Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange February 21, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Greek STAFF PRESENT: Joan John Jack Lu i s Gary Sue Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; McGee, Director of Community Development; Rodriguez, Sr. City Attorney; Johnson, City Engineer; and Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 1990 Commissioners only received the Minutes this date and were not able to review them. They requested the February 5, 1990 Minutes be continued to their meeting of March 6, 1990. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1804-89 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to establish a job center for day workers, and to also permit use of the site for a community resource and cultural center on property located on the west side of McPherson Street, approximately 580 feet north of Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1326-89 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the December 27, 1989 Planning Commission Regular Meeting and the February 14, 1990 Study Session Meeting.) Chairman Hart informed the audience they had a study session on this item. It is a piece of property the City is negotiating to buy and considerable improvements have been put in to the property and the street surrounding it. The City Council has requested the Planning Commission to act on the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Wolff said a memo has been handed out to the Commissioners describing how this project has been a little bit unusual in terms of handling a Conditional Use Permit. Because the City Council has held public hearings and has made determinations on the site and on the larger public program and policy issues involved, there are a couple of alternatives that could be taken in acting on this. Because the scope is somewhat different, actions may be different than what is normally done. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 2 It would be possible to make a finding that the Council has also held public hearings on the project and the Commission would like to limit their actions to the land use related conditions and mitigations only. As another alternative, the Commission could make a finding that the resource center is a portion of a much larger project that addresses policy issues and that it might be more appropriately acted on by the City Council. The site plan is somewhat modified from the one that was at the original hearing on December 27, 1989. This one is the one that was reviewed at the Study Session held last week. The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in opposition Steve Deschenes, 2.744 Killingsworth, said the center seems to be coming down to a hiring hall; a place for people to congregate and to wait for work. Hopefully, it will get people off the streets that are just waiting as transients in their neighborhood. He personally does not believe it will work. He has heard of other situations similar to this where they have put in a hiring hall which has caused a lot of problems with graffiti, people milling around at all hours, noise nuisance, security problems. His children must walk past this area to get to school. Who will be watching the neighborhood while this is occurring? The fence is under five feet and can easily be scaled by people. They do that now. What will be done to prevent this? Land values will drop; it will be a radical change to the neighborhood. What about a lawsuit involving illegal aliens? He personally would not like it to be there. James Deiss, 2747 East Killingsworth, had the same concerns transients in the neighborhood, traffic problems, security, extra police surveillance and the guarantee that the workers are legal aliens. How will this affect the illegal aliens already on the street and will continue to be there? How many people will be driving cars to get to this hiring center? He also has children who walk to school and is opposed to the project. Neil Malahowski, 2745 East Sherman, had similar concerns but part of the problem he sees with the solution that has been offered is that the solution was probably provided by a limited number of people. He would like to see more input from the citizens at large in arriving at a solution to some of the problems rather than trying to have 10 or 20 people offer suggestions and then go along with that. Because it is a tremendously complex problem that deals with human psychology, the law and many other issues, he doesn't think this will be the best answer to the problem. If by working together, taking the time to poll people through the Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 3 newspaper to ask what the solutions are, then examine those answers and take it as a whole, a solution could be found that might be functional. Chairman Hart responded in regard to whether the center would work or not, unfortunately the Commission does not have that option of making that decision. They are involved in the land use decision only. Rob Robinson, 165 North Malena, was concerned with what would happen to the property behind their house when they first moved in, the property in question. It was owned by an oil company. Since that time, it has been paved and they have knocked a big hole in the back of their concrete fence. It use to be 6 feet high and they have built that up 2 feet. It's probably 4 feet high and someone could jump into his back yard very easily. Will they build a 10 foot fence? What will keep people from looking in his back window? Those speaking in favor Bob Torres, 4525 Agua Way, thought from listening to the opposition, there was a lack of information. They have attended many