the vacant lot is fenced and can no longer accommodate drive-through traffic. Chair Smith referred to page 33 of the Chapman University Specific Plan, which addresses how new property may be included in the Specific Plan. She felt that the individual properties could not be acquired unless they were part of a contiguous block along a single street frontage. Ms. Pehoushek said there were different interpretations of the Specific Plan language and stated that staff had evaluated the subject properties as being contiguous to University property. She referred to Ms. Sully's previous statement pointing out there could be a more strict interpretation of the procedures. Ms. Sully responded to Chair Smith's question about requirements for inclusion of property into the Specific Plan by saying that all properties needed to be owned by Chapman University before they could be brought into the Specific Plan. Ms. Sully, responding to Commissioner Romero's question about Specific Plan interpretations, said that staffs reasoning, as part of their analysis, was that the parcels are contiguous and it is the University's intention to ultimately acquire all properties on the block; the Commission's interpretation of the Specific Plan may be different, however. Jack McGee. Post Office Box 293. Yorba Linda, representing the applicant, said the subject property will not physically change and represents Y, acre to be added to the residential portion of the campus. He said the purpose of the request is to annex the property into the Specific Plan to establish future operating rules for development and procedures for future applications. He reported discussing preliminary plans for future development with staff and with the neighbors. Mr. McGee referred also to language in the Specific Plan requiring all properties on Center Street and Orange to be acquired before inclusion in the Specific Plan. He also explained that the law school 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2001 addition didn't have all properties on a particular frontage before it became part of the Specific Plan, but they determined at the time that it met the definition. He agreed with staffs interpretation of contiguous lots. He felt the parcels were illogical at present and would be a beneficial addition to the Specific Plan. He requested the Commission make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Responding to Commissioner Bonina's question as to the University's intention to purchase other properties on the block, Mr. McGee said they long have had interest in acquiring the properties in question but they had no desire to force individual sales. Responding to a question from Commissioner Pruett, Mr. McGee said that in the event of an approval, they will ask for temporary parking privileges on the properties, but not for long-term use. Chair Smith discussed the law school acreage and the definition of contiguous parcels with the applicant. Chair Smith opened the public hearing. Mr. Victor Iverson. 719 East Hoover, owner of 427-429 East Walnut and 502 North Shaffer Street, objected to a parking facility in a nice residential neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood is very well kept and the neighbors wish to keep it that way until Chapman University buys all the land. He asked that the Commission not approve the request until all the properties are acquired by the University. He maintained the property is not zoned for parking lots. Beatrice Vega. 486 North Olive Street, stated her opposition to the current request. She said the neighbors had put up with a lot of negative impacts from Chapman and she asked that the request be postponed until all properties were purchased by the school. Mike Shakeri. 2005 Ivv Hill Lane, owner of property at 542-544 North Shaffer Street, which he reported as being surrounded by Chapman University. He described the area around his property as being occupied by a warehouse, and a vacant lot, among other things. He said that until the dormitory was completed, the vacant lot was a mountain of dirt and very unacceptable. He was against rezoning and agreed with Mr. Iverson Steven Naslund. 660 North Shaffer Street, explained that he had been restoring his historic home and has been working very hard on it. He noted that existing uses create severe traffic problems with students parking on Shaffer Street, in addition to the impacts of the nearby elementary school. He complained that students drive recklessly out of the parking structure and he believes that anything new adding to traffic would be a detriment to the neighborhood. He also complained that his property was directly next to Chapman University property and the school had never shown an interest in purchasing his property. He also noted he found the noise from the University to be objectionable. He expressed the desire to retain their residential neighborhood and asked the Commission to deny the current request. Mr. Gary Brahm. reoresenting Chaoman. referenced the empty lot that was being used as a drive-through and parking lot, saying that as soon the problem was brought to their attention, they fenced the lot. He also stated they were always interested in acquiring additional residential property and they intend to do so in the future. He believed it is very beneficial to the school and the neighborhood and he didn't think residential property near the campus suffered from reduced value. He referenced congestion and traffic saying that the provision for more University residences reduces commuter traffic and congestion, which is their desire. They wish to make the students part of the community but they have been unable to purchase property because even though they offer much more than appraised value, the offers are turned down. He pointed out the planned parking structure for the residence hall area is superior to the last plan and will improve the situation in the neighborhood. 