Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - August 4 CA1l)OO.C.~. 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 1 of 17 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange August 4, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Steiner, and Whitaker Commissioner Merino STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Amir Farahani, Traffic Engineer Frank Sun, Department Director Engineering Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:40 p.m. with a reVIew of the Agenda. Commission Business: Item #1, Appeal Application No. 522-07- Prestininzi Residence. An appeal submitted on behalf of the OTP A appealing the DRC decision. Item continued from the February 4,2008 Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Steiner asked for clarification on the motion for granting of or denial of the appeal. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated the Planning Commission had several options on the appeal; they could make a motion to uphold the appeal or to deny the appeal, as well as upholding or denying the appeal with approval of the proposed presented project - allowing the project to move forward. Commissioner Imboden stated in making a motion to uphold the appeal it would not necessarily dismiss the project, the Planning Commission could uphold the appeal with the modifications as presented rather than continuing the item. Mr. Sheatz stated the situation, upholding the appeal and approving the project was unique to the City of Orange. The finding being that the original project that was presented to the Planning Commission had not been quite right and in order to move the project forward the appeal could be upheld still allowing the modified project to move forward. Commissioner Whitaker stated that the appeal was based on the EIR and that an EIR had not been obtained and the OTPA's focus was not a CEQA issue. Commissioner Imboden stated CEQA had been an issue. The issue was how it had been applied to the project. Page I of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 2 of 17 Mr. Sheatz stated there were several grounds for the appeal. The initial problem was the OTP A felt that the project had not been reviewed adequately. After the appeal was submitted and the proposed project continued, the applicant worked with Staff to revise the plans as a reconstruction of an historic house. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight stated the CEQA determination had not fit into the model of a reconstruction and OTP A's appeal was an issue with how CEQA had been applied to the proposed project. Chair Steiner stated it was the impact that CEQA had on the project after the building's failure occurred. Commissioner Whitaker read the EIR information directly from the appeal and discussed how it had played into the basis for the appeal. Mr. Sheatz stated Staff had gone back to review the problems with the proposed project as an in-fill new construction and analyzed it under CEQA's application. Mr. Knight stated with a reconstruction they looked at a Class 31 for the process. Chair Steiner asked if they had reviewed the project from the point of view that a reconstruction had been caused by the actions of the applicant? Commissioner Imboden stated that had not been a part of the issue. Mr. Knight stated the provisions of CEQA under a Class 31 followed the Secretary of Interior Standards; those were very specific guidelines that were reviewed. Mr. Sheatz stated the project was unique; it was not a typical situation that the City would review and they would not necessarily see the same type of results with other similar projects. New Hearing: Item #2, Arby's Fast Food Restaurant. The restaurant and retail space of the proposed project would take up the old Quan's location. Chair Steiner asked ifthere had been any public comment received by Staff. Associate Planner, Sonal Thakur, stated they had received no contact from the public. Other information: Chair Steiner asked the Commissioners if they were in receipt of the letter from Tom Davidson regarding their action on the Holy Sepulcher project. Commissioner Imboden was in receipt of the letter; Commissioner Whitaker had not been present at the meeting and had not received a letter. Chair Steiner asked if there was any news from City Council. Mr. Knight stated Holy Sepulcher would be presented at an upcoming meeting. Mr. Sheatz stated on the City Council Agenda for the August 26 meeting there was an item for the appointment of a member to the Planning Commission; the member would be announced at the Council Meeting. Page 2 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 3 of 17 Chair Steiner inquired about Ethics Training. Mr. Sheatz stated Ethics Training, which was required of the Planning Commissioners every 2 years, could be taken through an on-line course. The City had planned to put a training session together but there was no date for that. Other municipal law firms had Ethics Training available as well as the on-line courses. Chair Steiner asked ifthere were any notable projects headed their way? Mr. Knight stated there was nothing large coming up; the Block had applied for an expansion of their retail space which would be presented at a future meeting. Administrative Session closed @ 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: No items COMMISSION BUSINESS: (1) APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 522-07-PRESTININZI RESIDENCE An appeal of the Design Review Committee's approval of a proposal to construct a 718 sq. ft. single-story, gabled styled new in-fill residence to replace the original residence that was demolished. At their February 4, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the design of the residence to be more in line with the original structure