Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - September 6 , Cc1 S51 e/ MINUTES C p(fJ7J. C. ,.t :3 Planning Commission City of Orange September 6, 2000 Wednesday - 7:00 p,m, " : _ 01 C:S 12 PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith Commissioners Pruett, Romero -E~i1J k:] J - STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistanf City Attorney, George Liang, Senior Civil Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2341-00 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-09 -JTC ARCHITECTS INC. (PACIFIC BELL) A requesf to allow the expansion of an existing telephone equipment facility by approximately 10,000 square feet. The site is located at 2525 North Orange-Olive Road, NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2341-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-09 indefinitely and request that staff re-notice prior to hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 2, Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of August 21, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Consent Calendar, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2332-00 & ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-14 - ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORANGE ROTARY A request for a conditional use permit to construct a live dwelling unit senior citizen project and a request for administrative adjustment to reduce the street-side building setback by 20% and the minimum open space setback by 10%, As part of consideration tor the senior housing, the applicant is requesting a waiver of one development standard, The proposal includes two of the five units being permanently set aside for lower-income households. The site is located on the north side of La Veta Avenue between Lemon and Olive Streets, NOTE: Negative Declaration 1641-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Commissioner Carlton abstained from discussion and voting on this project due to a potential conflict of interest. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, reported that the project before the Commission is from the redevelopment of the site that was created due to the street widening of La Veta Avenue. The proposal consists of five dwelling units to be rented to seniors, 62 years and older. Two units are at either end of the project with one unit built over a five car garage in the middle. Access is proposed off of the two side streets, Olive and Lemon. There will be no vehicular access off of La Veta Avenue. The proposal has been considered by the Design Review Committee several times and the proposal is found to be in conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards. Commissioner Smith referred to Page 3, Item 2 of the staff report. The minimum unit floor area and parking requirements are reduced from those standards typically applied to a multi-family development. The minimum floor area is reduced approximately 18% for a studio apartment, and 10% for a one-bedroom apartment. The required area for a two-bedroom unit is the same for both senior and typical multi-family housing, She asked why the floor area is reduced? Mr, Carnes replied to encourage senior housing projects, the zoning ordinance creates incentives, One incentive is to allow these developments with less floor area. This makes it less costly to develop and operate the project. The units will be restricted to senior citizens and rented for less than market rate. Commissioner Smith also referred to Page 5, Item 1 - Density Bonus and Item 2 - Affordable Housing. It states the applicant is not requesting a density bonus. But, the applicant is asking for other considerations. The units are smaller than are typically built. Then. an administrative adjustment is being requested. Mr. Carnes said the applicant is not asking for the density bonus, but is asking for a waiver of the development standard for three elevators for senior housing. The applicant is creating affordable housing for senior citizens for the life of the project. This is beyond what is required to receive a reduction in development standards. The City can only require that two of the units be restricted by this application for afford ability. The applicant will be renting all five units to seniors at affordable rates. Commissioner Smith asked why a community room is not being built. Mr, Carnes stated a community room is not required for a project of this size. If there were 10 units or more, then a community room would be required, Commissioner Smith asked who owns the property. Mr. Carnes replied the City currently owns the property. It will be sold to the Orange Housing Development Corporation, As part of the project in order to build the structures, they will have to consolidate into one parcel and this needs to occur prior to issuance of building permits. 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 Ms. Binning clarified one point about the reduction in the floor area. The code allows a reduction for senior housing units, but this is within what the code would allow for regular housing units, Chairman Bosch said Page 3 of the staff report does not clarify under the development standards for seniors. The incentives are there, but it didn't stipulate what was actually taken in the proposal. He referred to condition 4 which speaks to execution of an agreement with the City and the applicant and recorded with the County Recorder to put this program into effect. Item A states that all units shall be rented to low-income households, but it looks like the application is for two of the units to be rented to lower-income households. (Mr. Carnes noted the error.) Item 5 speaks to that. but it causes ambiguity, Also, in Item 4.D, it would be appropriate to state: "shall be in perpetuity." The public hearing was opened, Eunice Bobert. Chief Executive Officer of Oranoe Housino Development Corporation, explained they are a non-profit corporation formed to provide affordable