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2001 Chair Smith inquired as to the proposed use of the subject property and expressed most concern for the vacant lot. Mr. Brahm talked about the empty lot saying the building was demolished because it was in very poor condition. He stated the existing houses are currently rented out. Until the ultimate use is decided upon and built, all three parcels will be used for surface parking and will be consistent with standards the must be adhered to. Chair Smith spoke of the large mountain of dirt that appeared one day on the vacant lot and expressed astonishment that it could happen between two residential properties. The applicant indicated that the property was controlled by the general contractor and construction supervisor, and the problem was resolved to the City's satisfaction, Responding to Chair Smith's complaint that one parcel was not being watered and there were weeds observed in the parkway, the applicant stated they had just renewed the landscaping on Shaffer Street at the cost of $5,000. He said they are taking care of the properties. Chair Smith admitted the property looked good when she recently passed by and she surmised the problem must be an old one. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Responding to Commissioner Pruett's request for a comparison of development standards between what the property currently abides by and the changes that would be part of the development standards for the Specific Plan, Ms. Sully referred to the matrix on page 4-5 of the staff report, pointing out the setbacks and building height requirements differ. She stated the purpose of the Specific Plan is to offer additional planning development standards that go beyond current zoning. Standards that apply to University property would apply to the subject property. Setbacks for side and backyards would depend on the proposal brought forward for the subject property. Commissioner Pruett inquired about the possibility of the University obtaining a variance for the property to allow permanent parking on the sites. Ms. Sully indicated that the proposal before the Commission is a zone change and the University intends to incorporate the subject parcels into the whole Specific Plan boundary for future use. She explained future processing depends on the future proposal as to whether it comes back to the Planning Commission or is handled administratively. Chair Smith expressed her dissatisfaction with the current request. She believes the Specific Plan is a unique zoning classification and a valuable one for Chapman University. The uses allowed and listed in the Specific Plan, once property is part of the Specific Plan, are not compatible 'with the existing residential use. She prefers to wait until the entire block may be drawn into the Specific Plan. She feels that a parking lot next to and in between residential sites is inappropriate. She also referred to a number of uses listed in the staff report as possible uses under the Specific Plan, such as frat houses, various outdoor exercise facilities and possibly taller buildings with smaller setbacks that would be inappropriate uses in residential neighborhoods. She said housing stock is needed in Orange and the City could lose in this situation. She offered that the University could use the subject properties for housing until all properties on the block were acquired. Chair Smith noted that when the Orange Street property was acquired, the University agreed that once they acquired all the properties, they would make the request for inclusion in the Specific Plan. Once that was done, the City street was gifted to the University by the City with the community's blessing. She said there was a need for sensitivity to residential neighborhoods. Chair Smith compared the law school sites, pointing out the differences with this request. She said there were several acres involved and they were not single parcels, but part of the school district site that was a single use and did not disrupt a neighborhood. She explained the Specific Plan was carefully put in place and amendments were made possible to allow for the University to grow, but this request was not in keeping with the Specific Plan. She did not believe the properties to be contiguous since they are not connected. They are separate but related because they are contiguous to property owned by Chapman University. She preferred to wait until the entire street frontage was purchased by Chapman University. She feels the current request is not 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2001 in keeping with a structured process and it is not fair to change the process. She added she knows the University has other plans coming forward in an orderly manner. Commissioner Romero said he was not comfortable voting in favor of the request because his interpretation of contiguous parcels differed from that presented by staff. He feels local residents have been lenient regarding Chapman University expansion. He also agreed the nearby residential parcels were not depreciating and the University would probably pay a premium for them. He stated existing