PC 05/09/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 1984 Page 6 Resolution No. 2469 was entered and adopted recommending approval of case PUD-84-3 as motioned. PUD-82-18-4D, Ashwill Hawkins Application of Ashwill Hawkins and Partners, Inc. for design review approval of four office/industrial buildings totalling approximately 36,900 sq. ft. and related facilities on an approximately 02.4 acre site at 2174 and 2182 Rheem Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Industrial District. A negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. Mr. Glenn presented the staff report recommending approval. The public hearing was opened. John Hawkins, 1805 E. Garry St., Santa Ana, stated they concur with the conditions imposed on both cases PUD-82-18-4D and 5D. He stated the location map attached to the staff report for 4D was in error. They did not, however, agree with Condition No. 6 as proposed. They intend to honor the City easement but did not feel the staff's condition was reasonable. Vice Chairman Wilson thought the applicant would prefer that the sanitary main be centered. Mr. Warnick explained the intent of the condition, i.e., the City does not want to be responsible for removing private property from on top of a sewer line if a repair has to be made, neither do they wish to incur the cost of removing anything put on top of the line other than just asphalt. The City has to be protected from a liability standpoint. He felt that this is rather standard and is not asking anything out of the ordinary of the devleoper. Mr. Hawkins felt it was contrary and didn't believe staff is consistent in their requests. Mr. Warnick felt that the only way anything other than asphalting on top of the sewer line could be done was if the developer entered into a hold harmless agreement and would pay the City the cost involved in removing curbs, landscaping, etc. Vice Chairman Wilson then asked if the developer could work with the City Engineer on this matter. Mr. Hawkins felt that the landscaping would be cheaper than base and asphalt to remove if it were necessary. Vice Chairman Wilson indicated he supports staff in their position and strongly suggested that the developer work with the staff concerning this easement. Mr. Warnick indicated that the developer could provide a new easement and pay for the redesign and work of a new sewer line. Commissioner Lindsey supported Vice Chairman Wilson's comments in that the developer should work this matter out with staff, or sign a hold harmless agreement. Commissioner Getty asked if buildings two and three were shifted south if this would be helpful. Mr. Warnick indicated that it is the City's desire to keep the easement clear except for some paving. Commissioner Getty felt that with condition number six theoretically the City is asking that the buildings be moved two feet to make the driveway on center with the easement. Mr. Warnick explained that the driveway is now located to the north of the easement. The City has easements and rights and they should be protected. Commissioner Getty suggested that the developer go along with a hold harmless clause if they wish to protect the aesthetics of the building. Vice Chairman Wilson didn't understand why the developer wouldn't work this out with the staff. Mr. Hawkins felt that it was his experience that when you work something out with staff the results is that you do what staff wants. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Lindsey that the negative declaration for case PUD-82-18-4D be approved inasmuch as project approval would have no significant negative impact on the environment.