meetings for the past eight years and have been working on this and have come to the point where they feel something is going to happen. He doesn't know if it is going to be right or wrong, but is in full support of it because they have to try something. He knows not everyone will be happy; there's going to be a lot of unhappy people. But they are going to try and work it so the majority are satisfied. Katherine Shapiro, 3324 Caselle Avenue, said since 1985 there have been three task forces working on the problem of the day workers. The recommendation has been very strong for a hiring hall and for ordinances. The City Council did consider a number of sites and after careful consideration and availability, chose the proposed site. She and Bob Torres are on the steering committee of citizens in support of East Orange. There are approximately 550 people that they represent. Their committee did a study and gave a lengthy report to the City Council in October, 1988. It is her understanding the police will be patrolling the area and that security considerations have been paramount. Rahu~Ftal Ms. Wolff briefly summarized the conditions: One is that the structure must comply with all the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code as far as security, hardware, lighting and locks. The second condition has to do with required lighting for the parking lot, access and waiting areas. This would be subject to review and approval of the Police Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 4 Department. The landscaping would have to be maintained so as not to interfere with the addressing or illumination. Another condition, requiring perimeter fencing, shall be approved by the Police Department. What is proposed is chain link fencing, a small gauge so that it prevents climbing. The fencing would be around the site, which is not immediately adjacent to the residents to the east. The fence would be a distance of 50 feet from the rear property line of the homes on Malena. There would be a 50 foot buffer area where the railroad right-of-way is. Another condition is that proper trash and restroom facilities be provided. Also, landscaped buffer areas are required. Landscape buffering is provided on the west, east, north and south sides as depicted on the rendering. Other land use issues have to do with the parking that is provided on site. Parking required for a structure this size is four spaces. There are six parking spaces provided, as well as two or three spaces that are provided for drive-thru traffic. It is felt that primary parking on the site would be for the people who work in the office, and most of the employers would be driving up to pick up people and driving out. There will not be people staying there for a long term needing parking. Traffic has also been an issue. One thing that has been done is that Spring Street has been extended so that now the site can be accessed from Prospect, which is an arterial road, as well as from Chapman via McPherson. That should help to alleviate some of the traffic concerns for the area. To summarize, the other issues concern security which needs to be addressed, the status of workers u tilizing the site, docume nted, undocumented, how that will be verified and the question of what proportion of workers on the streets now are documented. Mr. Rodriguez addressed the legal issues. When the evaluation of the hiring hall was started about a year ago, and also in conjunction with the ordinances dealing with solicitation, were passed by the City Council, there were some statistics developed by the Police Department. The Police Department estimated there was about 30~ of the day workers had some kind of eligibility status through the Amnesty Program. That is the target the center is geared to. Not everyone on the street is illegal per se. As to the 60~ remaining, the ordinances are very specific and it was the intent that the resource center would not be working independently, but working in conjunction with the ordinances. It's a carrot and stick approach where the cost of doing business is increased because of the ordinances, which prohibits solicitation in an area encompassing the entire E1 Modena sector. In addition, the ordinances will allow property owners of parking lots to post those lots with signage that allows the Police Department to enforce Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 5 the ordinance against solicitation on the parking lot. They have eliminated the two basic areas where that activity has occurred. As an alternative, the hiring hall will allow those persons who are eligible to go to that center and be able to obtain employment in an orderly fashion and not to cause the kind of nuisance and problems that have been experienced in that area. The other aspect deals with verification of employme nt. The City is not the employer, but nevertheless has a responsibility in some fashion to determine the conditional use. The citizens committee has met in conjunction with staff and there has been a procedure laid out where there will be a document identification process as a pre-condition of using the facility. This is in conjunction with the opinion of not only the City Attorney's Office, bu t outside Immigration Counsel to use the I-9 form as a basis for eligibility. There has been a great deal of attention paid to trying to establish a verification procedure and to obtain maximum use of that site to eliminate the problems. As far as lawsuits, this is a brand new area. They have taken every reasonable precaution, but that potential always exists and the City is trying to deal with the social problem that is really not their responsibility, but has been thrust