Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-1999 PC Minutesi 'C/ C--~5()tJ .G-.,;? 3 MINLJrES Planning Commission City of Orange February 1, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEMSTOBECONTINUEDORWITHDRAWN 1. VARIANCE 2059-99 - TOM AMBUEHL A proposal to adjust the setback distance between accessory structures (corner to corner) and a reduction in the required parking width dimension for a two car garage. The site is located at 172 North Shaffer.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1587-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Applicant requests to continue this item to February 17, 1999. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Variance 2059-99 to the meeting of February 17, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2270-98 - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY A proposal to allow the off-site sale of beer and wine at an existing automotive service station. The site is located at 2493 North Tustin Avenue.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.This item has been determined to comply with the previously approved Conditional use Permit 2028-93.The Planning Commission should take action to accept the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 2270-98.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to withdraw Conditional Use Permit 2270-98.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 18, 1999. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of January 18, 1999. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARINGS 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-98, ZONE CHANGE 1196-98, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15680 &MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 76-99 - GREYSTONE HOMES A request to change the land use and zoning designations of the subject property and to allow a development of 78 residential condominium units in a gated community with a private recreation center.Prior requests to adjust yard requirement and allow 3-story construction have been withdrawn by the applicant. The site is located at the southeast corner of Heim Avenue and Canal Street, and is presently zoned for commercial development.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1560-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the November 16, 1998 hearing.)Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, presented the full staff report for the proposed project of a 78 residential condominium community. The request for the 3-story units waswithdrawnbytheapplicantthroughrevisionstothearchitecturalplan. Approval of a planned unit developmentisalsonolongerrequiredbecausetheapplicanthasoptedtoredesigntheprojecttothebasicstandardsoftheR-3 zone. The entry is at the same location on Canal Street, with one emergency vehicle access on Canal, and three additional access points on Heim Avenue. The circulation was modified from a loop to a straight two-way access drive that serves a series of alleys that provide direct access to enclosed parking for each unit. The recreation center was moved from the center of the site to the edge behind the Rios' family parcel on Canal Street.The Commission asked staff to look into how this proposal compares to density in the surrounding area.Staff found on the west side of Canal in the single family residentialzones, the density is on an average slightly over 4 units per acre. The property on the north side of Canal is developed to the extent of 17.32 dwelling units per acre between here and Lincoln Avenue. The tandem parking proposal is also removed from the plans, and each unit is proposed to have anenclosedtwo-car garage. There are 35 guest parking spaces, which is more than twice the City'srequirementforaresidentialdevelopmentofthissize.The open space requirements have been satisfied. There is no new avoidable significant effects that have been identified in the revised project, andnonewmitigationmeasuresorsignificantprojectrevisionsthatwererequiredtoreducethesignificanceof impacts initially estimated by the mitigated negative declaration.The public hearing was opened.Applicant. Douqlas Woodward, 26 Executive Park #100, Irvine, presented their revised proposal which they believe satisfies all of the concerns. They heldaneighborhoodmeetingand48peopleshowedup.The revised proposal includes 78 two andthree-bedroom homes, which are arranged in a tri-plex configuration, with the smallest unit being acarriagehomeandlocatedacrossthethreegarages. Each of the homes have direct access from the Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 recreational area includes the pool, spa and cabana and two small park areas for play. They also plan to have a picnic area. He noted the concerns expressed at the previous hearing about the high density of the community. They have reduced their project by 33% which falls into the Medium Low Density category vs. the Medium Density. The concern of the tandem garages has been eliminated. The 3- story buildings have also been eliminated. They believe the open space exceeds the City's requirement. The perimeter wall will consist of a 6 foot high precision block wall with a decorative cap and in two locations there will be wrought iron. Landscaping will be provided along the wall area. The future homeowners'association will maintain the 8 feet of landscaping between the new sidewalk on Heim and the block wall.On Canal Street, the landscape buffer is 17 feet due to the required 15 foot front yard landscaping and it will be maintained by the homeowners' association. The entry way is a concern of the neighbors, but they are proposing the entry to be in