including replicating exterior historic materials. The project is being resubmitted as a reconstruction that reflects the historic form of the building. LOCATION: 804 E. Washington NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 1533 (Class 3). Class 31 consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion on Appeal No. 522-07 Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Page 3 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 4 of 17 Applicant, Craig Prestininzi, 804 E. Washington, Orange thanked City Staff for working with him over the last few months in developing a revised plan. They had worked diligently to meet all the requests that had been brought up by the Planning Commission to adequately address some of their concerns in terms of design and property location. They added features as requested that he felt were a detriment to the house; however, they were at a place where everyone was on board and could accept the design. He requested the approval of the proposed project. He stated it had been 2 years and 6 months since he and his wife had a complete house and he asked for approval to move forward with the project. Commissioner Imboden stated it appeared the proposed plan called for a new fireplace and he assumed it had a chimney. Mr. Prestininzi stated there would be a gas fireplace that had been part of the approved original plans. There would be a simple vent on the side of the house. Commissioner Imboden asked if it was the vent shown on the side elevation drawings? Mr. Prestininzi stated yes that was the approximate location of the vent. Commissioner Whitaker stated Staff had asked on the rear elevation to remove an existing door and replace with a window and asked if the applicant had accepted the recommendation? Mr. Prestininzi stated he had not remembered Staff making that request, it was a request that he had made in converting part of a storage unit into an office. The double doors would be replaced with a window for the office space, and it was included on the plans. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTP A stated the OTP A was glad that the project would come to some resolution and that the applicant could move forward with the project. They understood that the agreement or conditions would be to treat the project as a reconstruction per the Secretary of Interior Standards utilizing material and design elements reflected in the photographic documentation and instructions for constructing on the original footprint of the property. If the applicant agreed to those conditions, and it appeared he had, there would not be a need for OTP A to pursue the issue any further. They felt it would be the appropriate approach and would bring the project into compliance with the standards as well as local CEQA guidelines, which was the focus of the appeal. He found some confusion, as there seemed to be some agreement that there were issues with the review of the original in-fill project regarding CEQA and design standards. The project should have automatically moved forward from DRC to Planning Commission. In a review of the minutes the OTP A was not sure if the appeal was being upheld or denied and he asked for clarification. He stated they were pleased with the results of the appeal and agreed that the project was in compliance as well as meeting the CEQA guidelines. Chair Steiner asked for clarification from Mr. Sheatz on the options of a motion in order Page 4 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 5 of 17 to move forward. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated Code gave them 3 options; the Planning Commission could uphold the appeal, they could deny the appeal or they could do either uphold or deny with modifications. Chair Steiner asked if there would be any effect in withdrawing the appeal, as the appellant had seemed to indicate an acceptance of the revised project, and what effect if any would it have on the proposed application given the fact that modifications had been made since the DRC ruling? Mr. Sheatz stated he discouraged the Planning Commissions consideration of a withdrawal of the appeal as the appeal was the reason it was before the Planning Commission. It would place them in a position of having the item taken care of at the DRC level, it would not make sense to re-wind and have it return to the DRC. It could create an appeal from an appeal, and discouraged the Planning Commission in withdrawing the appeal. The appellant had the ability to withdraw an appeal. Chair Steiner stated interpreting the expression from the OTP A representative, there was a desire to have the project move forward and an awareness of a determination that if the appeal was no longer before them it could lengthen the process and he gathered there was no reason to withdraw the appeal. Chair Steiner stated the appellant shook his head in an affirmative response to the statement. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Whitaker stated he felt the appeal was not well held at the February 4, 2008 Planning Commission meeting simply due to the fact that the design had been approved in 2002 and if the building had not been demolished the City would have had a building built that had been initially submitted. It was a second bite of the apple and a CEQA review had not applied. Commissioner Whitaker stated the project that had come back to the Planning Commission certainly was a much better project and he wanted to move forward with the project. His inclination was to deny the appeal and approve a modified project or he could theoretically uphold the appeal per the modified project. Philosophically he had not felt on a procedural basis that the appeal had been well held from the beginning. Mr. Sheatz stated they would have the option to go