Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission February 19, 1992 City of Orange Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3. 1992 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of February 3, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1994-91, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 91-28 ON THE GO ESPRESSO A request for a conditional use permit to allow adrive-thru espresso stand located within the retail center's parking lot, and an administrative adjustment to allow a minor adjustment in the drive aisle width requirement. Subject property is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue between Hewes Street and Hamlin Street, addressed 4600-4650 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. This item was continued from the January 6, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1992 Barbara Gander, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to construct a building and site improvement to enable the operation of a drive-thru espresso stand within the parking area of the Orange Hills retail center. At the previous hearing the Commission granted the applicant a continuance to revise the site plan in order to resolve the traffic circulation concerns. The concerns specifically related to the proximity and orientation of the drive-thru stand to the entrance off of Chapman Avenue. On and off-site circulation could be impeded by vehicles stacking up to enter the drive thru. The applicant has subsequently revised the orientation of the proposed drive- thru stand and eliminated one of the drive-thru aisles. They have also rotated the stand to a 45 degree angle to Chapman Avenue with drive-thru service along the southeast elevation and a pedestrian walk up service along the northwest elevation. The revised site plan offers a better solution to the site circulation than previously proposed. On-site circulation flows internalized away from the Chapman Avenue drive entrances thus mitigating potential for congestion and the stacking area is provided within the confines of the drive-thru. Adequate site distance is provided for vehicles exiting the drive-thru. The proposal will eliminate some parking area; however, even with the site improvements, the property exceeds the number of parking spaces required by 13 spaces. The proposal also increases the amount of landscaping within the parking area and increases the number of handicap spaces. Staff suggests 14 conditions of approval as listed in the updated staff report. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom Raystraw, architect representing the owner, 515 EI Modena Avenue, Newport Beach, said circulation was the primary concern at the previous meeting and he believes their solution adequately solves the off-site circulation issues. It forces incoming traffic into the center and up through the center drive aisles, and provides plenty of on-site queing in addition to the three designated on-site queing stations. Upon exiting, it immediately allows exit to a drive aisle to Chapman in the center of the facility and does not co-mingle with backing up of parking stalls across the way. They also aesthetically addressed the EI Modena district by bringing in a more pedestrian atmosphere at the front of the building. There is a walk up window; they reduced the drive-up to just one location 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1992 towards the back of the building. By rotating the building 45 degrees, it increased the landscaping percentage. Commissioner Bosch asked if they had a chance to review the revised staff report and conditions? (Yes.) Mark Kelly, owner and operating business manager, 184.62 Carby Lane, Huntington Beach, is looking forward to doing business in Orange. Those speaking in opposition Jean Murphy, 2018 Wellington, Santa Ana, owns the Short Stop Photo booth in the parking lot and has been there for 13 years. Her main concern is the traffic flow. The majority of the traffic comes from the center towards the Espresso booth, whereas she thought the majority of the traffic would come in from Chapman into the center, which would cause traffic to g o left, down and around and then back out to Chapman, creating a congested condition. There is more traffic on Chapman than on Hewes. Her other concern is visibility for the merchants. She considers herself a danger factor in the parking lot. There are blind spots in the lot. If there are two booths in the parking lot, where's the traffic pattern that is there? People do not drive slowly in the lot; she's afraid there will be accidents. The new booth would eliminate parking spaces of existing tenants (i.e., the Roses & Balloons Florist shop). She submitted photos showing the full parking lot. Clifford Conners, 2913 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, is the attorney representing Mr. Alvin Graham and representing the viewpoint of Sav 0 n Drugs. He was impressed with the work that has been done by the proponents. Some of their solutions have been innovative and good and he appreciated that the off-site impact is better, but the que may still be a problem on the site. He spoke with a representative of Sav-On in Chicago and they indicated that although they have been contacted by the proponents, their viewpoint has not changed. Although they are willing to talk, they do not foresee any change in their viewpoint that any additional traffic and structure in the parking lot is not only contrary to the parking lot agreement, but will impact their business adversely. They still oppose the project. 3 Planning Commission Minutes Rebuttal February 19, 1992 Mr. Raystraw stated they have made many efforts to contact Sav-On through the property owner, but they are limited as to direct contact. They've tried to address every issue they could. He used the wall exhibit to explain the traffic flow concept. They would be happy to work with the merchants to identify an area for construction (staging area). They want to be a good neighbor. The use of the center right now is under utilized. There are peak periods in any center around the holidays where traffic is an issue as far as parking. This type of use doesn't generate an excessive amount of parking. They feel they have adequately solved the traffic and circulation issues. Commissioner Scott questioned the intensity of the use and how the people would get out, once they have parked to get up to the walk-up window. Mr. Raystraw pointed to the stalls he thought would be used because of the location of the walk-up window. By parking in those stalls there would not be any conflict with exiting movement. Commissioner Scott had concern about two booths in the same area