the same location. That area will act as a buffer for Mr. Rios and provide him with an access easement to gain entry into his back yard. They were also concerned about the increased traffic on Heim. A variance is no longer required for this project. They exceed the parking requirement by 25 parking spaces. They worked extensively with Mr. and Mrs. Rios and will continue to do so through this project. Greystone Homes provided the Rios' with a written agreement, which they agree to and it will be signed this week.Mr. Woodward explained why a change in zoning is appropriate. The site is not a viable commercial site;the property cannot be seen from Tustin. On the east side of Canal Street there is Low Medium Residential. Along Canal Street, north of the subject property, are a series of duplex homes. To the east of the duplexes, it is a higher density area. That combined with a change in zoning from the single family dwellings, moving towards the Mall, they believe a change in zoning to a more intense use is appropriate.4 people spoke in favor of the proiect Barbara Eggert, 2525 Bourbon Street # 2.Joseph Padilla, 703 East Cumberland Road. (Mr. Rios' son in-law)Brenda Bender, 605 East Gates Avenue.Clifton Chang, 501 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica. (Represented the owner of the property)They are anxious for the project to be built as it will benefit the community. The Rios' have nothing in writing for the easement. Greystone and the Rios family have mutually agreed to an easement for access.The project will increase property values of the existing homes.1 person remained neutral Helen Annis, 2511 North Canal, wanted to know how many extra cars the project would generate, and where would the visitors park.9 people opposed the proiect Gary Nowak, 2541 North Bortz Street.Diane Nowak, 2541 North Bortz Street.Mary Woodhouse, 2530 North Bortz Street.Robert Blethrow, 723 East Elizabeth Drive.Ronald Martin, 1895 North Shattuck.Rondii McCorkle, 710 East Elizabeth Drive.Vern Brierly, 903 East S1. James.Diana Forsdick, 2482 Hayford.Mark Sandell, 2482 Northumberland.The density is still too high. Twenty-six buildings on the lot will be visually overwhelming. They still had traffic concerns and it will put undue stress on Canal, Heim and St. James. Visitor parking is another concern and 34 spots is not adequate. The two small park areas are not adequate for children to play. An earthquake fault runs through the property. They are opposed to closed- in Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 takes away from the atmosphere of central Orange. Condominium housing will have a detrimental effect on the church and the neighborhood. Crime rates will increase in the area because of the high density housing. They do not want to see Orange go downhill as Long Beach did. Aoolicant's resoonse Joe Faust, Austin Faust Associates, 2020 North Tustin, Santa Ana, tried to put the traffic issues into perspective. This is a significant reduction from the previous density. Traffic is always an issue, especially when comparing it to a vacant site. Retail use would generate four to five times as much traffic as this project is going to generate. During the peak hour of 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. you can expect one car every minute. Heim Avenue has about 5,000 cars per day. This project will generate a total of between 400 and 500 vehicle trips per day. The Commission and traffic consultant discussed speed bumps, Level of Service "A" and traffic patterns for this area. It would be inappropriate to install speed bumps on Heim. Eighty to 90% of the traffic will move northeast towards Tustin Avenue. The project will be providing a significant improvement of the capacity of Heim Avenue; it's not just adding traffic. Mr. Woodward responded to the 35 parking spaces that are outside of the garages. It's almost 1/2 space per home they are providing for visitor/guest parking. These spaces will be defined for guest parking and the CC&R's will restrict parking to owners. This part of Orange is a very nice place to live and they wish to improve the site with their proposed development. The earthquake fault will be researched; however, their initial soils report do not indicate this to be an issue. He explained that the precision block wall is smooth block which will be easier to remove graffiti if that becomes an issue. Landscaping will include vines that will cover up most of the wall. Commissioner Carlton wondered if they have given any thought to making the first open space nearest the pool all open space rather than having parking spaces for guests. Mr. Woodward responded the concern of the neighbors was parking. The additional parking spaces might serve the community and project better than the green open space area. Chairman Bosch had concerns about the interior design and layout because of the extensive length of long dead-end drives without turn arounds. The redesign to place more open space areas and guest parking through the center of the site has created a spine that more directly helps provide pedestrian circulation across the site into the community open space, but for a significant percentage, the front doors to the dwelling units is in the back. There is no pedestrian access back to the parking area without walking the driveways. He wanted to know how this is perceived as a user- friendly community.Mr. Woodward explained the reasons for the long auto courts. The only people who would use the driveways are the residents. The auto courts are designed to be dead ends so as not to become thorough fares. They have used this concept in a number of other communities and it works very well. He described the 3'x4' planting pockets between the garages.Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter dated January 28, 1999 from Paul Rogers on Valley View Avenue, and a memorandum from Ronald Martin dated January 20, 1999.Commissioners Carlton, Smith and Chairman Bosch met with Greystone to discuss their plans prior to the hearing.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if the City Attorney's office needed to review the access agreement between Greystone and Mr. and Mrs. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 Ms. Binning preferred to keep the agreements between two private parties separate and not have the City get involved. Commissioner Carlton thought there has been substantial improvements on the property and she commended Greystone for their work. She's convinced the site is not practical for commercial use, and it has been an eyesore for many years. Commissioner Smith is very pleased with the revisions to the project. She thinks residential use is much better than commercial. This project fits well with the neighborhood. She's impressed with Greystone's willingness to meet with the community. She hopes St. Paul's Church sees this project as a tremendous potential for outreach and ministry. She shares the concern about a lack of pedestrian access. She likes the access point on Canal rather than Heim because of the greater volume of traffic and speeds on Heim. In a perfect world, she would like to see longer driveways attached to the sites, but will defer on that because it has been reduced by 39 units. Commissioner Pruett thought the plan has been greatly improved, although he thought there was an opportunity to do something more. Maybe there are some circulation issues that can be dealt with to improve the project even more. He is concerned about the block wall that faces the Orange Mall. He wanted to know who would maintain that wall and does there need to be an agreement with the Mall. Chairman Bosch thought this plan was a radical improvement over the previous one. He had concerns about the precision block wall because it does not guarantee an aesthetic wall for the life of the community or the proper growth and maintenance of vines. He does not want to see an industrial wall around a residential community. He's concerned about the 150 foot dead ends when there are 24 cars and 12 families up that alley to get to the front door. It looks like an easy opportunity to provide a pedestrian access along the back side of the Heim Avenue wall and setback, as well as along the south line connecting the units there to the southwest drive area. It also helps on the north side to get people to and from the pool and park areas without coming down the alley ways. He doesn't find the alleys to be neighborhood or pedestrian friendly. The greater concern is with vehicular circulation. He thought it was putting too much onto the land to proceed with the project as presented. He heard the arguments relative to the traffic on Heim vs. Canal. The improvements may increase traffic as well. He's most interested in working within the prescribed right-of-way requirements of an enhanced Heim Avenue to solve concerns of the intersections, and put the traffic out more rapidly to Tustin Avenue for the majority of it rather than insert it into the residential neighborhood, and encourage people to take short cuts up Canal or Heim,more than they might if they're put directly onto Heim, closer to Tustin Avenue. He's very pleased with the central open space spine. He wished it weren't all cars and bumpers looking into the open space. He's happy there isn't a CUP or variance request. He wants what is best for the site and this community to provide a residential experience that enhances the housing needs of the City. It should be done in a way that is an asset to the community and doesn't build liabilities in as it provides a few extra housing units.There needs to be work on this plan before it is approved.The Commission talked about the improvements to the project and considered a continuance to allow the developer to address the stated concerns. The number of units are not a concern if the site plan provided a more livable environment, better circulation, and a better sense of pedestrian circulation and front doors But, it is perceived that this cannot be done with the number of proposed units on the site.Commissioner Carlton compared this project to Rock Creek, which she thinks is a very nice project. She would like to move forward with the project as presented.Mr. Woodward suggested using a different paving material rather than asphalt in the auto courts to provide a more pedestrian friendly environment. They could also provide pedestrian walkways to provide site access, if they could give up some of the private back yard space. A loop circulation was provided on the original plan, but it did not work in this configuration. They could probably make it work, but they would lose some of the open space. Mr. Woodward stipulated to a continuance to mitigate some of the Commission' s Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue General Plan Amendment 2-98, Zone Change 1196-98, Tentative Tract Map 15680 and Major Site Plan Review 76-99 to the meeting of March 1, 1999, to allow Greystone Homes to address the concerns of the 150 foot dead end layout of the property; the developer is asked to consider a loop type circulation or some type of circulation that is more pedestrian friendly; that consideration be given to the ingress/egress alternatives onto Heim, as well as Canal; an enhanced block wall that would guarantee the aesthetic treatment of the wall for the life of the project; and retention of the existing Eucalyptus trees that are on Heim.