either way and appeared that the end result based on the modified project would be approval of the project as presented. Commissioner Imboden stated his background on the issue and his position was a bit different. He felt the item that had come to the Planning Commission was a project that stood as having a categorical exemption with conditions that it met the Secretary of Interior Standards. The Planning Commission was not able to make that determination that it met the Secretary of Interior Standards for reconstruction and his reason for agreement with the appeal. Whether the project was brought forth through an appeal or not they had a required finding that they needed to make. Commissioner Imboden stated the revised project had tremendously improved through the process and they would be Page 5 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 6 of 17 coming to a conclusion. They had learned a lot from the process and he hoped it wasn't wasted learning and there would not be another opportunity to go through the process in the future. He felt complete loss of an historic resource was as bad as it got and there was a need to have it correct on the record for future projects. He was not persuaded that denial of the appeal would be the appropriate option. In looking at the basis of the appeal, it stated the OTP A felt the project had not been reviewed properly against CEQA and the Planning Commission had already made that determination and it was the reason for continuance of the project. He had no issue with the revised proposed project and he could make the required findings. His desired direction would be to uphold the appeal, almost more for bookkeeping purposes, and to approve the project as presented. Chair Steiner stated Commissioner Imboden brought up an important point that the loss of an historic resource was never acceptable; however, the loss or destruction of that historic resource would not have brought forth an appeal. He had read back on the February 4, 2008 minutes on page 16 and he shared the concern that the appeal was not properly before the Planning Commission procedurally and he was not convinced that the goal was to bring the project into compliance with CEQA and he would be inclined to agree with Commissioner Whitaker on his approach. Commission Whitaker asked Mr. Sheatz, the prior project had not required a variance? The project in its current state required a variance, was that correct? Mr. Sheatz stated on the initial proposal the property was situated differently on the site and it met the current set back requirements. The current revised project was a reconstruction of what had been there previously and placed the property within a 3' side yard set back, as it had been reconstructed in the original footprint. As it was a reconstruction, a finding had been made for no need of a variance. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff, regarding the previous submission as an in-fill project, the project would have required Commission approval and should the project have been submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the appeal? Mr. Ryan stated clearly any new in-fill construction would be brought to the Planning Commission for an ultimate decision. Commissioner Imboden stated final determination would have rested with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Whitaker stated that permits had already been pulled and construction had already commenced on the previous project. Mr. Ryan stated the previous project was for repair of the existing structure and an addition to the back of the structure which would not have necessarily brought it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Imboden clarified the project that had been appealed to them, which had been treated as an in-fill, would have required Planning Commission approval. Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. Page 6 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 7 of 17 Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to Deny Appeal No. 522-07 - Prestininzi Residence and to approve DRC No. 4279-07 with the modifications and with the finding that the project as modified was categorically exempt from CEQA, taking the action based on the project as a reconstruction meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards as presented. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Merino MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2720-08, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 551-08 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4356-08-ARBY'S FAST FOOD CORNER A proposal to demolish 3,784 square feet of an existing 8,059 square foot commercial building (formerly Quan's Rockin' Sushi), in order to develop a new multi-tenant commercial building. Arby's would utilize approximately 2,420 square feet of the modified building and two retail tenants would be located in 1,765 square feet of the building's southern portion. A new drive-thru lane is also being proposed in association with the Arby's fast food restarurant. The proposal also involves the exterior remodel of the building and various other site improvements, which include new landscaping, lighting, and parking (re-striping). LOCATION: 1107 North Tustin Street NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(Class I-Existing Facilities) because the project involves the demolition of 3,874 square feet of an existing commercial building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-08. Associate Planner, Sonal Thakur presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. Chair Steiner stated there had been a modification of the light standards from 11 to 5 with a height of24'; he asked if the height of those 5 had been changed? Ms. Thakur stated the height had