Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-1998 PC Minutesl4~:J(~ fSOO.C7. ,], ~ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: February 18,1998 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith Commissioner Romero Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary tJ t;'~ r'; 7 1 1: 1::1';:) },;,2J -IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2206-97 - COULTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.A proposal to allow the shared use of parking facilities at 227 East Bristol lane. Applicant has withdrawn this request.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept the applicant's request to withdraw Conditional Use Permit 2206-97.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2204-97 AND VARIANCE 2042-97 - TOYOTA OF ORANGE The applicant is proposing the expansion of an auto dealership and the construction of a proposed parking structure within the front setback area (Trenton Avenue frontage). The site is located at 1400 North Tustin Street. Applicant has requested a continuance from February 18 to March 2, 1998.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2204- 97 and Variance 2042-97 to the meeting of March 2, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 1998 AND FEBRUARY 2,1998 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of January19, 1998 and February 2, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: T'Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1998 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 4. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-97 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend City sign regulations, specifically Orange Municipal Code Section 17.36.060(A); Sign Program" guidelines. The ordinance amendment would allow sign programs for large commercial developments (of 25 acres or more) to propose criteria that differ from limitations contained within the City sign code, if a conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. This item has been continued from the May 5, June 16, August 18, October 20, December 15, 1997 and January 19,1998 hearings.) Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, reported it has been eight months and six hearings since staff presented this proposal to amend the sign code. Staff and the Planning Commission have been trying to craft an ordinance that would acknowledge the unique nature of regional shopping centers while retaining some level of control over the signs and outdoor advertising. The existing ordinance is working well for smaller commercial lots that enjoy a greater level of exposure along traffic corridors such as Chapman, Katella and Tustin. However, these regulations do not always apply for situations where a shopping complex is developed in a centralized location on a larger parcel amidst a large parking facility where there is a greater distance between the structures and the public right- of-way.At a previous hearing, the Commission received a presentation from one developer showingaconceptforamajorprojectintheC-2 zone. Staff was asked to prepare a brief analysis of the proposal and report back to the Commission. The Mills proposal and the proposed ordinance amendment do not fit together well. The Mills proposal exceeds the display area, height and number of signs that may be permitted through the revisions being presented at this meeting and at other hearings. That particular project is not being analyzed at this time. Staff is recommending these provisions in isolation of anyone particular project.Staff is asking the Commission to take action and recommend adoption of theordinancetospecifyamendments, or to reject the proposal altogether and leave the present ordinance intact. If a developer desires to be relieved from present City standards, a proposal may be submitted through a variance application. As a policy, the Commission might also determine whether the criteria proposed would serve as absolute standards or as general guidelines. Staff is asking the Commissiontoconsideryetanotheralternativewhereperhapsthesecriteriaareusedmoreasguidelineswhere developers may still apply for some relief from those regulations within the conditional use permit, but there would be a greater burden of evidence put on the developers to provide a sight distance analysis that shows what the project would look like from a distance, and how the neighboring properties mightbeaffectedbysuchaproposal. Staff is also asking the Commission to make some choices about the options that are listed in the staff report. For example, the display area for the directional signs in a parking area could be 220 square feet, but there could be some adjustment downward. Six feet is currently allowed under the code for directional signs. Staff has questions about the display area on wall signs, such as the extent of projection that might pop up above the roof line.The public hearing was opened. However, there were no public comments and the public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch noted staff had several questions and requested direction from the Commission. He referred to Section d. on Page 6 of the staff report. This is with regard to how far aprojectingsignmayprojectfromabuilding. There is no maximum called out. Section e. refers to signs that project above the roof line without being considered a roof sign. The text shows 25%.Mr. Jones also referred to Section c., the display area for the wall signs.Commissioner Smith said it was difficult for her to visualize what the proposals mean without seeing a picture or knowing the size of the buildings. She deferred to staff's opinion foranappropriatesignmeasurement. Recently, a couple of blade signs were installed in Old Towne andtheylookappropriate,but she didn't know the size or distance. How do the sizes compare to what is allowed now.Mr. Donovan replied the current regulations allow a size of one square foot per