upon them by the inability of state and federal government to deal with the problem. Chairman Hart questioned the procedure to verify those using the resource center. Previously there was only a statement by the applicant which was the only verification required. Has that changed? Mr. Rodriguez stated that had changed. docume nts that must be produced. Those a picture identification in order for t I-9 form. Those documents must be shown Only at that stage, will the person be the next step of the process. They have a list of documents must have he person to sign an to a City employee. allowed to go on to As part of the commitment of the City Council, there will be extensive a nforceme nt out there. Enforcement will not only be directed to the illegal day workers or the persons soliciting on the streets, but will also be directed towards the employers. If the employers are faced with citations, having to go to court, then it seems logical that they will use the center as a basis to secure that type of labor. The risk of doing it on the streets is much higher. Commissioner Scott felt there was a lot of pros and cons. He thought an officer was going to be assigned during the operating hours. Recently, they heard about a restaurant in Town and Country that wanted to extend its hours of operation as far as dance was concerned. He is torn -- is this a zoning matter or not? If the C.U.P. were approved, Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 6 should there be a condition that the City require an officer be assigned during the hours of operation? Commissioner Bosch concurs with the thought. They should set no lesser standards for the City than they require of other applicants. He sees the extended hours of uniformed security officers present at the site and in the immediate vicinity for patrol as a critical issue, as well as looking into more simple issues. They also require time limits on temporary structures that private developers put in. They indeed have a time limit on this, after a certain period of time the applicant must come back before the Commission and demonstrate the mitigation measures have been successful, or is this a permanent building. Commissioner Master said the security issue has come up before. He has asked whether this site was secured and it is not a gated site. His concern is what happens after the security officer leaves. Are there any business hours? Commissioner Scott has read the editorials about Costa Mesa having the same lottery and it infers that it forces people back on to the street because they didn't want to get into the lottery. Commissioner Master questioned the grading has raised the back longer a 6 foot fence. Ms. Wolff's understanding is result of this project. This the fence line. But during been changed. the block fence. He though t of the property and it is no that has not happened as a project is 50 feet away from the course of grading, it has Mr. Johnson said there was an old railroad right-of-way there. He thought the site was naturally higher than the homes by several feet. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Hart said there appeared to be four options: One would be to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the other would be to deny it, the third would be to recognize it as a done deal and make recommendations for improving the site as best they can, and the other alternative is not to do anything; pass it back to the City Council as an item they should be acting on rather than the Commission. Commissioner Master thought a combination of options were appropriate. Chairman Hart favored their placing conditions on the development that were not within the staff report. They Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 7 would not be giving their approval to the Conditional Use Permit, but recognize that it is a project, which will proceed. The Commission would like to see it proceed in a beneficial manner as it relates to the neighborhood. In addition to the conditions outlining fencing, landscaping and lighting, there should be a limitation on so-called temporary structures, an officer should be assigned to the center both in the mornings and evenings. Commissioner Bosch suggested Condition 4 be amended to read: A six foot high non-climbable perimeter fencing will be required at the north, south and west property lines and shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department." Condition 6 should be amended to include the north and south property boundaries for landscape buffer areas. If the Council determines to approve the C.U.P. and continue the use, it should be subject to validation of City title to the entire property proposed for the development. Chairman Hart reiterated Condition 4 would be a six foot, non-climbable f ence on the north, sou th and west property lines. There will be a landscaped buffer area on the north and south, as well as the east and west property lines. There would be a limit on the temporary structure (Condition 8). There would be an officer on duty during operating hours and before and after (period to be determined as necessary) (Condition 9). And clear title to all the property be in the hands of the City before use of property Condition 10) . Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1326-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, regarding Conditional Use Permit 1804-89, that the Planning Commission acknowledges the City Council has held a number of public hearings and have made a certain number of determinations regarding the fact that this site would be used for a resource center and how the center will operate. The Commission recognizes the site plan does conform with the development standards or the zone in which it is located Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 8 and it is considerations. Conditional U; recommends the staff report, stated. felt the project addresses the land use If the City Council desires to grant this e Permit, then the Planning Commission Council include the conditions listed in the as well as the added conditions as previously AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Mr. Bennyhoff asked about the limitation on the temporary structure and Chairman Hart explained the condition. It was not certain when this item would be heard by the City Council. Interested people will be notified of when the hearing will be. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1809-89 - MEL SHAPIRO: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a hand wash, car wash in the C-1 district. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Glassell Street, addressed 105 East Lincoln Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1327-89 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the January 15, 1990 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.) With the revised submittal the Commission will be looking at, the applicant has noted that gasoline will be sold as part of the operation also. That was not called out in the original staff report. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Max Williams, 276 North Second Avenue, Upland, consultant- architect to Mel Shapiro and Guy Bailey, the applicant. There are a series of plans intended to address the Commission's concerns. One concern is the on-site and off-site traffic circulation. An additional study has been done on the traffic analysis. A noise analysis has also been done. From an operator's point of view, Alternate #1 is ideal. It has virtually no restrictions on it. But the applicant is aware and desires to work with the City in solving potential conflicts and concur with the staff's evaluations. Their recommendation is for Alternate #3. The Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 9 recommended conditions are acceptable. They feel Alternate 3 will be a workable solution. Both the applicant and the City need a successful business on this corner. In order for that to be a success, it's got to function properly and efficiently on site and they must make sure there are no traffic conflicts off site. They need good access in and out of the site. Having the dedication of land for the improvements to the intersection at no cost to the City are significant benefits. The corner itself will have improved architectural and other aesthetic aspects to it with the proposed project. Chairman Hart appreciates their response to the Commissioners' concerns from the study session. Commissioner Scott thought certain conditions should be modified for each plan. He read condition 8 as an example and said it would not work. Condition 9 would also be in conflict with all three plans submitted. Ms. Wolff suggested if the Commission had a preference in plan, the conditions could be tailored to the site plan selected. Those speaking in opposition Sid Mackin, 411 West Crystal View, spoke on behalf of the whole neighborhood. The car wash is not wanted and it is not needed. A car wash is presently operating not more than 1/4 mile west of the area. The intersection of Lincoln .and Glassell already is a traffic problem. It has been identified in the recently adopted General Plan. Approval of this project would only add to the congestion. Dorothy Hudecek, 3196 North Hearthside, apologized for not being present at the first meeting, but she was not notified. She's not sure what has been discussed prior to this meeting. Chairman Hart briefly explained previous meetings. Ms. Hudecek expressed her concerns about the traffic. It's an extremely busy intersection. They should also consider what is coming. Santa Ana Canyon Road is to be extended to a major street that will come down out of the canyon onto Lincoln and Tustin. Also, the northwest industrial area to the south of the project, there will be two streets, Glassell and Batavia. It will become more congested. If travelling from east to west, it appears you would have to turn right to enter into the car wash and then as you leave, you would have to exit out onto Lincoln, but you can't cross Lincoln so you would have to go around, making another right hand turn on Glassell. This makes it real awkward. She Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 10 appreciates what the developer said about enhancing that intersection because it is an eyesore. The area is mainly residential and they do have an existing car wash that is an absolute eyesore. She provided pictures of the existing car wash. It tends to be a trashy type of project. Don Hudecek, 3196 North Hearthside, was concerned about the traffic situation because of the way it is situated. It is very difficult for anyone to turn around. Is the gas station to be a self-serve type station? Will a maintenance person be on site at all times? Ms. Wolff responded gas sales were suppose to be incidental to the car wash. The applicant can verify this during rebuttal. It would not be classified as a service station under the code because a service station has not only gas sales, but incidental repairs. It would be part of the car wash as an incidental service that's offered there. Attendants are not required. The applicant can clarify how the operation is to be run. Mr. Hudecek was also concerned about the two pre-schools in the area, as well as the park because of the increased traffic. Lori Mackin, 411 West Crystal View, asked why do they need two car washes so close together? Will this