remained the same and the foot candle had complied with the City guidelines. Page 7 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 8 of 17 Chair Steiner stated there was indication for the use of smaller delivery trucks outside of the limited proposed hours. Ms. Thakur stated the intention was that the loading and unloading activities should occur within the 10' x 40' space; however, if there was a need for smaller push cart items (items that could be transported in a standard size truck or car and could be brought out by push cart mechanism or hand carried into the store) to be delivered they wanted to make that an option. The information for the loading and unloading activity was contained in Condition No.8. Chair Steiner stated the condition that would be applied unconditionally to trucks would be anything that would not fit in a standard size parking stall. Ms. Thakur stated that was correct. Commissioner Whitaker commented Condition No. 8 stated the designated loading zone which was 10' x 40' could only be used between the hours of 6:00 to 10:00 a.m. Whether it was a small or large truck, passenger car or minivan, the loading zone could not be used after 10:00 a.m. The condition stated nothing about an occurrence of a delivery truck that arrived after the loading zone hours and parked across tenant parking spaces. There was nothing to prohibit trucks of a particular size from being on the site. Chair Steiner stated he agreed and particularly in light of the second sentence, which read: "activities requiring use of the designated zone shall only occur between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.", which suggested if there were activities that involved deliveries outside of the time frame there would be no violation and he felt it would encourage deliveries outside of the zone. Commissioner Imboden stated he also had issues with the wording on Condition No.8. The Planning Commission had not had much time to review the revised lighting plan and it had been a concern of his early on in reviewing the project. There were light standards very close to the property line next to a two-story apartment building. In reviewing the revised lighting plan, the lights were no longer along the perimeter but in the middle of the project and he asked what Staffs evaluation of the placement was? He felt the residents at the lower level of the complex would get a direct point of light directed at them and the trees would not screen the light fixtures. Ms. Thakur stated Staff was concerned with the photometric plan that had been provided with the Staff report and had been in contact with Brad Byer, Crime Prevention Specialist. There had been discussions with the applicant and they had been trying to obtain the Arby's corporate office stamp of approval on the plan. The applicant was aware that building permits or final CFO would not be issued prior to a crime prevention analysis ensuring there would be any light spillage that would not comply with the O.M.C. Commissioner Imboden stated he was not only concerned with the light spillage, but he was concerned with the point source from the light. The point source would be directly visible from resident's bedrooms at that side of the building and he wanted the potential Page 8 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 9 of 17 problem addressed. Landscaping could help. Chair Steiner stated it was important to note that, knowing from personal experience, if Crime Prevention signed off on the plan then it must be good; however, that was not always the case. It was important to keep in mind that Crime Prevention's objective was to insure adequate light and not to review if there was too much light. Commissioner Imboden stated he was wrestling with the lighting situation, especially since the proposed lighting plan was just presented to the Commission with their packets that evening He was not only concerned with the amount of light spilling over, but concerned with the point oflight as it appeared that it would be immediately visible to the residents. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to step forward to address the Commission. Applicant, Todd Matthews, 7191 E. Crown Parkway, Orange stated he had intentions of cleaning up the property that had previous issues and to make it a nice property for the community. The existing site had virtually no landscaping and he would be adding a considerable amount of landscaping. A portion of the front wall would be moved back to accommodate the landscaping and driveway offset. There would be considerable modifications made to the structure and the out structures in the back of the property would be removed. On the light spillage and the directional light source he directed the Commissioners to look at the lighting plan for the light spillage amounts as they were noted on the plans. The amount of light spillage was very small and his architect would address the point of light issue. Mr. Matthews stated he had a request to modify some of the conditions that were outlined in the presentation. On the trash collection time between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. he wanted the time to be left flexible to allow for Waste Management's time frame and not impose a limit on them. It was his understanding in speaking directly with Waste Management that the time for pick up would be generally 7:00 a.m., and he asked for a change in the condition from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On the loading zone condition, they had dedicated an area that would be utilized for both the Arby's restaurant and the other retail businesses for loading and unloading. A truck parked in the loading zone would not impact the on-site traffic flow and he requested the removal of the loading zone