residents would be at a disadvantage if a parking lot were to be built next door. He was in favor of waiting until the entire street frontage was acquired by the University. Commissioner Pruett feels there are contiguous properties on Walnut Avenue because the Walnut property is the last remaining parcel on the street, but to incorporate the other two parcels creates an island. He feels accepting those two parcels would border on spot zoning. He would approve the Walnut Avenue property but he stated that it would not be appropriate to form an island on Shaffer Street. He also felt it may not be appropriate to approve the request until a use is determined. He stated he did not want to see the property used for parking. He noted that parking is always an issue, with the desire to get it on University property, but he does not want it on residential property. There was a discussion between Chair Smith and Commissioner Pruett concerning configuration of the subject parcels. Responding to a question from Chair Smith concerning how the Walnut Avenue address came to be, Ms. Pehoushek conferred with the property owner who explained the small house was the original structure and when the comer structure was built later as a duplex, one unit was addressed on Walnut Avenue and the other on Shaffer Street. There was a short discussion between Chair Smith, Ms. Sully and Assistant City Attorney Sheatz concerning whether or not the Planning Commission could or should adopt the Negative Declaration if they recommend denial of the zone change and Specific Plan amendment. Mr. Sheatz stated compliance with CEQA was not necessary if the zone change is denied and Ms. Sully added it was the Commission's place to make a recommendation to the City Council with the City Council as the final decision maker. Therefore, the Planning Commission did not need to address the Negative Declaration if they recommended denial. Commissioner Bonina said he supports expansion of the University but feels it needs to be done carefully. He also feels the Commission would be condoning spot zoning by recommending approval ofthis request and that it would be unfair to the remaining residential neighborhood. He would not support the request. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to recommend denial to City Council of Zone Change 1210-01 and the amendment to the Chapman Specific Plan based on the following findings: FINDINGS I. The proposed Zone Change is inconsistent with Amendment Procedures stipulated in the Chapman University Specific Plan in that the parcels are not a contiguous block of properties along a single street frontage. 2. The proposed Zone Change could be construed as spot zoning until all properties are brought into the Specific Plan, which could be detrimental to the remaining residential properties. The impact on the remaining properties would be inappropriate. 3. Some of the possible uses for the subject properties under the Specific Plan would not be appropriate in the residential neighborhood, nor would the additional height allowed under the Specific Plan be appropriate next to the single story residential properties. 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2001 4. A consistent pattern in approving other changes to the Specific Plan already exists and has been carried through in past Specific Plan amendments. Past boundary amendments have been allowed for complete contiguous blocks of property in the Chapman University Specific Plan. 5. The change does not provide a land use plan that respects the adjacent land uses and contributes to the overall quality and revitalization of the adjacent neighborhoods. 6. The proposed Zone Change from Duplex Residential (R2-6) to Specific Plan (SP) is intended to provide for implementation of certain long-term objectives of the Chapman University Specific Plan, however, the plans are not known at this time, therefore, there could be the potential for adverse effects either individually or cumulatively on the neighborhood and future changes to these properties could require additional environmental review. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED As a final comment after voting, Chair Smith told the applicant that the Planning Commission was open to future proposals and she looked forward to working with them, but everyone worked hard formulating the Specific Plan and she felt their action was in keeping with the spirit and letter of the plan. Responding to a question, Ms. Sully explained that the request would be forwarded to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. She said that public notice will be provided for the City Council meeting. There was no new business. Chair Smith called for public comment while informing those present that after this meeting, public comments will be heard prior to the public hearings. Bob Bennvhoff. 10642 Moreland Drive. stated he was looking forward to Phillip Bonina's term with the Planning Commission because he feels Mr. Bonina is particularly qualified with a lot of experience. Mr. Bennyhoff expressed his concern with the East Orange General Plan as far as traffic is concerned. He asked that the Irvine Company be notified that the City did not want to accept piecemeal development. He wanted the remaining land to be developed at one time. Commissioner Bonina thanked Mr. Bennyhoff and expressed the hope that he lives up to expectations. INRE: ADJOURMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, November 5, 2001 at 7 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 8