and the traffic problems associated with it. On the site plan it was indicated standard parking stalls measured 9 x 18. He questioned the measurement of the handicap parking stalls and thought the plan should be revised to show the accurate handicap measurement. Mr. Raystraw said their plan shows a 9x14 foot wide handicap stall. It can be extended into the planting area if necessary; they're willing to work with the Building Department to meet code requirements. They drew their plans per Title 24 requirements for striping. Commissioner Master would take the shortest route available to reach the espresso booth. He didn't know if he would take the route shown because it was a little longer. He felt there would be a blocking problem. Mr. Raystraw said they made it as much as physically impossible as they could to make a left turn going southbound on the center drive aisle. They would agree to a condition for additional signage saying "no left turn". The peak demand hours will be during the morning rush hour. The center is empty at that time of the day. 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1992 Mr. Kelly has experimented trying to stay open past noon, but there is no market. He's only open during the morning hours and closes at noon. Mr. Raystraw welcomes an opportunity to discuss the merchants concerns. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch thought there were a couple of good suggestions they should look at relative to conditions if they decide to act favorably upon the request. He proposed to add condition 15 requiring placement of traffic control signs at the entry and exit points of the drive-thru lane to prohibit left turns into the entry side from the southbound aisle and to indicate exit only as you enter from Chapman Avenue into the main drive of the center to discourage people from going the wrong way. He thought they could add concrete wheel stops as a condition, but did not feel strongly about that. He's not sure how driving habits can be controlled. The curb stops could have a double effect; in the early hours it will cut down on the number of people who cut across the parking area. The applicant has done a fine job in re-directing the site and traffic; it's the best deal if you had to live with adrive-thru lane. Concrete parking bumpers between the parking spaces to control driving across could be added as condition 16. Chairman Cathcart asked if the concrete bumper stops would be located specifically in and around the photo booth and drive-thru espresso? Commissioner Bosch responed yes, the length of both of the aisles. Commissioner Scott said curb stops are a tremendous liability (people tripping over them) and trying to clean the parking lot creates a problem. Curb stops prevents them from cleaning. From his experience on previous developments, curb stops are more of a hazard than a benefit. Commissioner Bosch said then they often end up with a raised concrete planter down the middle, which is more visible and controls traffic. It's a no win situation. The Commission discussed landscaped areas in parking lots. Often times the planter is not maintained and it ends up being dirt. 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1992 The handicap stalls should be shown as what is legally required than what is shown on the site plan per Commissioner Scott. Commissioner Bosch explained even though they do not have the five foot dimensions, they are in conformance with Title 24. Condition 2 states that handicap parking shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Division, in accordance with State accessibility standards. The Commission expected all the improvements required by the development of the site dimensioned on the site), and for the architect to stipulate to adding the dimensions to the plan prior to submittal to Building for review and referencing the correct paragraph and subsection of Title 24 to aid their review. The applicant agreed to this stipulation. Commissioner Bosch felt with appropriate discussion with the tenants of the center by the developer that many of their problems could be addressed and they could be assured of minimal impacts that could be worked out. He's concerned the land owner/developer is a silent partner and that there is a lack of communication. Where is the land owner and why aren't they more concerned about getting everyone to communicate to resolve the concerns and work together to minimize impacts? The design has been vastly improved by the small pedestrian area. It's encouraging to get more people along the street who are doing business with the merchants; it continues to spruce up the area along the street. He had grave reservations about drive-thru lanes and finds himself in a catch 22 because of it. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1944-91 and Administrative Adjustment 91-28 with conditions 1-14; adding condition 15 requiring design and placement of signs to the satisfaction of the City at the exit and entry points of the drive-thru lane to prohibit entry through the exit lane and to prohibit left turns southbound in the center drive of the parking lot into the drive-thru lane. Also, add condition 16 requiring a raised concrete median at the dividing line of the two rows of parking, south of the proposal and double row of parking north and south of the photo booth to prohibit cross over traffic with appropriate drainage devices in that center median as required by the Public Works Department. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING February 19, 1992 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1949-92 -TOM AND SHEILA HAMILTON A request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit on the same property as the existing single-family residence. Subject property is located at 1614 Hunters Way. NOTE: This property is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303(a). The staff report was presented by Joan Wolff. The project is located at the intersection of Hunters Way and Santiago Canyon Road, the area where Santiago Canyon Road bends towards the south and changes from an east- west road to a more northerly-southerly direction. It's on the northerly side of Santiago Canyon Road and on the westerly side of Hunters Way. The request is to construct an accessory second unit on the property. An accessory second unit is defined by the City ordinance as either being attached to or detached from the main house on the property and an unit which provides complete, independent living facilities. The City allows such units in R-1 districts subject to a number of restrictions. These restrictions have to do with the maximum size of the unit -- 640 square feet; the owner