Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange April 6, 1992 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to continue the Minutes of March 16, 1992 to the April 20, 1992 meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1 147-91 , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 947-91 , VARIANCE 1926-91 - REEVES ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS FOR PEP BOYS A proposal to demolish a portion of an existing shopping center and construct a Pep Boys automotive retail and service facility. The requested zone change is from C-1 Limited Business)district to C- 2 (General Business) district and the conditional use permit is to allow automotive repair and service uses on property adjacent to a residential zone. The project site is located on the north side of Katella Avenue 400 feet east of Gl assell, the site also has frontage on Glassell Street 150 feet north of Katella Avenue. 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 NOTE: Negative Declaration 1400-91 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Larry Reeves, 417 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, was the architect for the project. They have worked with City staff for the past six months on this project. The shopping center is currently 30%-40% vacant. Some of the current tenants will be relocated and new tenants will be added. Pep Boys is a combination retail and service. There will be 10 service bays, which will face Glassell. They have tried to mitigate some of the concerns of the surrounding neighbors as they had received a letter of opposition. He explained their project as it relates to the property. They hired Gordon Bricken as their sound consultant and he was present at the meeting in case there were questions. The service bays were addressed as to the sound source. They are below what code allows for dba ratings. They are rebuilding one wall to a six foot height and adding a six foot landscape strip along that area. They have agreed to enclose the loading dock completely. Their sound study also indicated they need two other sound deadening materials -- a series of low acoustical panel walls and the eight foot wall. He also explained ways to mitigate the other sound concerns. Complaint enforcement will be handled by Pep Boys. Pep Boys wants to be a good neighbor and they want to solve the sound problems. Another area of concern is the number of trips generated. They know for a fact they only generate 60 or 70 trips per day into the service bays. Commissioner Master asked about the hours of operation?Will deliveries be made at 10:00 p.m. (referring to the staff report,Page 1 1)? Mr. Reeves stated Pep Boys closes at 9:00 p.m.Hours of ope ration are from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the week;they close at 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. Deliveries are only made during the daytime hours and it's only one truck per day. AI Meloro, 853 Mourning Dove Road, Audubon, PA, is the National Director of Site Development for Pep Boys. All deliveries come from 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 their warehouse in Los Angeles. Their stores are all company owned. Delivery hours will be from 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. There will be no Saturday or Sunday deliveries. Commissioner Master clarified the hours of operation because the times were different in the staff report. Commissioner Scott thought condition 15a should be added noting the hours of operation. Commissioner Murphy asked if Mr. Meloro had run across similar circumstances on other site developments? Mr. Meloro said their business was almost like a recession-proof business. it's a service that is really needed because gas stations no longer provide that kind of service. Mitigation efforts are minimal; they are addressing similar measures in two other cities. Commissioner Bosch explained two things need to happen: a change of zone and a variance. The variance requires particular findings under state law by the Planning Commission relative to not constituting special privilege, inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity or zone, and also demonstrating that there are special circumstances applying to the property because of size, shape, topography, location or surrounding; not because of the intended use. He wanted the applicant to address the specific concern relative to the transition of the zone in more detail. Mr. Meloro said their building will be an upscale to what is there now. They will, however, need to do some mitigation. Because of their type of business there is no zoning that will handle them in one category. The hardship is that it is a necessary means with all the automobiles in the market place. There is more demand for their business due to the complexity of automobiles. Commissioner Bosch said the City did have some substantial territories that are zoned C-2, who have automotive related uses, including mixed with other commercial uses; there are major car dealerships that occupy appropriate zoning. He knows it is hard to find a site that meets all of the applicant's criteria, but also in the City where there is a variety of sites that are intentionally set up 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 under the General Plan to assure appropriate mixture of uses and separation from neighboring incompatible uses, there is a lot of land. He was not looking for specific market demands, but rather specific impacts upon the City and at this particular site, and how those are to be mitigated. Mr. Meloro said the site blends with all the setbacks. The only thing they have run up against is the mitigation of the wall. They have looked for other properties in the area, but this was the only site they could make work (financially and location wise). Commissioner Bosch understood the applicant to say based on their application to the site, the impacts needing mitigation are due to that decision criteria rather than anything unusual about the property or the relationship to the adjacent zone. Mr. Meloro responded there