housing. All of their projects are affordable, And in this project, all of their units will be restricted for the entire life of the project (55 years or longer), They tried to build this project without any variances. They are not asking to reduce the standards. Warren Parchan. Oranoe Rotarv. is working in conjunction with Orange Housing to develop this project. They tried to make this project blend in with the surrounding neighborhood, It's a California Bungalow style of architecture with lapsiding, They will be adding extensive landscape to the site for the seniors, Orange Rotary wanted to do a community project and in order to do that, they went to Orange Housing and asked them to get involved with Orange Rotary to build affordable houses for senior citizens, The City purchased the property, which Orange Housing will acquire, Orange Rotary will try to raise $100,000+ to contribute towards the development of the project. Construction will be done by Orange Housing, Orange Housing will also own, operate and maintain the property, Mr, Bobert explained that terms of the acquisition have not been determined yet, but in all likelihood it will be some type of loan with the Redevelopment Agency, 4 people spoke in opposition Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street. Daniel Jerry, 152 South Batavia Street. Louie Marquez, 424 South Olive Street. Corrine Schreck, 446 North James, The speakers were not against the project itself; it's a wonderful idea. But they did have concerns, The FAR is too high. The five-car garage structure is inappropriate for Old Towne, There is too much building for the lot. The two-story design is a concern, There are parking problems and heavy congestion, A paved parking lot or a small park with green open space was suggested on this lot rather than housing. The project is not consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards. One person encountered problems when he built two new houses in Old Towne -- one on Harwood three years ago and one on Olive a year ago. He had to put in wood windows. wood siding, etc, Guest parking should be required for each of the tenants. Questions of building materials were asked relative to the roll up garage doors and windows, Applicant's response Mr. Bobert said they have found in their senior projects that parking is less than 1 to 1. There is never an issue of tenants parking on the street. The project will be built for the active senior, and will be subject to all of the building standards that are required by the City of Orange. This particular project does not require elevators as it is small. It is cost prohibitive to put in three elevators, The two ground floor units will be handicap accessible. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 Chairman Bosch was concerned about the usable open space for the dwelling units because it is not directly accessible from the units, The conceptual landscape plans do not show usable open space. There was much discussion about usable open space and the lack of information on the plans. It is the applicant's intent to have the entire project fenced for the protection of the seniors, Occupants will not have to exit the property to get back into the usable open space, In response to Commissioner Smith's question about the materials for the sectional roll up garage doors, Mr, Parchan stated it will be wood material. Chairman Bosch noted the DRC Minutes stated vinyl casement windows. He asked staff to respond to the standards that are in place now regarding the use 01 materials, Mr. Godlewski explained that original and historic structures are held to a higher standard than infill construction in the Old Towne District. In the case of new construction. such as this project, vinyl casement windows could be approved if they held the same profile and the same design of original wood windows. However, in the case of a historic structure that is an existing resource in the community, additions to that structure have to be in-like and in-kind materials -- being held to a higher standard. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith was very much in support of the great work of the Orange Housing Development Corporation and Orange Rotary. but thought it was unfortunate that projects are always on undesirable pieces of land that no one else wants. This narrow piece of property is the result of a street widening project at La Veta Avenue and it is a problem piece of property, What has been proposed is extremely creative, but she did not think it was a good fit. For a senior housing project, the street is way too busy, especially with the narrow sidewalk and a minimum setback, It's too crowded and it is unfair to the single story residences behind the project that have been there for 40 or 50 years, This project will loom up in front of them and block their light. A five car garage is not appropriate for the Old Towne area. She is very concerned for the occupants in the apartment above the garage with having cars go in and out. One parking space per unit is not enough in this neighborhood. She asked where guests and family will park, or any service attendants that might be at the site, The materials for the project are okay because it is new infill and it is not held to the same standards as it would be if there was an existing contributing structure on the property. She was concerned about the lack of architectural style to the project and the precedent that it will set. It is not a defined architectural style; it's a stretch to say it is a bungalow. She personally feels bad for this neighborhood. The 300 and 400 blocks of South Olive have had a terrible monitoring of building over the last 15 years, Both sides of the street have been heavily impacted by mistakes, There are parking problems and so many cars in this area, The traffic on La Veta Avenue is terrible, She had concerns about seniors navigating through the traffic congestion and this is not