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero,Smith None MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p. m.5. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 05-98 (RE: ORB NO. 3383 - LEMAR LUNDQUIST)The applicant is appealing the Design Review Board's denial of replacement exterior siding for an existing residence in Old Towne. The site is located at 133 South Shaffer Street.This item was continued from the December 21, 1998 and the January 18, 1999 hearings.)Mr. Jones stated this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission in December. As mentioned, the application proposes to cover the existing redwood siding of a contributing historic residence in Old Towne. The existing siding is redwood and the proposal is to cover it with a masonite or a wood composition material. The matter came forward through the process as a result of a stop work order. The existing siding iscovE::lred with plywood at this point in time. The applicant relied upon input from the Planning staff, which suggested that the primary structure could match the existing accessory structure material, which is a substitute material. This item was continued to allow staff and the applicant to look for a similar product to the existing redwood siding.Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, referred to the criteria selection for substitute materials that was included in the Commission's package. The preservation philosophy is to repair if possible; then, to replace. If replacement is necessary, replace the damaged material with new or salvaged material, similar to the original material. Substitute materials should have the same capability and life span as the original material,and should match the original in color, texture, profile, size and scale. In discussing the matter with the applicant, the applicant felt it was important to cover the entire building to match the accessory structure.He shared samples of wood materials with the Commission, as well as a cost comparison of alternative materials.The public hearing was opened.Applicant, Lemar Lundquist, 627 East Barkley, reiterated that the masonite siding was approved to be used on his house as the existing redwood siding was cracked and had many nail holes, gouges and cuts.He found out that redwood would cost $5.70 a square foot and masonite would cost $1.15 a square foot.He is angry that he is being asked to install the most expensive type of siding. He is caught in the middle of this issue, and requests to continue using the masonite siding. He obtained extremely high paint bids if he were to retain the original redwood siding, prep the wood and repaint. He wanted the house and garage to match.2 people spoke in opposition Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street.Tom Matuzak, 340 South Grand Street. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 The garage is not a contributing structure; the siding is contemporary. The house is a 1905 historic structure that has beautiful redwood. Most people in Old Towne strip the paint, patch the holes and repaint to preserve the redwood. The house is the more precious structure on the property, even though it does not match the newer garage. It doesn't make sense to blanket the house with a synthetic material. Redwood siding should last forever if properly taken care of. Mr. Matuzak volunteered to help in restoring the house back to the original redwood siding. Applicant's response Mr. Lundquist wished he was in a position to do what most of the people would like to see done. His health will not allow him to restore the house back to the original condition. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith was sympathetic to Mr. Lundquist's plight. However, if the City allows an artificial siding to go over a beautiful cottage, it sets a dangerous precedent in the neighborhood. She is interested in retaining the historic value of the home. Properties in Old Towne are expensive. And, the ones that are the most expensive are the originals. The best way to fix this house is to take the plywood off, take the black paper off, and prep and repair the existing redwood and then paint it. That would be a comparable cost to adding any of the alternative wood sidings. What is dangerous in this process is that there are three more layers added to the house and it pushes the profile of the house out, which means the window fascias, window mouldings and the windows no longer fit in the total picture. The architectural design of the house is compromised. There is a real risk that by adding the artificial product to the exterior would take the house out of the status of a contributing historic structure. The new garage is nicely built, but she would have rather seen it built with a wood product. The garage can be tied in with a paint color. Landscaping needs to be added to shield the house from the hot sun. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Smith's comments. This is a contributing structure and needs to stay within the Old Towne Design Guidelines. It might be appropriate to consider the red cedar siding as an acceptable alternative to the masonite siding, as long as the dimensional stability and chemical compatibility to adjacent materials is addressed and is not a problem. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to deny Design Review Board Appeal No. 05-98 regarding DRB No. 3383. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones explained the rights of appeal to Mr. Lundquist.IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 6..CONDITIONALUS!:: PERMIT 2267-98 - ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A proposal to construct six residences to be rented to low income households. The site is located at 320 South Hewes Street and 4431 East Marmon Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1588-99 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Commissioner Carlton excused herself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, reported this application is for an affordable housing project at the northwest corner of Hewes and Marmon in EI Modena. The proposal includes a request for a 50% densitybonusoverwhatwouldbeallowedbythezoningdistrictandthesite's general plan designation. OrangeHousingDevelopmentCorporationproposestobuildsixresidentialunits, each two stories, with 12 garage spaces. Two of the six units are to be rented to low income households and the remaining four units are being proposed to be rented to less than moderate income households. The rents are calculated by using the formula from HUD, and it is based on family size. State law and City regulations for affordable housing projects allow a minimum 25% density bonus, or five units. The applicant has increased the request to six units because two of the units will be rented to low income households and the development complies with all of the residential development standards of the R-2-6 district, and the applicant is not asking for a waiver of any development standards.The public hearing was opened.Applicant, Eunice Bobert, Chief Executive Officer for the Oranqe Housinq Development Corporation, 217 East Chapman Avenue, explained that OHDC is a non-profit organization that was formed by the City of Orange to help assist in providing affordable housing. They are governed by a volunteer Board of Directors, and since its inception in 1990, have developed over 150 units in the City of Orange. They are proposing a six-unit complex which meets all of the requirements set by the development standards for the project. They request an additional density bonus so that the project is economically feasible. Deed restrictions are placed on all of their projects and those restrictions include occupancy, income levels, rent and maintenance.Gary Collins, 414 West Stevens, Santa Ana, is the architect on this project. Studies of the site revealed that six units would fit comfortably on the site. The surrounding neighborhood is oneofthemorediverseinOrange. They propose to build a very simple project consisting of two 2-bedroom townhomes with attached garages, without access from the garage into the house, and four 3-bedroom towhomes with attached garages and direct access from the garages into the house. The site is not dense even with the six units. Access is taken off of Marmon and the project fronts onto Hewes.6 people spoke in opposition to this proiect Mary Moumblow, 525 North Wayfield. Derrik Sciarra, 4417 East Marmon Avenue. Mary Adams, 4428 East Justice Circle. Dennis Schmitz, 322 South Liberty Way.Christina Mejia, 4416 East Philo.Delia Delgado, 4424 East Philo.They were opposed to the project because it brings high densitytothesingle-family residential and single story multi-family residential neighborhoods without a properbuffertojustifyincreasesindensity. It does not fit into the immediate area. The parcel is too small for any kind of screening or landscaping. Parking is a problem and the overflow of parking willimpactthestreets. Concerns were expressed about noise,trash, loss of privacy, and safety of the children. A specific plan is needed to address the cumulative effects that will be detrimental to the area. The opposition suggested building two residential units and selling them to low income households vs. having six rental units.Applicant's response Mr. Bobert stated that OHDC takes tremendous prideintheirprojectsandstrivestoprovidequalityhousing. They follow strict guidelines in processing potential applicants. The entire project will be affordable" to those people who qualify. They manage over176unitsspreadoutthroughtheCityofOrange. All applicants must be re-certified on a yearly basis and the units are inspected.Mr. Collins commented on Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett had concerns with the parking configuration and getting in and out of the garages. While the project does have usable open space, most of that space is set back along Hewes Avenue. There is a lot of units for this piece of property. Commissioner Smith thought this project is too dense and the property is over built. There is not enough open space for a good quality of life. Affordable housing is always needed in the City of Orange; however, with this project, she is concerned about the number of people that will be living on this irregularly shaped parcel. The open space is not equally distributed to all of the family units. There needs to be a play area and the open space needs to be protected and safe. Chairman Bosch said it was important to point out that although everyone in the neighborhood might like it to be otherwise, at the moment the property is zoned R-2-6. The OHDC builds quality projects and they do carefully manage the units. He's not aware of any specific problems with regard to the tenants or management of the lower income units. The livable outdoor space opens onto the street and it is fairly small. He wondered where the children will play and how will they be provided open space that makes sense. He also had concern about vehicular access to the two rear units. This would be a good design if it were not quite so dense, and the units could be re-worked to provide a bit more protected private open space for the residents of the development. He thought there was one unit too many on the site.The Commission asked if the applicant were willing to continue this project in order to solve the physical problems that the development presents. There is no visual safety on the site. There is concern about usable outdoor open space, and the difficulties with the vision and circulation in the driveways that seems to be caused by one unit too many.Mr. Bobert said the Orange Housing Development Corporation is willing to look at the project in view of the Commission's concerns and agreed to a continuance for 30 days.