are mitigations on any property. They build about 30 stores a year. Mitigation is a part of being a good neighbor. There is no such thing as an economic hardship. Mr. Reeves said the reason for the discussion was because of the variance. He believed they could solve the sound problem and not request the variance. Commissioner Bosch, as an individual, tried to avoid variances because of the precedence they set. He asked why this site was better serving in the community in relationship to the adjacent uses as C-2 than as the existing C-1 limited commercial zone? Chairman Cathcart asked the applicant if he was formally asking for a continuance? Mr. Reeves wanted to know if there were any other questions/concerns of the Commission before he came back. Commissioner Bosch did not have a problem with the noise study, but it raises a couple of mitigation measures (i.e., policing). If there could be a way to quantify what effects this might have on the sound at the property line and the Noise Ordinance to demonstrate how it could be mitigated without requiring signage that is impossible to police. The applicant has also requested to come in with a separate sign presentation. The Commission's concern is that the signage 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 may cause modification to the signage program. He would like to see the signage dovetailed into the project. Mr. Reeves said they could provide the signage for their building, but can't speak for the center. Chairman Cathcart addressed the missing documents. He would like to see a conceptual exhibit of the six foot planter along the wall and how they intend to handle six feet of landscaping. Mr. Reeves will provide the necessary elevations. Commissioner Master asked where a similar Pep Boys location existed? Mr. Reeves responded the location was under construction i n Huntington Beach. Santa Maria is also under construction and both are about half built. Commissioner Master suggested adding a condition to monitor the facility on a yearly basis pertaining to the sound requirements. (The applicant agreed to the condition.) Mr. Reeves requested their application be continued for two weeks. After discussion with staff and the Commission, it was requested to continue their application to May 4, 1992. The Commission summarized their requests of the applicant prior to the next hearing: 1. Elevations showing signs that meet code requirements. 2. A detail showing the reduced height of the sound wall or how the applicant will mitigate the height requirement. 3. Minor analysis relative to true mitigation vs. signs, as well as an adequate noise or defense presentation of the appropriateness of the particular rezoning for the area. 4. The landscaping, finalization and incorporation of the signs. 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to continue Zone Change 1 147-91, Conditional Use Permit 1947-91 and Variance 1926-91 to May 4, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-92 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code regarding the siting and development of off-site hazardous waste facilities pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code and the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. NOTE: The County of Orange has certified Program EIR 490, satisfying all California Environmental Quality Act requirements for this project. Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, commented on the Tanner legislation and the County wide effort for the hazardous waste management plan, which has been reviewed by the City and approved by the City Council in two actions in 1989 and 1991. It set the basic tenor for the ordinance before the Commission. The Tanner legislation talks about three ways of dealing with hazardous waste: 1) ask the manufacturer or the processor to reduce the amount of hazardous waste that is generated; 2) process that hazardous waste on site; and 3) treat it off site if necessary, which is the issue addressed in the ordinance. It appears the industry has attempted to address the first two alternatives to some degree because there is less hazardous waste being produced by the industry in general. It took the State almost one year to review the most recent changes to the plan and to approve the hazardous waste management plan. That approval by the State started a 180 day clock, under which the City must adopt the ordinance or a General Plan Amendment that includes the siting criteria in the plan itself. One of the major issues on the table is the term "fair share" and the ability to deal with hazardous waste on a regional basis through joint powers agreements between the agencies. The siting criteria requires as part of the process the normal conditional use permit process and the major item of a 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 committee referred to as the Local Assessment Committee. There is an appeal process built into the act that allows an applicant to appeal a decision by the local agency to the Governor's Board of Appeals. The ordinance is based on a model ordinance, which the City Attorney, Fire Department and Community Development offices have attempted to modify to fit the City's own needs as much as possible; however, most of the contents of the ordinance are established in the state law through the Tanner legislation of '86. There have been no attempts to initiate applications in Orange County under this process. Commissioner Bosch had some questions about the proposed ordinance. Page 4• first paragraph, second line -- in tact is one word. Pa4e 5, Item F -- needs to be more user friendly so that everyone will know what the sentence means (i,e, comprises or includes). Page 6, under Environmental Review, B.1. -- is there protection under CEQA with requirements for alternative sites in the analysis? What causes them to be required to be viable? The concern is that they should be reasonable alternatives. Is there a clear definition of reasonable alternatives? Page 7, Local Assessment Committee, second paragraph, first sentence -- does the dispute resolution occur prior to Planning Commission/City Council action? (It was staff's understanding they would attempt to negotiate some kind of resolution prior to the City's hearing.) It was recommended to insert "prior to" hearing before the Planning Commission/City Council. Page 8, Findings, A. -- the phrase, "based upon substantial evidence," needs to be more user friendly. What is substantial evidence relative to the intent of the specific law upon which it is founded? Paae 9, very top of page, "Assessment by a qualified preparer" -- where is the definition of a qualified preparer? It should be stipulated in the document. What kind of level of certification is used? A technical term is needed. 