facility also include food? Many car washes do include food, cigarettes, etc. Rebuttal Mr. Williams feels they have presented a project that will enhance the neighborhood and be beneficial to the community, as well as the applicant. The car wash is a very high quality, hand wash operation. He pointed out the rendering of what the proposed car wash will look like. The hours of operation are generally from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. Peak days of a car wash are Saturdays and Sundays. Those days are not peak days for traffic on the streets. Todd Shavers, Traffic Engineer, Kimberly-Horn Consultants located in Orange, has looked at a number of the issues surrounding the traffic aspects of the proposed project, both in terms of the driveways, the potential access of the project and what it would mean to the surrounding traffic patterns. In terms of added traffic there are two considerations. One, a typical car wash of this type would indicate that they would have between 200 and 400 cars per day. That will be at the higher range on Saturday and Sunday. They further know that the traffic that uses these facilities is not new traffic, but a significant percentage of this traffic is already on the street. It is called Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 11 passer by" trips. The second concern is the driveway activity. Regardless of what is put on this corner, driveways are going to be a potential issue. The concern he would raise is that with the ultimate configuration of the street, this property is limited to access in that right turn only lane on Lincoln, disrespective of the use proposed for it. Therefore, it is necessary that a driveway be provided and some traffic is going to have to use it. Proper striping and signing measures would have to be implemented on the street to encourage the proper use of the driveway. From his personal experience, he would not buy gas only at a car wash because it is inconvenient and a little more expensive, and the lines are a bit longer. Commissioner Bosch said there were four driveways shown on the concepts. On #3, two driveways exit only on Lincoln and two enter only on Glassell. Could you please comment on the increased dangers or improvement in traffic or greater or lesser number of driveways in such close proximity to a major corner? Four driveways causes a greater problem than two. Mr. Shavers said the concern he would voice is that the depth of the property and the placement of the driveways make the situation of whether you have one or two in the spacing of the property. The right turn lane is a slowing lane. It will be a stop condition lane. They do not have free flow proposed around the corner. That's probably one of the safer aspects of getting people to exit those driveways. One versus two on that particular approach is subjective and he would not differentiate between the two. Commissioner Bosch asked what the preferable angle of approach i s? Mr. Shavers responded the preferable angle of approach is that the width of the street is sufficient that the right thru lane will go around anyone wishing to decelerate and pull into those driveways. The configuration of that street is showing an ultimate configuration of 18' right lanes. An 18' lane is designed for that very thing. He would also relate it to it being a far sight of an intersection. It would be no different than having a bus stop on the far sight, which may in fact be the case. Chairman Hart's understanding that this will not have the ultimate right-of-way until a later time? Mr. Shavers said there were three other corners to address. What is being provided is the necessary geometry along the frontage of the property. Until the other corners are addressed, you acquire the right-of-way for widening. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 12 Chairman Hart asked if it would be a safer situation if it were developed with the ultimate right-of-way? Mr. Shavers' understanding from reviewing the applicant's drawings, that the curb line is pulled back to the ultimate configuration. It was not the Commission's interpretation; the applicant would need to address this concern. Chairman Hart said there was some confusion as to where the ultimate set back is going to be on the drawing. Mr. Williams said the dotted lines show the curb and gutter where they exist today. They will remain there until the ultimate right-of-way is developed, which are the hard lines. In answer to Chairman Hart's question on a safer situation, it is yes. Commissioner Bosch said there is a major addition to the plans with the addition of the gas islands. It causes a narrowing of the receiving area lanes to substandard (11 feet vs. 12 feet). Please address the impacts of the proposed gas sales utilization on the City's standards for site development and what the cuing times may exist impacts on receiving area length when it was previously represented to them that the receiving area was a critical size to support the input through the car wash. Mr. Williams said the addition of the gas service is intended as an enhancement of product and service to the customer. It isn't a major attractor of additional traffic and it should not affect their cuing in those lines. They don't expect more cars coming in to the facility and they don't expect more waiting time in the cue as a result of the gas service. That's a general observation and situation within the industry. With regard to the development standards and the lane widths, they would propose to first maintain the lane widths (minimum required) and take the additional space, which is about 3 1/2 to 4 feet, out of the space in front of the building and the building itself. It would require some adjustments to those dimensions across the site. It was their intent to maintain the landscaped set back currently shown. There is landscaping on site in excess of City standards and they're not trying to minimize that. Commissioner Bosch asked where the gasoline fill location be, what control is there over hours of operation for the truck and how would it arrive and depart at the site? Mr. Williams did not have answers to those questions. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 13 Guy Bailey, 395 Loretta Drive, said refueling of tanks is done early in the mornings or late in the evenings. It precludes any traffic that is on the site at all. Chairman Hart asked if someone would be on hand during the time gas is sold? Mr. Bailey stated there would be. There would not be any other way to conduct sales. It's a full service car wash; they take care of the gas by an attendant. Commissioner Bosch said a site development he was interested in was not addressed. Going back to the number of driveways, he was interested in discussing the site plan that was clipped from the major ones where one might enter westbound on Lincoln, turn righ t into a driveway at the eastern side of the site, proceed northerly into a vacuum area, then proceed counter-clockwise around the site to have the washing parallel to Glassell, drying on Lincoln, then exit in that wide entry driveway with a second exit onto Glassell at the north property line. That would get us down to two driveways, away from the intersection. Mr. Bailey there was a problem with that is only a one way onto the lot. The #3 proposal looks like the best way to ingress/egress, which means two driveways on Lincoln and one on Glassell. (Two in the plan before the Commission.) The main problem was trying to eliminate the cross overs on the lot, as well as off the lot. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch noted if they desired to proceed with this, the applicant's agent's stipulation to gas resupply prior to or after operating hours if gas sales are included. He was concerned about the combination of gas sales and the car wash when there are so many opportunities for gas in the area. He appreciates also the stipulation that substandard drives currently expressed on the plan would be eliminated with the gas islands in place without reducing the landscape along the street frontage. It removes a non-conforming nature. Of the revised site plans presented by the applicant, the Plan 3 is the one he prefers because it eliminates all the cross overs on site. He's concerned about the control bumps, although that is a City-wide issue that needs to be addressed from a traffic safety point of view. But on marketing philosophy, he is concerned about the number of driveways on site. He has a problem with the adding in the gas use at this late date without a full understanding of the potential impacts of it and with the number of driveways, but he is pleased with the quality of the presentation and the stipulation to assure that standards are met on site. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 14 The exact flip plan he spoke of left the employee drive lane similar to Plan 3, but inbound off of Lincoln at the easterly side. Then, flipped the receiving area with the hand wash area so everyone would enter in that easterly driveway, proceed north, rotate around the back of the site, have the hand wash area on the west, set back from the street, with the landscape area, and then turn back around counter-clockwise to the east for the drying and exit that same driveway. It gets rid of two driveways and the site still seems to function without cross overs on it. Mr. Maxwell thought that alternate plan was shown on the last page, the lower left hand corner. (It was backwards from what Commissioner Bosch was talking about.) Commissioner Bosch wondered if the applicant would seriously consider it further. Mel Shapiro, 1929 Windwood Lane, Newport Beach, did review that plan but realized there was not enough stacking area for cars to be dried. They ran into a problem of cars backing up on them. Also, they felt in order to beautify the corner, they would like their finished product to show onto the street. They're putting in gas sales as an accommodation to their customers. It will be a one stop process. They're not delayed and it will not cause any increased amount of time or traffic pattern on the site. Two driveways are being used to get cars to the parking area. In a sense, the operation is using three driveways for it's actual usage of cars. Mr. Maxwell said the primary concern in all alternatives from an operations point of view is making it as efficient and convenient as possible for the customer. And the number of driveways is a primary concern to the City. To have a viable business on this corner, that is automotive oriented, you've got to provide the access and that access will help to delude some of the traffic concentration that is gotten out of one driveway. That's an important element. Commissioner Bosch disagrees that it deludes the traffic. Because one of the driveways shown is intended for two purposes. One is for employees to access the site; the second is for those customers who may come in to use the boutique, which is very rare. A second of the four is for that employee and customers to leave that site without impacting the wash and the drying area. So there is a very low volume of traffic using those two driveways. All the people coming in to get the car washed, go in one driveway on the proposed Plan 3; all the people who got their car washed, go out of a second driveway. They don't touch the other two or they didn't go through part of the process. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 15 The Commissioners and the applicant discussed the site plan issues. Chairman Hart suggested continuing this hearing to give the applicant an opportunity to address Commissioner Bosch's concerns. They would like to look at a plan that would eliminate two driveways. Mr. Shapiro prefers a decision at tonight's meeting. He feels Plan 3 eliminates all problems. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1327-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1809-89 subject to Conditions 1-14, with the revision of Condition 7 where it states to record an irrevocable offer to dedicate... to indicate applicant shall record an irrevocable offer to dedicate...in favor of the City. Add Condition 15 that states to mitigate major traffic problems at the critical corner of Glassell Street and Lincoln Avenue while permitting an use necessary to serve the area that driveway egress from the site be limited to one driveway on Lincoln and one driveway on Glassell. Add Condition 16 to restrict use of the site to the car wash and incidental retail sales without gasoline sales. Modify Condition 9 into Condition 8, that the driveway approaches will be approved by the City Engineer or Department of Public Works as far as location is concerned. Add a final Condition that the site plan will be returned to the Commission for approval before a building permit is granted. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1121-90, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1815-90 - AMOS R. L. DEACON, JR.: A Zone Change application to allow a change in zoning designation from R-4 to R-4P (Residential Multiple Family with a parking overlay) District, and a Conditional Use Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 16 Permit application to allow a residential use in conjunction with a permitted commercial use. Subject property is located on the south side of Almond Avenue between Lemon and Olive Street, addressed 220 West Almond Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration this project. 1332-90 has been prepared for The public hearing was opened. Applicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, represented Mr. Deacon, the owner. This particular property has an unusual history, which he reviewe d briefly. Approximately two years ago there was a Conditional Use Permit approved on the site to do almost the identical thing that is proposed in this C.U.P. The technical difference was that that was to convert an existing residence to the same use. Subsequently, that residence was torn down and Mr. Deacon is technically and ultimately responsible for that as he is the owner. He's now faced with a complaint filed by the City with certain conditions that he should meet to get that complaint relieved, all of which he has met including paying the fine with the exception of getting the plan approved by the City under the demolition ordinance requirements. The proposal is almost identical except there would be a new structure designed to f it into the Old Towne Design Guidelines. There are some minor suggestions suggested by staff to which they have given verbal agreement that would make it conform even more closely to the Old Towne Guidelines and Mr. Deacon is agreeable to that. The site shows a footprint of a building just slightly under 1,000 square feet whereas the previous building that was demolished was about 1,200 square feet. One of the conditions applied to the original Conditional Use Permit was that if it ever became feasible to do so, all the parking should be provided on the rear of the lot. At the time it was granted, there was an existing older home owned by a single person on the adjacent property. It was not possible to provide access across that property because that owner was not interested in participating. There was parking approved for the original Conditional Use Permit across Almond Street on the supermarket parking lot in a form that was agreed to by the City Attorney and was ready for recordation. That C.U.P. could have proceeded if the building had not been demolished. They felt they could get revised plans and an extension of time on that C.U.P. After they submitted the application, staff determined that technically the building that was to be converted from residence to commercial and residence was not there; therefore, the C.U.P. was not valid. Then they proceeded to apply for the same Conditional Use Permit with a new Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 17 structure and provide all the parking on the rear as originally recommended by staff. It's a good use for the property, it fits into the Old Towne, not only in design, but in use. They have an investor who owns the property who has found a tenant for whom he wishes to build to suit. It's a good combination; both parties are happy with the site and the area is suitable for the use. They find the conditions acceptable and ask for approval. Chairman Hart asked how deep was the commercial zone? Ms. Wolff said the front half of the property or 59 feet is commercial. Chairman Hart said the driveway belongs to the existing property and there is an easement over that driveway to get in. Mr. Mickelson said the easement would be over the adjacent parcel to the west which has the 7 unit apartment constructed on it. It would be sharing that driveway via an easement. Those speaking in opposition Chairman Hart stated they received a letter from Mrs. Tita Smith, Vice-President of the Old Towne Preservation Association in opposition to this request. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, was concerned about the easement. Has anything been done to gain access to that? He is the property manager for the 7 unit apartment building next door. He spoke with the owner this evening to ask her if anything is in process as far as gaining that easement and she had no knowledge. He personally feels it is unfortunate about the different kinds of zoning in Old Towne. He would like to see a consistency maintained and he knows the entire block was zoned commercial. He doesn't like to see spot zoning. What happens when this tenant moves on? It would have been nice if the entire block had been maintained commercial, even with residences overhead. He would like to see a zoning change, but would rather see it changed to commercial. Melissa Ello, 224 South Olive, feels it is a misuse of the mixed zones; it is not appropriate for a residential area. She is against the parking overlay because it does back up to her property. They are planning to put a carport on her property line; it should be kept five feet from her wall. Where are they planning to put the trash? That's a very small lot. There is no on-street parking and it is congested. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 18 Rebuttal Mr. Mickelson omitted some of the history thinking that it would take up time. In addition to what was mentioned, referring to Mrs. Smith's letter, there were some errors in that letter. There's quite a bit of the letter devoted to the illegal demolition done by Casey Jurado. He doesn't know if it is Casey himself who tore down the building and he prefers not to get into that. He's not involved in an association with Mr. Deacon. He carried some of that history with him. Hopefully, they thought he had carried it away. But perhaps he didn't. They are trying to put a structure on there that closely resembles the one that was there. With the changes the staff has recommended, it will even more closely resemble it. During Mr. Jurado's association with Mr. Deacon, his designer who designed the apartment building, designed the plans which are shown here. They have made some changes and have added wood all the way around. In regard to the easement, that was in process when Mr. Jurado was involved in the project and when he still owned the 7 unit apartments. It is their understanding it is possible to acquire that easement. Obviously, it is not free. Mr. Deacon did not want to go out and spend the money for an easement that he may or may not get to use. In the event this is approved, it is a clear understanding on Mr. Deacon's part that he will have to acquire that easement in order to implement this plan. They believe this meets the intent of Old Towne and the mixed use is appropriate. Spot zoning is an ironic thing because Mr. Deacon is becoming spot zoned if he doesn't do anything. Ms. Ello is concerned about parking in the rear. It was suggested that perhaps this should be residential use. They have made several studies. It's not an economical use of the property to cover the entire site with an apartment and using the same easement and tuck under parking with units on top. It was purchased with commercial zoning on the front and residential on the rear. One other option would be to put a two story apartment in the front and parking in the rear. They propose landscaping to be done with a screening technique to the adjacent residential properties to the south and east. They did not propose a trash enclosure because there is only 700 feet of office and a residence. That can be handled more than adequately with a curb side trash pick up. Commissioner Bosch said the primary entrance appears to be at the rear of the building rather than thru the medical suite. The only pedestrian access to the entrance is up the driveway, is that correct? Mr. Mickelson responded yes. It's not unlike many office conversions that you see up and down Glassell and east and west on Chapman where you walk thru the parking lot to get to your primary entrance. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 19 Commissioner Bosch's other concern was Condition 2 requiring a six foot high block wall on the east property line adjacent to the parking area and west adjacent to the covered parking space. He couldn't focus what was on the south property line. Is there an existing fence now? Mr. Mickelson believed there was an existing one there. Commissioner Bosch would like to enclose the back of the covered parking for a normal separation for the property to the south. Some type of screening would be appropriate. Mr. Mickelson would like to handle that through the Design Review Board process. He agrees it could and should be screened. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1332-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Zone Change 1121-90 and Conditional Use Permit 1815-90, subject to the conditions so listed and amended with the addition to Condition 4 that the Design Review Board is to specifically look at, in addition to the conditions listed in the staff report, the landscaped screening along the parking lot property line, as suggested by Mr. Mickelson, and also look at car port screening from the southern property line. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Bosch ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff stated this will be forwarded to the City Council and generally will be scheduled three to five weeks after the Planning Commission hearing. It will be noticed by the City Clerk. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1990 - Page 20 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adjourn to their regularly scheduled meeting of March 5, 1990 at 7:00 p.m., with a 6:30 p.m. study session. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. sld