condition or to modify the language as to not restrict the hours for use of the loading zone. The other request would be to change the operating hours. He expected the operating hours to be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; however, he wanted to have flexibility in the hours as they would be driven by customer demand and asked to have the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to midnight. Chair Steiner asked if Mr. Matthews was referring to the condition on the drive-thru lane? Mr. Matthews stated he was not sure about the specific condition number. There was a condition that stated the hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He clarified that he was asking for a modification of the hours for the drive-thru window. Page 9 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 10 of17 Chair Steiner directed Mr. Matthews to the conditions on page 6 and it was Condition No.6 on that page that they were referring to. He stated there were 24 conditions that were a part of the proposed project that if accepted, he would sign and the applicant would be bound by those conditions. Mr. Matthews stated he had spoken with other restaurants and they generally closed the main restaurant earlier and kept the drive-thru operation open later. Chair Steiner asked what the reason was for the modification to the light standards? Mr. Matthews stated Arby's recommendation for lighting was a 5' candle minimum which was a significant amount of light compared to the Police Department's requirement of l' candle. Initially the plan had been prepared based on Arby's requirements, the modification included a reduction in the number of lights and a reduction to meet the City standards in lowering the amount of light that was generated. Architect, Jon Califf, 369 N. Harwood, Orange stated he understood the point source issue. The fact that the lighting consultant demonstrated that the light spillage complied with City Code would not mean that somebody standing in an apartment window would not have a bright light very visible to them. The intention for the fixtures would be to have a cut off device installed that would screen and redirect the light and also reduce the light spillage; however, would have no effect on the light on site and would not be detrimental to the site's security. Chair Steiner stated it was useful information and a good response to the issue. Commissioner Imboden stated he felt the cut off device addressed the situation and he assumed that the lighting package included a cantilever box fixture. He felt the issue could be resolved with the addition of a condition to address that the light source from the fixtures along the property line would not be visible from the apartment building. Chair Steiner stated, from a reference stand point, if they were familiar with Serrano as it headed up from Cannon, there were a number of lights along Mayberry that were shielded with a semi-circular shield as opposed to a straight line. Mr. Califf stated the output examined a few lights in a complete vacuum and had not addressed other light sources. In a typical real world scenario he felt there were definitely short comings in the light analysis and they would do everything they could to redirect the light source. Chair Steiner asked Staff, when the business was Quan's, they had sent out notification regarding the City's initial steps to revoke the CUP, and there was substantial input from the neighbors and had there been any objections or comments from notices that were sent out on the proposed project? Ms. Thakur stated Staff had not received any public input from the notices that were sent out. Commissioner Whitaker stated the applicant had requested that the drive-thru hours be Page 10 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 11 of 17 extended. There were several drive-thru operations in the City that had hours to midnight and there had been a recent approval for a 24 hour drive thru that backed to single family residential and he wanted clarification on Staff s rationale for the hours of operation condition for the drive-thru service. Chair Steiner stated one of the reasons businesses kept only the drive-thru open was from a crime safety stand point, to close the interior operation and only have the drive-thru window open and asked for Staffs input on that issue? Ms. Thakur stated Staff s logic for recommending a condition to limit the hours of operation to 9:00 p.m. was due to the proximity of the drive-thru to the residential properties and she was not aware of the conditions that were recommended on the 24 hour Walgreens' proposal; however, the only mitigating design that would buffer the noise would be the 6' wall, landscaping and the position of the order confirmation board from the residential. The hours were added as an extra precautionary measure. Staff had contacted other Arby's establishments in both Orange and L.A. County and none of those contacted operated a 24 hour drive-thru with most of the businesses closing between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Chair Steiner asked ifthere had been a request for a 24 hour drive-thru? Ms. Thakur stated there had not been a request. Chair Steiner asked if there had been a determination on conditions that the other Arby's operated under that would prohibit them from having a 24 hour drive-thru? Ms. Thakur stated that determination had not been made. Commissioner Whitaker stated on Condition No.8, referring to the loading and unloading designated zone, had the rationale on limiting the hours of that zone been to limit the impact on traffic? The applicant claims the traffic pattern would not be affected since there would be 2 entry/exits on Adams and one on Tustin, and asked if it was Staff s opinion that the traffic