linealfootofbuildingfrontage. One option is four square feet and that is much larger. The depth of projecting signs can Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1998 seen at City Walk and he didn't know if the Commission would be interested in addressing these typesofsigns. Projecting signs could be used in an internal courtyard location and not on a facade that wouldbeexposedtothepublic. Mr. Jones pointed out the two square foot, three and four square foot sizes depend on the distancefromthepropertylineofthepublicstreet. The Commission could look at them as two square feet at 200feet, three square feet at 300 feet, etc. Commissioner Pruett understood the display area for wall signs is one square foot per lineal foot of building, and Section c. proposes that to be increased to a larger ratio. Mr. Donovan said that was correct, assuming there is a greater distance to that type of situation. Staffwouldneedtocompareasiteplantothestreetforthedimensionandthenapplytheregulation. Chairman Bosch did not have a problem with the proposed sizes, but was concerned about the lumenlevelthatisputout. Light does not necessarily decrease in direct proportion to the distance from thepublicstreet, and there is a potential impact on the neighbors. He asked what has been done to controlthelightlevelsthatareputoutandhowdoesthecurrentordinancerestrictorcontrolthelightlevels. Mr. Donovan said there is a provision in the sign code for a limitation on the amount of lumens that arevisiblefromresidentialzones. He thought many of the sign manufacturers are using plastic faces thatfilterthelightonmostchannelletters. He felt as the distance increases, the visibility of the light will dropoffsubstantially. Chairman Bosch suggested a study might be required or the sign company would need to demonstrate they don't exceed the lighting cumulatively. This should be addressed in the proposed subdivision m. Mr. Jones said there are some areas of criteria whereby the Commission retains more ability to controltheproductbynotbeingsospecific. It's better to have generic criteria in which to make a decision oncertainprojects, based on its own merits. He cautioned the Commission not to limit the creativity of a proposal by being so specific. Chairman Bosch thought the wall sizes proposed are satisfactory. On the projections above the building, it would be subjective. It boils down to signs rather than architectural elements that includesigns, which can be done within the height limit for the zone. Commissioner Carlton felt comfortable with staff's proposal and was willing to move forward. Mr. Jones received additional feedback from the City Attorney regarding the verbiage proposed underSectionm. Additional wording should be included as read: "Aforementioned criteria are intended asmaximumlimitsthatshouldnotbeexceeded. However, an applicant may propose sign programs withelementsthatexceedsuchlimitsiftheapplicantpreparesastudyjustifying, to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission based on the findin<;ls required for grantina conditional use oermits, why deviationfromthecriteriaisdesirablefromalanduseplanningperspective." Mr. Reynolds clarified this pertains to O.M.C. 17.10.030, subsection f. Chairman Bosch proposed to add words to address lighting under Section m. iv. "Analysis of the rangeofsignvisibility, including lighting impacts. and potential impacts upon surrounding properties." Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Ordinance Amendment1-97 for sign programs at major commercial developments by Conditional Use Permit as presented inthestaffreportdatedFebruary5, 1998, with the addition of paragraph m. after subdivision "I", aspresentedbystaffwithamendmenttothemainbodyoftheparagraph, after the word, justifying, to add: "tothesatisfactionofthePlanningCommissionbasedonthefindingsrequiredforgrantingaconditionalusepermitundersubparagraphF, Section 17.10.030 of this code", and add to iv. under subdivisionm.Analysis of the range of sign visibility, includin<;l lighting imoacts. and potential impacts uponsurroundingproperties." Attachment 2 is not included for approval. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 3 T' Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1998 5. DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY - CITY OF ORANGE Review of a Parking Study which analyzed the parking situation in Downtown Orange, and proposed a number of recommendations to improve and manage parking.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1539-79 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the November 3, 1997 and January 5, and February 2, 1998 hearings.) Mr. Jones stated the Commission took action at the last meeting on two components of the Downtown Parking Study, certifying the Negative Declaration and approving the "In-lieu parking fee" that would apply to the Downtown area. The Commission did not take action on the remaining recommendations.Staff continued this item to this hearing to request the Commission continue the Downtown Parking Study to their meeting of March 16, 1998. And, staff has attempted to outline their understanding of the additional information and issues the Commission had requested. Staff did not have any new or additional information to present.Commissioner Pruett would like to clarify how a plan is linked to the achievable time frames -- when and how those things in item 1 can be undertaken. And, then, at what point are these things trying to be accomplished. Will it trigger the need for the resources that would be from the pay-for parking approach.He's looking for a more acceptable alternative than it is right now.Commissioner Carlton also wanted to know at what point would it sunset the project. The goals need to be accomplished.Commissioner Pruett said there were other activities in the Downtown area such as the Street Fair. It' s important to have lighting, signage and safety addressed. How do they fit into this whole issue in terms of helping to accomplish some of the goals.Chairman Bosch noted the Commission has received letters from Janice Swift, from Swift and Swift,dated February 12, 1998 with regard to her concerns about the meters around the Plaza, and from Richard Clement and Paula Clement. Cards were also received from people wishing to speak: Jeanne Ingram,146 North Grand, and Scott Couch, 2715 East Mayfair.The Commission was in support of staff's request to continue this matter until March 16, 1998.