the appropriate place for this type of housing, She is also concerned about a fence going around the entire property, She understands it is a security measure and it can be done tastefully, but there are no other enclosed properties in that neighborhood, She knows the City needs senior housing, but the design does not comply with the Old Towne Standards, She would like to see a smaller project with less units and more open space that looks a little more traditional. She would rather see a pocket park on this lot for the multi- family neighborhood, It's unfortunate to only have two Commissioners make a decision at this meeting and she would rather have more people involved in the decision process, Chairman Bosch stated this was a difficult piece of property, but it has some use. They looked at changing the zoning and lowering the density in the neighborhood a few years back, and there were many property owners who did not want to see that happen even though the existing zoning doesn't really support the yield of multiple family housing that many owners thought it would because of the small size of the lots and the other challenges. He had a different viewpoint on a number of issues, One is on the parking ratio of 1 to 1 when seniors are involved. That has been proven where there hasn't been a demand for more parking than that for the residents. But, because of the street frontage problems, parking is considered to be a problem in this neighborhood. There is a lot of space for turn around on site and he didn't worry about the residents being able to turn around to head out. To create a space for parking and still provide access is going to be difficult. There is no landscaping to take away to do that. The other concern is the 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 five garages, He didn't think the issue is the number of garages in a building, but rather how they are designed to minimize the impact and avoid the look of a "sea of garages". This does that because there is no choice; the lot is too narrow, The problem is with the design of the dwelling units. There is a lack of access and outdoor space, With the fence surrounding the property, it sends the wrong message, Because there was not a change in the zoning to reduce density, this meets the development standards for density, Therefore, with the right design, he wouldn't have a problem with five units on the site if the units were designed so that access to the unit is safe and convenient and still has some privacy, access to the open space is safe and convenient without going onto a public right-of-way, and the residents could get to their garages easily on the site, He did not know if the community is ready to invest in another Pitcher Park in terms of cost and maintenance, He would be willing to ask the applicant to consider a continuance to see if they could redesign their project in terms of style, materials seem to work, guest parking, access to usable space, protection of the private space on site lor the residents, and a design that is more compatible to the neighbors. He supports the goals of the organizations involved. It's a great spot for senior housing and would provide a good edge with new construction to an important neighborhood in Old Towne, Regarding the design, he felt it was a mixture of styles with hip and gable roofs, dormers with hip roofs -- it's unique. Commissioner Smith is willing to look at the redesign of the project, but she disagreed with the Chairman on a couple of points in that there would be the same amount of garages if there were single family homes, The project must have usable outdoor space; otherwise, it gets to the phrase of "warehousing seniors", The middle unit is pavement locked; there is no greenery except for a little bit at the front entry. She thought people will park in the turn around space. She's concerned about people parking on the street. She is not proposing a Pitcher Park; the lot would be better used as a green edge along the neighborhood because of the traffic and the high density neighborhood, She also objects to the back of the building at the 20 foot setback on Lemon and Olive Streets, She was in favor of a continuance to get the other Commissioners' opinions. If she had to vote at this meeting, she would vote against the project. She is worried about the precedent this project would set. It clearly states in the Design Standards that a project needs to be of a recognizable architectural style between 1830 and 1930, Mr, Bobert agreed 10 a continuance and understands the Commission's concerns, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bosch to continue Conditional Use Permit 2332-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-14 to the meeting of October 16, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith None Commissioner Carlton Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2342-00 - PUMP ROOM GAL'S BAR A request to allow more than three amusement devices at an existing bar, The site is located at 1532 West Chapman Avenue, (This item was continued from the July 17, 2000 and August 7, 2000 meetings.) NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. No one spoke in opposition to this item; there lore, the full reading of the staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened, 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 Matt Smith, attorney representing the applicant, said they have read the conditions of approval and did not have a problem with them, but questioned the hours of operation in condition 1, One hour will not cause problems, He referred to the establishment as being a tavern rather than a bar, They do not serve wine and only serve bottled beer rather than pitchers of beer, Security cameras are mounted inside the business and there is quite a bit 01 light. He also had an issue with condition 10 regarding the unobstructed view of the storefront window, He did not feel it was appropriate