circulation would be impacted with a truck in the loading zone? Ms. Thakur stated it could potentially impede circulation on site limiting entrances to the western drive-way and eastern drive-way on Adams. The other important factor was if loading occurred at 2:00 a.m. that could potentially impact the residents with any noise that would be generated. Chair Steiner asked, in reference to Condition No.5, was the trash not being collected prior to 9:00 a.m. and was that normal? Ms. Thakur stated that was actually a condition that had been generated during the Staff Review Meeting by the Waste Management Representative. They had not wanted to create a nuisance for the residents and wake them up earlier or to create an issue with Waste Management trucks entering the site during the morning traffic hours. Page 11 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 12 of 17 Chair Steiner asked if the suggestion was from a Waste Management Representative, and was the applicant aware of the issue? Ms. Thakur stated it was and it had been discussed with the applicant at the Planning counter. She stated in regard to the lighting, if there was an additional comment that needed to be added, Condition No. 12 addressed the lighting to be directed and screened away from the adjoining residences. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight stated he wanted to clarify that the Waste Management Representative referred to was a Staff member that was responsible for coordinating with the City's Waste Management firm. It was not an employee of Waste Management. Chair Steiner stated the information that they wanted to ascertain was whether Waste Management had involvement in arriving at the 9:00 a.m. condition? Ms. Thakur stated the times were specifically recommended as a condition by the Waste Management Representative from the City. Chair Steiner confirmed that the City's representative was not a representative from Waste Management, but rather a person who was in contact with Waste Management. Ms. Thakur stated that was correct, they were in contact and coordinated with Waste Management on all City projects. Chair Steiner stated they could infer that the 9:00 a.m. suggestion had input from the Waste Management personnel. Ms. Thakur stated yes, that was correct. Mr. Matthews stated he had spoken directly with a Waste Management Representative from the Waste Management Company and when he had mentioned the 9:00 a.m. condition the response was that 7:00 a.m. was normal pick up for them. He was not aware of the City requirements and if there was a noise issue, the City had sufficient guidelines for that and 7:00 a.m. was a reasonable time. Commissioner Imboden asked if the person Mr. Matthews had spoken with had a copy of his proposed plan and were they familiar with the project and why the City had recommended the condition? Mr. Matthews stated no, he had made a phone call specifying the business location and had mentioned the adj acent apartment complex, and asked what the normal pick up would be and he was told 7:00 a.m. was the normal pick up time. Chair Steiner stated the condition also had trash pick up at 3 times per week and was the applicant aware of which days those would be? Mr. Matthews stated he had a bit of an issue with that as it was getting into more of a Page 12 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 13 of 17 business operations issue and he was not aware of what his trash pick up requirement would be. It could be more than 3 times a week or less than that and he was not sure why that had been noted as a condition for the use of the property. Chair Steiner stated they had run into situations where less responsible business owners would not have frequent trash pick ups and would create a problem and that is where the condition was derived. Mr. Matthews stated he would not have a problem with a condition that read he would have sufficient pick up to ensure there was not overflow of trash which made sense to him. To have a specific number of days had not made sense to him. He stated in regard to the Arby's operating hours, he had spoken with several of the other franchisees in Orange County and there was at least one location that was open to midnight and they closed the interior service with the drive-thru being available until midnight. Chair Steiner asked where that location was? Mr. Matthews stated he had not recalled, it was a restaurant in Orange County. He had contacted all the local businesses. In his mind it was a permanent condition for the property and he wanted to keep the options open for the future and have some flexibility. Chair Steiner stated he understood Mr. Matthew's concerns and they struggled with the balance to ensure the project was acceptable for the neighborhood and the City and friendly to business. It was a difficult balance to strive for. He asked if there were any other issues the applicant wanted the Commission to address? Mr. Matthews stated on the loading zone issue, Arby's had reviewed the traffic flow and they had concluded that it was sufficient and they had not made a suggestion for loading zone hours due to circulation. Chair Steiner stated putting aside the circulation issue, he asked the applicant had he anticipated a need for deliveries outside of a 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. time period? He asked Staff if the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. time frame for loading was correct? Ms. Thakur stated the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. timing was discussed with the Planning Manager and the concern was if deliveries occurred in the early morning hours such as 2:00 a.m., that it could affect the residential property. Mr. Matthews stated he preferred not to have a condition on the loading