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue the Downtown Parking Study to the meeting of March 16, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2207-97 - PRAFUL PATEL (HOJO INN)The applicant is proposing the remodel/expansion of an existing hotel located at 1930 East Katella Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1546-907 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Mr. Jones presented further detail on a request by Howard Johnson's to construct 13 additional units to an existing 30-unit Inn. The drawings were displayed on the wall showing the second story addition as well as the expansion of the lobby area, a new entry and to construct approximately 5,000 square feet of a 2-story wing at the east edge of the property, to modify the existing parking lot configuration to permit a new turn around area at the south end of the parking lot, and to generallyremodeltheInn, upgrading the existing buildings to match the architectural style of the new addition and to Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1998 landscaping. The project meets or exceeds all of the development standards for the zone in which it is located. The Staff Review Committee has reviewed the proposal. Initially a number of questions were raised regarding the parking requirements, the turn around area, site circulation and clearance for fire trucks. The applicant, subsequently has revised his plans to address the concerns of staff. They meet the parking requirements. They have reduced the number of units originally proposed from 16 down to 13. They have provided a back up, turn around area at the end of the aisle for guests. The entrance and height of the arch has been raised to permit clearance for fire trucks. The Design Review Board reviewed the original plans and have recommended approval of the project subject to the 15 conditions in the staff report. Chairman Bosch clarified that condition 1 includes the conditions of approval from the Design Review Board, in addition to the plans. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant. Praful Patel. 1930 East Katella Avenue, owns the Howard Johnson Inn. The property is approximately 30 to 35 years old and is in need of renovation. Howard Johnson is requiring a remodel of all of their properties. They upgraded their signs a couple of years ago and are not planning to changetheirsignage. Public comments: Barbara DeNiro is concerned about the parking, additional traffic, ingress and egress of cars at the busy corner. Tom Lim. 1005 East Colorado Blvd. #201. Pasadena. is the architect for the project. He offered to answer any questions regarding the design of the structure. They tried to keep the bulk and mass down to a lower scale. Parking is centered around the court yard. He has seen the conditions of approval from the Design Review Board and will be incorporating them into the project. Applicant's response: Mr. Patel said the traffic issue is on-going and that is a problem for the area. But, adding additional rooms will not impact the ingress/egress of traffic because people arrive or leave early in the day and late at night. Their customers are not entering or leaving during the peak traffic hours.Commissioner Carlton asked where his staff and employees park if the Inn were fully occupied.Mr. Patel explained the property has an adjacent restaurant with 30 to 40 parking spaces, which can be shared through an implied agreement between the owners. Some of his employees carpool or are dropped off.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Carlton thought the architectural plans were innovative and would lend a great deal to that particular establishment. She's glad it is being improved.Chairman Bosch was also in support of the project. The City has always been careful about how it reviews motels, hotels and their proposed expansions to assure they are an asset to the community and that they not become a detriment. This helps to fulfill the findings of the conditional use permit and meets the intent of why the City Council determined that such projects should be considered by the Planning Commission.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1546-97. finding there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2207-97, with conditions 1-5, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. In granting the CUP, it will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. It is considered in relationship to its effect on the community and the neighborhood plan in which it is located.The CUP is subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter from Homeworks, dated February 6, 1998,relative to a preliminary site plan for development of the golf and driving range portions of Ridgeline in Orange Park Acres into a single family home community. A letter was received from Chapman University indicating a neighborhood meeting on the evening of Wednesday, February 25, 1998. A letter to the Chapman University from the President of Hampton Court Homeowners Association dated February 11,1998, with concern about the potential for lighting of a parking lot temporarily used by Chapman University on West Palm Avenue, by the Santa Fe Depot. And, a letter dated February 3, 1998,received from Barbara DeNiro with regard to activities of the Planning Commission.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p. m. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED sld 6