Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-1996 PC MinutesMINUTES. CITY OF ORANGE April 15, 1996 Planning Commission Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Bob Von Schimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSR?~T CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 4/1/96 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 2. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIETJ 9-96 - CENTURY THEATRES, INC. A proposal to construct a theater complex containing a 25-screen movie theater, restaurants and retail with associated parking to serve these uses. The site is located on the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Main Street (The Stadium Drive-In Theater complex). RECOMMENDATION: Certify Mitigated Negative Declaration 1497-96 as satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Approve Major Site Plan Review 9-96 with findings and conditions as submitted by staff. The staff report was presented by Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, This is the first commercial-recreation project made to the City of Orange since that zoning was es- tablished along the Katella Avenue Corridor last Fall, Development standards for the C-R zone allow construction of movie theaters, restaurants, amusement arcades or entertainment establishments as permitted uses, with retail shops and sales as an accessory use when integrated with a commercial development, There is no conditional use permit or variance attached with this application. The development proposal is fully compatible with building setbacks, height limitations, parking and land- scaping requirements. The project includes a parking surplus of approximately 270 spaces for the sum total of all theater, restaurant, and Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 of the review is to make sure the proposal is consistent with those development standards and to determine whether the project is compatible with the surroundings in terms of architectural styles, scale, construction, materials and circulation patterns, and to minimize or mitigate potential impacts upon the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff has worked closely with the applicant over the last 7 1/2 weeks to refine the site plan according to comments or concerns made during the initial review through the Staff Review Committee. To adequately address the environmental impacts of the development, staff submits for the Commission's review and consideration Negative Declaration 1497-96. Staff is confident that most of the project impacts are not significant, or that will be controlled to a level that is not significant with appropriate mitigation. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is subitted rather than just a Negative Declaration. The project's environmental analyst is Fred Talarico from Vista, who was present to address any comments or concerns about the environmental document. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Richard Jensen, 1233 Alpine Road 46211, Walnut Creek, represented SYUFY Enterprises. Century Theatres has been in the community for 25 years and now they wish to propose 25 theaters. He introduced the design team that has been involved with this project: Joe Syufy, Senior Executive Vice-President for SYUFY Enterprises, Century Theatres, Mark Fehlman, with Fehlman-LeBar, Architect, Pat Gibson and Bryan r?ayeda from Kaku Associates, traffic engineering and parking studies, Bill Truxaw, Civil Engineer, Abby Drewliner with Burton Associates, licensed landscape architect. Mark Fehlman, Principal Engineer on designing the site plan and entertainment center, explained the site plan and architecture for the proposed project. He presented several display boards. The project is the Century Orange 25 r an entertainment center. There is quite a revolution going on in the movie theater industry right now. There are new entertainment venues around Southern California, including the new Spectrum project, Universal City Walk, Third Avenue Promenade. They have become entertainment hubs -- a whole new concept. Theaters have gotten bigger and have associated with very ex- citing themed restaurants and retail. This project is very similar to that trend that is going on in the industry. They are urban entertainment destinations. The theater itself is a design that is inspired by the classic art deco architecture of the great movie palaces of yesterday. Tt has very detailed character to it, high sign tower, dramatic lighting, and what they have designed is a lobby 100 feet x 100 feet, 35 feet tall. It's glass on the front to create a special place, The retail and restaurant zone is-a loosely organized grouping, themed buildings. It's inspired by the art deco district of Miami $each, Santa Monica, L.A, -those sorts of older deco, small scaled, people-oriented buildings. What people want is a full, fun-filled evening, wh ile they go to the movies At this project, there is something for everyone, whether its day or night. They recognize this is within a redevelopment area. There will be offices and people will want to go to restaurants during the day. The theater has 25 screens, approximately 6300 seats; the retail and restaurant area is approximately 60,000 square feet. He explained the state of the art theaters. The public areas - the plaza ~ is large and well lit. There are 14 ticket windows, which are in two separate areas. There are multiple concession options; not just one place. It will be a place the City of Orange will be proud of. 2- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 Commissioner Smith asked if the market were really there for this many theaters in Orange? This would bring it over 14,000 theater seats within about 3 miles of each other. She needed more clarification. Mr. Fehlman said this was movies coming out all the to the theater. One this buster movies, art films, are available right now. or four theaters, showing confident that this numbe a very good market for the movies. There are a lot of time. It's amazing the number of choices one has when going size affords the customer the ability to play the big block family films, romance films, any number of films that In addition, it allows you to play the same movie in three them at different times to get a lot of options. They are r of seats will be very successful in this market place. Fred Talarico with the firm of Vista, 1279 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, prepared all the environmental documentation for the project. The documentation includes the initial study and negative declaration, revisions to the initial study and negative declaration, which reflect changes that were