for people to look directly inside the bar through a big, picture window. The owner has the same amount of video machines now as when he bought the business, The police report refers to past problems, which have been resolved, 2 oeoole sooke in favor Michael Dennis, 2282 West Grayson Avenue. Ken Starke, 1918 West Las Palmas Circle. The speakers frequent the bar on a regular basis and spoke in favor of the video games, The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton stated everything appears to be in, order, They have established that there isn't a problem with the video machines. The bar will be subject to review by the Police Department and the conditional use permit could be revoked if there are substantial problems occurring at the site. Commissioner Smith was impressed with the Police Department's reversal on their recommendation. The City has rules on all alcohol licenses and they are trying to bring all establishments into parity and into conformance. She would not be favor of amending condition 1 because it is consistent with other similar approvals in the last couple of years, Condition 14 calls for an unobstructed view shall be provided through a storefront window to the satisfaction of the Police Department Crime Prevention Bureau. which does not specify a picture window. She is in favor of this condition and would leave the discretion of the window to the Crime Prevention Bureau. It's quite a difference to permit 14 amusement devices when the law says you can have three, Given the fact the owner has complied with the Commission's requests. and the fact that this establishment has been here for over 40 years, that speaks to something, It was noted there was some problems in the past and she reiterated that conditional use permits can be revoked. If all of the conditions are complied with, she could approve the CUP, Chairman Bosch concurred. He thought the revised conditions, coupled with the original conditions, are appropriate. Although there is an excessive amount of amusement devices. the trade off is to assure a certain level of additional supervision as possible, With the revised conditions, he accepts the continued use of the project. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bosch to approve Conditional Use Permit 2342-00 based on conditions 1 through 12 listed in the second staff report dated July 27, 2000, finding that the CUP is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. That there will be no deterioration of bordering land use or special problems created for this area. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood, and that the CUP is granted to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Minutes September S, 2000 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1S072 - WOODLAND CONDOMINIUM A request for a tentative tract map to allow the conversion of 90 apartments to for-sale condominiums, The site is located at the northeast corner of Shaffer Street and Katella Avenue (addressed 501 East Katella Avenue), NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, presented a full staff report because of opposition to the project. The applicant is proposing to convert 90 existing apartments to "for-sale" condominiums. The apartment complex was built in 1964, and at the time it was buill, it complied with the City's zoning ordinance. It was developed with 23 buildings, most of which contained four units, Two of the 23 only have two units, There are on-site recreational facilities consisting of a swimming pool and several play areas. To implement the proposal, the ordinance requires several items: One is the submittal of a tentative tract map for condominium purposes. Specific notification to the tenants must be made, They are required to be notified by mail SO days prior to the submittal, and a legal notice mailed to the tenants 10 days prior to the public hearing. Tenants have not been notified to move. The SO-day notification only informed the tenants that the applicant is requesting to make a submittal to the City, The applicant has included a property description of the existing buildings and what does and does not comply with the zoning ordinance. As part of the application information, information has been submitted of all of the existing tenants in the buildings. A relocation plan is also required. The purpose of the relocation plan is to spell out benefits to the existing tenants. The project includes the creation of a homeowners association to ensure long-term maintenance of the existing facilities. It includes site improvements and a new parking lot off of Katella for guest parking, Staff's review of existing rental conditions in the City found the proposal will reduce rental housing by approximately one percent (1 %), This project is being developed with 2-bedroom/2-bathroom units, and it is about 1,100 square feet in size, Due to the low vacancy rate the existing tenants will not be able to find comparable housing within the City of Orange, The project has been reviewed with consultants who are in the process of updating the Housing Element. The project does not encourage, but it does not prevent, the conversion of these apartments to '10r-sale" condominiums, There has not been an analysis of impacts on findings in the Housing Element in terms of adjustment of figures or quantity of units that need to be provided elsewhere in the City. Chairman Bosch stated with the conversion, current Building and Fire codes must be met. Site standards have an allowance for consideration of whether livability is maintained, There are grandfathered conditions for an apartment that could be carried over, The public hearing was opened, Dan Lueras. 