zone and he had spoken with other franchisees and what they had often times done was to have a midnight drop, he had not decided if that would occur at his location. That time frame would be outside of any operating hours and allow a delivery truck to park right out front and be out of site and out of sound of the residences. He was not sure when he would expect deliveries at this point, he knew he would not like deliveries during peak periods, and he would like the deliveries either relatively early or relatively late or to utilize a midnight drop. He wanted flexibility. Ms. Thakur stated another reason for the loading zone time restriction was that the Page 13 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 14 of 17 concern would be that during the lunch time rush and dinner time rush, if deliveries were to occur during those peak times, not only would there be on-site circulation issues but there would be a delivery truck in the loading zone. Chair Steiner stated the problem with that analysis was that it assumed there would be a concern with lunch time rush and dinner time rush but not a concern with a breakfast rush. If that were truly the concern, the delivery times should be only those times not associated with rushes. Mr. Matthews stated he had not perceived any issue with having a truck parked in the loading zone even for several hours. There would not be a significant impact on the site with on-site traffic flow. He felt the whole issue with the loading zone was a non-issue and should not be considered at all. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Whitaker stated with respect to the loading and unloading zone, the concept was convoluted and what should happen was they needed to, from the dais, make it simpler. On the loading zone, if they could come to a determination that there was no affect on circulation they could craft language that stated all deliveries must happen only at the loading zone and they could happen between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. whatever was reasonable in protecting the residents, allowing the business owner to determine his delivery schedule and it would not impact his customers. The parking spaces would also be protected, whether it would be a small truck or a large truck, they would not be allowed to load in those parking spaces. Commissioner Imboden stated he was in the same opinion, to allow deliveries and ensure the availability of the parking spaces. He stated that it appeared on the front there was a 25' drive aisle and if there was the same in the rear that the parking ingress and egress had been taken care of. There was no need for a front to back connection and the placement of the parking spaces allowed for adequate circulation and he asked Staff to confirm if there was a 25' drive aisle behind the parking spaces as well as between the other spaces there was no requirement for front to back circulation? Ms. Thakur stated that was correct. Commissioner Whitaker stated the dimensions were contained on Sheet No.1, Exhibit A. It appeared there was a 12' drive aisle for the drive-thru and 25' from the drive-thru to the parking stalls with the parking stalls being 16' and he wanted confirmation of that from the applicant's architect. Mr. Califf acknowledged that it was laid out in that manner. Commissioner Whitaker stated they could change the language on Condition No. 8 to state loading and unloading activities shall only use the designated loading zone. Activities requiring the loading zone would occur between a specified time, taking into consideration the residents adjacent to it, and he was reticent to have late night deliveries. Page 14 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 15 of 17 Commissioner Imboden stated he felt Commissioner Whitaker's suggestion was heading in the direction that he would be in support of. He stated many of the issues that had been discussed were conditions put into place to protect the residents who lived there. It was a limited site and it may be the best that they could suggest, and it was important to protect the residents to have a limit in the delivery times. The other areas that he was concerned with were the hours of operation for the drive-thru as the drive-thru had been positioned on the side closest to the residents. They had the same issue with the Walgreens Pharmacy project and they had asked that applicant to move the drive-thru to the other side of the building. If there was no alternative to where the drive-thru could be positioned on the property, and if the applicant required the extended drive-thru hours, he was not sure it was warranted as Staff had made contact with other Arby's to ascertain operating hours that were not outside of the proposed condition. He knew if he lived in the apartment complex he would not want to listen to customers speaking into the order box and he wanted to be sensitive in limiting the hours there. Lastly, in regard to the trash collection, the condition was placed there by someone who had experience and knowledge in that area and it should be considered and the conditions were there for protection. Commissioner Whitaker stated in reviewing the order box location he asked the applicant if it could be moved to the apex of the drive aisle to mitigate the sound from the residents and have the sound directed toward the post office. Ms. Thakur stated upon initial project proposal, the drive-thru was at the south east corner of the building and the concern was for stacking out to Tustin. For that reason it was moved to the rear where it was located on the proposed project. Commissioner Imboden asked if they had considered placing the double spaced parking to the rear and moving the order box away from the rear to have stacking eliminated. Mr. Califf