made to the site plan after it was released, and responses to comments which has been trasmitted to the Planning Commission. The initial study and negative declaration is composed of seven components. It is the large document. That document contained a letter of transmittal to other agencies, an introduction, an overall description of the project, an initial study checklist, responses to all comments in the initial study checklist, and a mitigated negative declaration. Three main areas of appendices were provided: one outlining public participation and review, one the traffic study, and one the air quality study. The initial study for the proposed complex indicated the proposed project would have a significant environmental effect. Mitigation measures were offered to reduce each specific impact of the project to a less than significant level. All suggested mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. The initial study and mitigated negative declaration went through an extensive public participation and review program at the direction of staff, They originally pre pared the documents, submitted them to staff, and staff reviewed and independently analyzed all documents, and then transmitted them out after the appropriate changes were made. The City of Orange notified all potential responsible agencies, interested groups and individuals, of their intention to issue the negative declaration for this proposed project. The intial study was issued in r4arch, 1996. A notice of intent to issue the negative declaration was prepared and issued on March 13. The copies of the initial study and notice were circulated for a 30 day public review period. It included all agencies locally and the State Clearing House in Sacramento. The notice of intent and the negative declaration were additionally posted on the site, as well as adjacent to the site. A certificate of posting was provided in the official record on the project. Subsequent to the preparation of the initial study and the release of that document, minor modifications to the project were made by the applicant. The modifications were made in response to staff's evaluation of the project at various Staff Review Committee meetings. A majority of these involved minor adjustments to the site plan. In a letter dated April 2, 1996 Vista concluded to the staff that the revisions to the site plan did not change the conclusions of the initial study or the negative declaration. The public review period for the initial study and negative declaration ended on April 13. During the public review period, the City received a total of eight response letters related to the project and the environ- mental documentation. Today, they transmitted to the Commission responses to each comment, and he generalised the issues that were raised in those letters. 3- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 For the most part, the letters transmitted information to them to help clarify and make improvements to the study as it was. Several of them dealt with indicated to them one permit they thought may have been needed was really received from the County of Orange and not the Army Corn. of Engineers. That would be a typical type of comment. Three major issue areas came out of the letters. The first issue dealt with public safety. In terms of public safety, they have been working with the applicant and with the Police Department. They have suggested and transmitted language for a revised mitigation measure (2-1) that calls for an overall security program. This would be the appropriate way to address security issues .on the site. That mitigation measure has been reviewed by the Police Department and by the Planning staff. They both are in concurrence with it. By mitigating public safety issues they're concerned with the operational aspect of the project. It's a large project and will generate a lot of people. And, also with the neighbors to the project, generating a safe concern to them. The second major issue area was traffic. Concerns related to traffic were expressed by immediate adjacent neighbors dealing with access, adjacent cities, dealing with how it would affect their communities. To each of their concerns, they responded to them. They responded mostly with clarifi- cation. There were no changes in the basic assumptions. The assumptions had been worked out with City gaff and the Traffic Engineer, and approved by them. A lot of it was clarification in projects in adjacent cities that changed from the time they started the project to the time they complete the project. There were no changes in the conclusions of the traffic study. They reviewed them with KaKu Associates, and there were no changes in the conclusions of the traffic report. In dealing with access, the immediate neighbor to the north had a concern with access on Main Street to the project in having parallel driveways. They have provided a mitigation measure they believe solves the problem. The third major issue was the issue of drainage. when they started the project, drainage for the entire area was in question. During the course of review of the project, there have been other projects adjacent to it that have been under consideration by the City. In response to those multiple issues, the applicant has taken the lead and has prepared subregional drainage information. There are adequate mitigation measures, in their opinion, dealing with drainage in the initial study to mitigate all drainage impacts for the area in a cooperative manner. No new significant impacts were identified during the public review process that were not identified in the initial study. No effect determined to be insignificant in this initial study was found to be significant. No new information of substantial importance was introduced into the public record as part of the review process that would require re-analysis of the project. Comment letters were received and given to the Commission. They were from the Santa Fe Pipeline Partners L.P., the City of Anaheim, City of Orange Environmental Management Agency, the Anaheim Union School District, the City of Santa Ana, the County of Orange Sheriff-Coroner Department, and Mr. Mitch Isaac. These letters provide clarification, additional information for the .Commission's consideration, or a request for information that has been provided to the Commission. For each, a response has been provided in accordance with. the California Environmental 2uality Act guidelines and City policies and guidelines.. The Vista staff and KaKu staff were available to answer questions or concerns from the Commission. 