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2267 -98 to the meeting of March 1, 1999 to allow the applicant to address the identified concerns of health and safety adverse impacts in having too many units on the site and therefore looking at a reduction in the number of dwelling units. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Carlton returned to the meeting.7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2271-98 - McDONALD'S CORPORATION A proposal to construct a fast food restaurant with a drive-through window, gas station and mini-mart on a parcel formerly occupied by a gas station and bank building. The site is located at 105 East Katella Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1590-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.The full presentation of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 Applicant, Don Ikeler, 105 East Katella Avenue, worked closely with City staff on their proposal. They propose to build a McDonald's fast food restaurant and a Chevron gas station as both uses work well together. There are other sites in Lakewood, Long Beach, Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga. A traffic study was prepared and reviewed by staff in which it addresses the queuing of 6 to 8 cars for the drive- through lane. They have provided enhanced landscaping and have allowed for the future dedication of Katella and Glassell. He referred to ORB's concerns about the street trees, a diamond shaped planter in the parking area, and relocation of a transformer from the southeast corner of the property to the northeast corner of the property. He also requests that their application not go back to the ORB for final review. Debra Marinozzi, represents McDonald's and is the construction proiect manaqer, 11682 EI Camino Real, San Dieqo. In their real estate agreement, they have an accelerated time frame in which they have to have a permit in hand very soon. They are hoping to resolve some of the Commission's concerns at this meeting and be able to fast-track their project. They propose to screen the transformers with plant materials to mitigate the visual concerns. She also spoke about the directional signage and the three fire hydrants behind the property.The public hearing was closed.The Commission discussed the project and did not have a problem with the applicant's requests. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1590-98, finding that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources, and approve Conditional Use Permit 2271-98 with conditions 1-14 listed in the staff report, removing the requirement that the applicant return to the ORB, finding that the recommendations of approval of the ORB can be satisfactorily reviewed by the Department staff, except that item 2 with regard to the diamond shaped planter at the northeast end of the parking aisle be deleted. Item 4, street trees along Katella and Glassell will be deferred to condition 6 in the conditional use permit for percentage of cost to widening. Item 6 relative to the transformer, the Commission finds the transformer location is shown and landscaped on the submitted site plan as being adequate. Item 14 to eliminate ORB's requirement for directional signage, but retain the directional sign that Public Works staff requested along Katella Avenue. Item 16, that prior to issuance of occupancy permits. final landscape plans are to be approved by staff. All other items can be reviewed and approved by staff ( Building, Planning, Police and Fire) upon submittal of final documents. The conditional use permit would be granted based upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. And over the years, as the number of service stations has been lessened, this area of the City has become under served in that regard. This use removes a deteriorated land use and enhances commercial activity in a commercial zone,thus preventing further deterioration. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community plan in its area, and approval is based upon conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare and not the individual welfare of the applicant.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 8. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPEAL NO. 454 (RE: VARIANCE 2058- 98); ORB APPEAL NO. 1-99 RE: ORB 3391) - FORD OF ORANGE The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's denial of: (1) a free- standing sign 59 feet in height and 249 square feet in size, and (2) on-site directional signs that range from 13 square feet to 20 square feet in size. The site is located at 1350 East Katella Avenue.The applicant was not present and the Commission Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Zoning AdministratorAppealNo. 454 (RE: Variance 2058-98): ORB Appeal No. 1-99 (RE: ORB 3391) - Ford of Orange - to themeetingofFebruary17, 1999. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to Wednesday, February17, 1999. The meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED sld 11