stated that they had looked at that type of a layout and they had concurred that for the commercial tenants it would be a disadvantage for them to not have parking immediately in front of their businesses. The manner in which the order placement had been designed for Arby's was sufficient in keeping the sound down. In working with Staff the applicant had introduced the order confirmation board to avoid repetition of the order and eliminate some noise; the order board was located with the speaker directed at the car which ,,:ould also buffer the sound. The drive-thru was initially positioned closer to the Post Office as it was closer to an Arby's design. As they had settled with the current position, it worked well with the restaurant layout and the kitchen design. Chair Steiner asked Staff if they had the ability to control the volume of the order box? Ms. Thakur stated the business was required to be compliant with the noise element of the general plan, as far as the ability to control the specific devise she could not speak to that. Page 15 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 16 of 17 Mr. Califf stated he believed the noise element was 65 decibels from the property line which was loud and he felt it would not be anywhere close to that. Commissioner Imboden stated that was the minimum ordinance and asked Staff if the Commission could reduce that for a specific site? Mr. Sheatz stated the Commission had the ability, based on the facts presented, to place a limitation on the noise element. There was a problem with coming up with a number and how they would go about getting there was the issue. Chair Steiner stated he was inclined to agree with the observations made regarding the trash pick up and the input that City Staff received would supercede the input that the applicant had with Waste Management. Commissioner Whitaker had spoken about modification to Condition No.8 and reference to loading only taking place in the loading zone with loading between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and he was inclined to agree with that. He had not felt that there was a circulation issue with the current set up. On Condition No.6, they could leave the condition unchanged and he assumed the applicant would be amenable to allowance of the drive- thru to remain open later with an additional condition attached relating to the volume of the order box, if the alternative would be not having the drive-thru remain open after 9:00 p.m. he asked the applicant if he would be willing to make the speaker work past that time? Mr. Matthews confirmed that 9:00 p.m. was the number they were working with. His expectation for operating hours was 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; he wanted the flexibility of not having a condition. Chair Steiner stated with the proximity to the residential properties without the use of some method to lower the sound, the chances of having the drive-thru open later than 9:00 p.m. were slim, and if the applicant chose to agree with the 9:00 p.m. hours of operation he could agree with the current condition. If the applicant was willing to accept a condition regarding the sound to allow the drive-thru to remain open past 9:00 p.m. they could continue to consider that. Commissioner Imboden stated the applicant would have an opportunity to come back to amend the CUP. If in a year or two from now it was necessary to extend the hours of operation he could return with a request to amend the CUP. He could be asked at that time to provide mitigation measures to address any concerns. Mr. Matthews stated he would agree to accept the condition with the 9:00 p.m. closing. Commissioner Imboden stated most of his concerns had been covered and most of them were derived from the proximity to the multi-family building next door. As long as the applicant understood that a wide open scenario was not something the Commission felt comfortable doing and he would have the opportunity to return to modify conditions. Chair Steiner stated he would not want the applicant to misinterpret their efforts to ensure Page 16 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 17 of 17 that the best possible project would move forward. The area as he knew, and that the applicant had commented on, was an area that they were pleased to have a responsible businessman with a well known responsible business being added to the site. The residents of the area had gone through hell with the last occupant and the City had not wanted to subject the residents to any type of unpleasantness. He could understand the unhappiness a resident could feel with loud speaker boxes and bright lights and that was what the Commission was looking at. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 28-08, Adopting CUP No. 2720-08, Minor Site Plan Review No. 0551-08, and Design Review Committee No. 4356-08-Arby's Fast Food Corner with the finding that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA and with the following changes to the CUP: 1. On Condition No. 8 - to modify the language for the loading and unloading zone to read: the activities of loading and unloading shall only utilize the designated 10' x 40' loading zone. Activities requiring the use of the designated loading zone shall only occur during the period of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2. On Condition No. 12 - to modify the language regarding lighting to read: such screening shall be added that it prevents direct view from point source of light. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Merino MOTION CARRIED (3) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, August 18, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Merino MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:25 P.M. Page 17 of 17 Pages