360 South Glassell Street, is the architect for the project and represents the applicant. They are at 1/2 the density that they would be allowed if they were to level the property. This is a great piece of property that could be converted to condominiums because of the open space and transitional area. It would open up a market that has been ignored for quite a few years, The anticipated price range is between $120,000 and $150,000. They propose a guest parking lot that would bring them into conformance with the required number of parking spaces, The other two guest spaces would be integrated into the perimeter of the site. They have hired a consultant to assist with the relocation plan. The conversion of the apartment will give people an opportunity to purchase a home, 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 Commissioner Carlton asked what kind of financing is available to the tenants who wish to purchase the condominiums, Will there be special rent subsidies? The City has funds available to assist first-time home buyers. That would be an integral part of making this project work. Mr. Lueras has not discussed financing with the owner, 1 person spoke in opposition Debbie Massey, 501 East Katella #6B, She has lived in her apartment for almost 20 years. She is a single parent with four children and can't move her family. She received a leiteI' after August 1 stating that rents will be raised. Some tenants have not been notified that this process is going on. She did not think relocation fees are fair. She had a problem that Councilman Alvarez is involved with this project. The new parking lot will remove a considerable amount of landscaping and open space, She stated there are quite a few Section 8 HUD housing families residing in these apartments, Apolicant's resPonse Mr, Lueras obtained the tenant information for notification purposes from the on-site manager, Regarding the issue of open space, they are providing 33,000 square feet, over and above what is required by the City. He confirmed that Councilman Alvarez is a consultant on this project. He did not have any knowledge about the rents being raised. Chairman Bosch did not see in the relocation plan a reference to the existing Section 8 HUD tenants. He's also concerned about families with children having to relocate. Me. Lueras said there were two tenants that would fit the category under special circumstances, Chairman Bosch asked if it was the intent to maintain the gated access to the majority of the parking areas. (Yes.) It appears that the guest parking is not located in proximity to the housing, It's off to one corner of the site. (Yes.) The public hearing was closed. Ms, Binning clarified that any decision maker who has a financial interest in a proposal is precluded from participating in the public hearing process. Commissioner Carlton stated there were several things that disturbed her about this project. It's very unfair that the architect has to present the proposal to the Commission. The appropriate person to make a presentation would be the consultant or owner. It concerns her that there is no financing in place or any alternative being offered other than a very sparse relocation assistance payment. On one hand, she believes conversions are a real benefit to a community because they do provide affordable housing. But, it's eliminating rental housing. There is not enough rentals to accommodate everyone. She doesn't know where half of these occupants will go. Rents are on the way up and they are not affordable. There are too many obstacles at this point and she is not convinced that the Commission should approve the tentative tract map wilhout additional information, Commissioner Smith agrees. The project does diminish rental properties. but it creates an opportunity for lower priced condominiums to be purchased. She's concerned that this will push many families out of the City of Orange, She is also concerned about eliminating this type of rental housing from the City's housing stock, The notification process is a concern because there aren1 more people in attendance, Only three tenants are present. which is a low percentage, She wondered if proper notification was given. She wanted tenants to be re-notified to make sure each tenant knows what is happening, It is improper for the property manager and the archilectto present the project to the Commission. She believed 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 somebody else should be presenting this type of project because it will impact many families in the community, She was unwilling to vote on the project at this hearing, but would consider a continuance, Chairman Bosch shared the same concerns and they need to be addressed, They know there is significant infrastructure problems in terms of sewer and storm drains. What affect would that have on this project? Some critical questions were raised that could not be answered in terms of relocation, phasing and timing. What are the impacts upon the residents? The Commission needs to make sure the intent of the law is being met relative to the relocation plan, and people who can address these issues and answer questions must be present. He is very concerned about the notification process. He also needs to know from the City's housing consultant what the impacts will be relative to the Housing Element that is already in place. Commissioner Carlton stated they were not informed that there were any neighborhood meetings conducted by the applicant with the tenants, The Commission asked the applicant's representative if he were willing to continue the hearing to make resources available to respond to the Commission's concerns, and to address the Housing Element impacts of the project. Mr. Lueras would be willing to come back and address all issues raised at this meeting, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue Tentative Tract Map 16072 to the meeting of October 2, 2000, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Carlton stated for the record that the Commission wants additional information on the financing package, a revision of the relocation fees, evidence of meetings held with the tenants to discuss their issues and how those issues might be