of the property must reside on the property either in the main house or accessory second unit. The ordinance allows the second unit to be rented, but not to be sold separately from the main house. Parking requirements and setbacks are also addressed in the ordinance. The City ordinance is more restrictive than most current state laws. It was written in accordance with previous state laws. The proposal is for a two story structure with a 2-car garage on the lower level and living unit above. The living area is 640 square feet and contains a living room, kitchen, one bedroom and one bath. The unit is to be located near the intersection of Santiago Canyon Road and Hunters Way. All other residences on Hunters Way are at a higher elevation and none of the other residences are in close proximity to the proposed unit. The structure meets all zoning ordinance requirements. The only concern staff expressed is the relationship of the new driveway to the new garage to Hunters Way. The action taken by the Commission will be a recommendation to the City Council. 7 Planning Commission Minutes The public hearing was opened. Applicant February 19, 1992 Tom and Sheila Hamilton, 1614 Hunters Way, asked his architect to speak on their behalf. Carl Garlichs, John Alexander Company, 12040 East Florence, Santa Fe Springs, was the architect for the project. The main intent of the design was to build the second unit so it wasn't objectionable to the neighbors and to tie it into the main house. It's actually built into the hillside. The garage is on a different level than the driveway. Commissioner Scott asked if they had read the conditions of approval? Yes.) One of the conditions was to relocate the existing block wall that is on the Santiago Canyon Road frontage. He asked how many feet of wall would be moved? Mrs. Hamilton did not know they had to replace the block wall. She talked to someone at the City a couple of years ago and was told they did not have to move the wall. Commissioner Scott explained conditions can be added to a project and explained Condition 1 to them because the block wall is on the City's right-of-way. It encroaches in some places as much as three feet. Mrs. Hamilton said the City does not take care of the property on the other side of the wall; it looks really "ratty". The applicant agreed to that particular condition. Chairman Cathcart said that the landscape guidelines will be in place soon and it is their hope these issues will be taken care of in an aesthetic manner. Maintenance is an issue that does not have an easy answer. Mr. Johnson explained the scope of road in that area. It's to it's ultimate to be a horse trail and maintenance Acres association. The area will no' widened for an adequate horse trail. cork does not include widening the now. The right of way is intended will be addressed by Orange Park be landscaped; it is going to be 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1992 Commissioner Bosch stated they have proposed an adequate site solution, but needed to ask if they considered a single story solution rather than going to two stories. He's concerned about potential noise impacts and the height elevation being so close to the street. Were other alternatives looked at? Mr. Hamilton responded yes. They had to build the foundation to be that high anyways to get it to that level. They wanted the house on the same level as the existing dwelling. That was the most efficient way to do it. Commissioner Murphy wished for an explanation of the 180 degree turn onto Hunters Way towards Santiago Canyon Road. Mr. Hamilton said it created higher walls. They did not say no, but they preferred not to do that. There is another exit; the driveway circles around back the other way without difficulty. Keeping it where it is keeps a low profile as possible. Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, spoke on behalf of the Orange Park Association. They hate to see second units spring up out there, but there's not much they can do about it. The horse trails are very important to them. That fence was built on the right-of-way which is needed for their horse trails. He asked why they propose to build a two car garage and they are concerned about the appearance of the second house. Why not build one story on a lower level to make it less obtrusive? Rebuttal Mr. Garlichs has taken a personal interest in the Hamilton's project and is building this as a favor to them. It's not going to be obtrusive; they've gone to great lengths to tie this into the house. The Design Review Board didn't like the idea that granny pads are legal, but they said this was the best application they had seen; they were impressed with the way the house was tied into the hillside. If you move it up, it will be more visible. From the street, the garage will not be seen. The Hamilton's concerns were with the City and neighbors. They want the neighbors to be happy and attempted to design the house such that it is not obtrusive. 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1992 Mrs. Hamilton reiterated her concern about the area in front of the block wall. That is the worst part of their property. The trashy area is an eyesore. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Cathcart hoped there is some landscaping sensitivity with regard to line of sights and softening up parts of the property taken into consideration along with the architectural plans. Commissioner Scott recognized the Design Review Board considered the proposal at their meeting January 22 and basically approved the concept. This proposal is also categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1949-92 subject to the conditions as listed, noting a typing correction to condition 8. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Murphy said there was a request for a study session concerning Conditional Use Permit 1959-92. Ms. Wolff said this project is located on the north side of Lincoln, between Cottonwood and Glassell. This is a condominium development, which the Commission heard in 1991. It is scheduled for hearing on March 2, 1992; the packets will go out this Friday. The applicant has asked for a study session because of the previous denial. The Commission denied the request for a study session per the following motion: Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to deny the applicant's request for a study session prior to the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 10 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ADJOURNMENT February 19, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to their next regularly scheduled meeting on March 2, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. sld 11