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 Page 9• second paragraph, "within 2,000 feet of the site" -- in the application they were to identify sensitive population sites within one mile, yet in the draft ordinance it is 2,000 feet. Shouldn't there be one or the other? Please clarify 2,000 feet or one mile. Page 11, there was confusion on Forebays and principal recharge areas. Under the first paragraph, All Facilities, third sentence, "As a guideline, facilities should locate at least one mile from domestic supply wells in the Forebay area (principal) recharge area to the Orange County groundwater basin, and at least one-half mile from domestic supply sells" -- is that a typo? Yet in the next paragraph, collection facilities, they are discouraged from locating in principal recharge areas. The first two paragraphs offer cross purposes and are misleading. There is a "should" in the one mile from; the second paragraph is discouraging from locating. Please clarify how strict or permissive the law as it is written in that regard. Page 11, Residuals Repositories -- Repositories are prohibited from locating in principal recharge areas and in areas of high permeability (such as sand and gravel). How does the City define areas of high permeability? Page 16, D. Closure Plan. -- calls for the owner or operator to submit a written closure plan. At what time do they submit this plan? Some clarification as to when it would happen and who approves the plan is needed. Page 20 was left intentionally blank? The hand out was much more clear than the ordinance in most aspects, but under subparagraph b., second sentence, "City should contact OPA and should have representatives attend" -- shouldn't the wording be "shall" unless state law says should? (The intent is to encourage the City to be there if they wish to. The statute that this refers to specifically gives the City the option to participate or not to participate.) It was suggested to insert the words "may". Under subparagraph f -- is the City obligated to act at the requirement of the applicant? (The statute makes this mandatory.) The sentence itself does not make sense and needs to be clarified. 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 Commissioner Master stated the very first paragraph identifying hazardous waste singles out a few items and leaves out some others; he didn't understand the completeness of the ordinance -- it lacks an additional clarification or identification. Mr. Herrrick thought changes could be made without harming the ordinance. Commissioner Murphy suggested adding an inclusive reference at the end of the ordinance to cover everything. Commissioner Master assumed the state followed the same list as EPA on hazardous materials and they may add a few of their own. There needs to be a basic reference. The Commission referred this item back to staff for additional comments and input; and continued the hearing to May 4, 1992. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-92 to May 4, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1938-91 -ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION A request fora 30-day time extension for completion of parking lot improvements, as required by conditions of project approval. Ms. Wolff stated the Commissioners received a letter from the applicant requesting a 30-day time extension for completion of parking lot improvements, as required by conditions 1 and 2 of the project approval. In reviewing the letter, Commissioner Murphy noted they not only requested continuance on the parking lot issues based on inclement weather, but also fire code. There were 3 or 4 specific conditions based on public safety issues that had not been met at the time of 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1992 the original request for a conditional use permit. Something should be duly noted concerning that area. Mr. Herrick suggested making the motion specific to the parking lot and planter and by omission not grant any extensions with respect to the fire code. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Commission grant the request fora 30-day extension of the time limit for conditions 1 and 2 of Conditional Use Permit 1938- 91, but also note that no extensions are granted for any of the other conditions that were noted as part of the grant for the conditional use permit. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Status Report of staff data accumulation for study of Southwest Quadrant of Old Towne. Mr. McGee presented a brief report regarding the March 31 study session on the rezoning requests for the Southwest Quadrant and the East Culver Street area. He asked the Commission to review the summary report; if they have comments or want to add additional information to advise staff. They are looking for a study session in mid or late May on this subject. IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT Ralph Zaner, 630 East Culver, was the petitioner on the Culver rezoning issue. He does not want to get caught up running concurrently with the downzone. He would like a separate date for the study session. The Commission will take that under advisement with staff. 10 Planning Commission Minutes Aprit 6, 1992 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a study session at 5:30 p.m., April 13, 1992 in the Weimer Room regarding Sycamore Crossing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. sld 11