resolved, She wanted to see specific answers and proposals, Commissioner Smith wanted to hear more detail from staff regarding the loss of housing stock as it relates to the Housing Element. RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 9:35 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m, Chairman Bosch requested that Item #7 be heard prior to Item #6 to allow time for the applicants to arrive for the hearing, 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2349-00 - CENTURY FAST FOODS, INC, (TACO BELL) A request to allow one drive-thru window at a proposed fast food restaurant. The site is located at 2233 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 Fred Cook. 3184-B Airwav Avenue, Costa Mesa, is the consultant/architect for Century Fast Foods, He brought some illustrations that explains the site plan and elevations, along with a color board of the proposed materials. The project is a replacement of an existing bank building, They were looking at some compatible uses to go along with the site and decided that another restaurant type of use would be good. They have chosen a design that is somewhat different from the standard Taco Bell, They are looking for a contemporary Mexican architecture, An outdoor seating area has been created to take advantage of the outdoor environment. A drive-thru lane will stack nine cars which is quite sufficient for the peak hours of traffic. There are reciprocal access and egress easements in place with the property to the north. The bell over the door on the south elevation is internally illuminated and is three dimensional. It is very similar to the bell signage that is at the Taco Bell on Main and La Veta. Commissioner Smith was concerned about the dangerous exits. She would propose to put in a stop sign, or propose that the drive aisle be an exit only to prevent accidents. Me. Cook did not have a problem with putting in a stop sign, Mr. Cook believed the major thoroughfare is the one to the south. The one to the north is not used as much. There is a grade difference between their site and the property to the north. They maintained the 30 foot pad setback that was required. Commissioner Carlton asked Mr, Cook to explain the parking arrangement. Me. Cook replied there are reciprocal parking agreements in place for joint use by the property to the north for a restaurant site, The Commission and Mr. Cook talked about the parking situation, the concrete wall, architectural design, and the requirement for fire sprinklers or a 4 hour area separation wall between the two uses. 1 oerson had auestions about the oroiect Louis Donofrio, 2249 North Tustin. He is in favor of Taco Bell being built at this site, but the only concern are the trash bins, The trash bins are facing his front door. He asked that the bins be relocated to the other end of the building. The other issue is possibly the exit of cars onto the ingress/egress parking lot. That could be a possible problem with incoming traffic. He questioned the hours of operation and he asked when construction would begin, Aoolicant's resoonse Mr, Cook said there would be no problem in relocating the trash bins, to be a more compatible neighbor. Relocating the trash bin area along the east border would work, The hours of operation have not been decided upon, but they would like to have the option to keep the drive-thru open 24 hours, They believe in lighting the property for security reasons. They are looking to submit for building permits and plan check within the next five weeks. It will probably be about four months before actually starting demolition and construction of the new building. Their intent is to be a good neighbor. Chairman Bosch commented that the trash enclosure should be moved over to the east side, but not placing it where it provides a visual screen where a pedestrian might not be seen. Given the existing wall, although it's maybe an expensive wall to replicate, it should be done for the continuity of the project. He's concerned that line of sight be taken into account. He appreciates the design for the type of building that it is. He's not a fan of drive ups because of the circulation problems as well as environmental reasons. He agrees a stop sign is essential, as well as sight line protection. Approval of sign age is a separate application, The transformer location is a concem. How will it be integrated into the landscaping and line of sight? Site trash containers also need to be integrated into the design of the project. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt lrom CEQA review. 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2349-00 with conditions 1 through 14, adding four new conditions: That a stop sign be added to the drive thru lane at the exit point. That the on-site trash cans be added in locations found acceptable to City staff. The new north retaining wall bordering the parking area shall be of similar materials and finish to mafch the existing site retaining wall. And, relocate the trash enclosure area fo the easterly side of the property. The Commission finds that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan and is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare. not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 6, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2348-00 - SUNIL TEWARI (HOWARD JOHNSON) A request to allow remodeling and a two-story addition of 10 guest rooms in an existing motel. The site is located at 1930 East Katella Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicants were not present; therefore, the Commission voted to continue this item to the next meeting. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2348-00 to the meeting of September 18. 2000, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruell, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to a special meeting on Thursday, September 7,2000. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED /sld 11