4-- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 Commissioner Smith asked if anyone has taken a look at the traffic impacts of the stadium, the Pond and the movie theater all operating at the same time? And, what the traffic impacts of that would be lfke7 She was talking about a coordinated effort to stagger start times of events, ending times and really looking at a traffic pattern that involves all three of those huge entities on a single night. Pat Gibson, KaKu Associates, said it turns out they are also the traffic engineers for Anaheim Stadium and Anaheim Pond. They're familiar with the issues of peaking. In this environmental impact report, they looked ~ the impact at the peak hour (5 to 6 p.m.) to look at what is happening on a day-in and day-out basis. The question relates to what happens in the peaking characteristics when the major event centers are added on top of this project. Although they didn't look at that in terms of - impacts on intersections, they have looked at what happens with those kinds of conditions. Clearly, on a Friday night or a Saturday night, especially in the summer months, when all three events are going, they will be adding traffic to an existing traffic situation on a weekend night. They talked to the Anaheim Police Department about their traffic control procedures and measures. This project will add traffic more to the Pond, rather than the Stadium. That's one of the reasons why staff wanted to make sure they had alternate routesato Katella and the 57 Freeway interchange. The City of Anaheim has an event center management strategy where they look at staggered times. Unless they are doing a major concert in the summer, their major activities are when they sell out the Pond (hockey games). It was encumbent for them to look at hooking into that event management/strategies for the corridor. There's not a lot of flexibility in terms of changing movie times. The major strategy they would employ would be to divert traffic another way (north and south on Main to other interchanges) when the Pond would be letting out. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if this were written up anywhere for the management of the theater process? Mr. Gibson didn't think it was written up now, but having worked on a dozen or so Century Theatre projects, he knew they had a specific operating program for each individual theater complex. In this case, the adjacent event centers would be taken into account when the operating procedures are written. For each project, they have an operating manual for the on-site manager, That tells them the different procedures to be used when they know there will be major crowds on Friday and Saturday nights. There will be different staffing levels for parking and traffic control. Special signs would be used to inform people leaving the site to use Main Street rather than Katella. Chairman Bosch asked if the City of Anaheim has developed and undertaken a similar vehicular traffic control operating procedure for major events that is coordinated with the City's traffic engineering and Police Department? Mr. Gibson replied yes. The City of Anaheim has an event control center, They have a full-time person that works in the commercial-recreation area, looking at the stadium, Disneyland, the hotel/convention center and the Pond. They can change the programs on their traffic signals to react to the inbound/outbound traffic by hour. 5~ Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 All of that is in place and would be fairly easy for them to tap into it to coordinate events. Commissioner Smith didn't know much about the tank farm, but had some questions. nThat is the tank farm? It could be somewhat hazardous. Mr. Talarico explained the tank farm operation is where one goes and receives gasoline large tanker trucks) or other petroleum-related products. Then, the trucks go from there to distribute that within the region. In terms of the tank farm itself, they have met with the operators and have had a letter from them. They have three major areas of questions, and he believes they have resolved them. The first concern dealt with public safety. They were concerned with people accessing the Century 25 site and then leaving that site and drifting to their site, There is fencing proposed along the whole property line between the two projects. When they met with the operators, they seemed to be in agreement with that. The second concern dealt with drainage, which has been a concern of theirs and most of the property owners in the area. As mentioned, they have come to a very satisfactory conclusion related to subregional drainage. The third issue dealt with the mixing of trucks carrying petroleum fuel and cars making turns in and out of the facilities. They suggested a condition that they continue to work with them over the next several months to come to a resolution over the issue. Commissioner Smith asked if there was a fire wall between the two properties? Mr. Talarico said there was not a fire wall. There is approximately a 75 foot setback from the property line to the first development on the site. Additionally, the site plan faces away from (backs of walls). The concern would be for the area inbetween, which will be used for employee parking. There are emergency response plans that are activated by the Fire Department and coordinated between the individual property owners. Commissioner Smith was concerned with the highly flammable materials next to a highly populated entertainment center. Public Comments Tom Jensen, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline, 1350 North Main Street, said Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline is a public utility common carrier pipeline and they operate about 3400 miles of refined petroleum products. They have 14 terminals and have been at the Orange location since 1963. They submitted a letter to Mr. Donovan on April 9, 1996 stating their opposition. However, subsequently they met with Mr. Donovan and the developer to discuss their objections. As of this date, they resolved those objections and will continue to work with staff and the developer to make sure everything they discussed comes to an agreeable conclusion. In condition 22 (a) it still needs additional review with the developer regarding a mutual acceptable access plan for Main Street to serve both the theater site and the Santa Fe Pacific site. They requested condition 22 (a), upon conclusion of the settlement agreement, be put in writing by the Director of Public Works. 6- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 Chairman Bosch said they received from staff a proposed new condition 22 (a), which he read into the record: ''The developer will be responsible for contacting and working with Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P. to develop a mutually acceptable access plan from Main Street to serve both the theater site and the tank farm site, subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works." It is understood Santa Fe Pacific is looking for a written approval as part of the condition. Commissioner Pruett understood there to be a M.O.U. between Santa Fe Pipeline and the developer. Is that what is being requested in terms of the driveway, that would then be approved by the Director of Public Works, or is it an M.O.U. that is signed by those parties and reviewed by the Director of Public Works? Mr. Jensen said they would sit down with the developer and reach a conclusion of understanding on how to make the current design of two accesses that are pretty much adjacent to each other acceptable to minimize the traffic/public safety issues and come up with either an alternate design or another way to do it, then resolve it with the City. Carole Walters, 534 North Saffer, was concerned about the businesses in the area and how this project would affect them, She liked Commissioner Smith's comments. She was also concerned about the smaller theaters behind the Orange Mall and Villa Theater. What will happen to them? Is Redevelopment money being spent on this project? She didn't think this many theathers were needed. Another 14 theaters are going in at Main Place. It's bad for big business to come in and hurt the small business people. There is not enough parking and the City is making a mistake. Fifty-five theaters are not needed in Orange. Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, was a 38-year resident of the City of Orange and has lived 35 years in one place, just two blocks off of Katella and Tustin. She appreciated the points Commissioner Smith brought up. They are important considerations. They are going to open another recreation center on Main Street; that looks like a big development in the same area. Also, just north or south of the tracts, they're putting in a truck washing facility. She went to the Ducks game on Sunday night; events are held on different days of the week -' not just on Friday or Saturday nights. She had a big concern about the curve; that there be enough setback there. Parking is another concern of hers. Who is going to pay for the signal? Are the trees in the parkway or setback? Are they using Redevelopment funds? She didn't know how long a track record there was of the many theaters being built. What is the length of time a lot of these have been in? The mitigated negative declaration was important. She didn't like to be labeled as opposition; she merely liked to make comments and ask questions. They have been called cave people recently and she didn't like that. She was a caring activist. James Potter, 5300 Paseo Panorama, Yorba Linda, manages some of the properties adjacent to the proposed project. He had a couple of questions relating to parking. He wasn't sure what the theater parking ratios were, but it seemed if they park 3 people per car, 6400, and then use 5 per 1,000 for retail and 10 per 1,000 for restaurants, it would be significantly underparked, If they had a sold out event, people would park across the way and create a nuisance that way. He thought this would be something 7- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 positive overall for the area, but he was concerned that the parking might be underparked and he didn't want the same problems created as other places (i.e., Spectrum) and then try to figure out how to fix it. He asked about the median and how the traffic signal will line up with curb cuts on the opposite side of Katella, and how that will impact the existing tenants? Francine Sentos, spoke on behalf of her husban who owns a building at 1624 West Katella, across the street from the proposed project. It's exciting to see some development on this part of Katella; it looks great on the surface. What is the closest theater developed by Century that she could see an example of their work? What is the City envisioning for the other side of the street and what the developer thinks might be approriate for the buildings across the street? She supported Mr. Potter's comments regarding the parking. They all know that is a potential problem, She had a concern about cars making a U-turn on Katella, after exiting the driveways at 1624 West Katella. Rebuttal Pat Gibson talked about the parking supply, It's fairly easy and fairly deceptive to do a quick calculation that says 6400 seats divided by 2 persons per car. Essentially what happens in these major facilities, and the reason why there are 25 movie screens, is in fact so that those screens can be staggered so the starting and stopping times can be staggered. Out of the 25 screens, it would be unusual to have more than 18 of those filled. At no time during the day or night are all 25 screens used. In order to figure out how to plan parking for this new land use, what they did was go to two Century theaters up in Northern California and also got data from one of the Edwards Theaters to look at an entire year. How many tickets were sold for every movie, for every hour of the day. They looked at the entire process to determine a parking pattern, hour by hour. Then they went back and compared that to the Urban Land Institute's National study on shared parking. When that National study on parking was done, it was done with single screen movie theaters. They have a real good handle on what the actual parking demand is at this particular type of land use. A thousand parking spaces have just been added to the Spectrum, to bring it up to a parking ratio of 9 spaces per 1,000 square feet. They did parking counts at the Spectrum over the Easter break. [with the new parking ratio, there was not a parking problem. In this case, they are supplying 12 1/2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet - or about 30% more parking than at the Spectrum. GThenthey did the parking projections of what the demand would be at this site, if they assumed no one who came to th.e site went to the restaurant and to the movie theater, or no one went to the retail and movie theater, every customer coming to everyone of those three land uses went only to that land use and left, even then they would still have 200 empty parking spaces on that peak Saturday night of the year. They're comfortable in that they have enough parking spaces planned into this project and it's not going to be a burden on the neighbors across the street. How to keep the Pond people out of the parking spaces is a different issue and that's part of the operation plan and part of a security program they're working on. Their parking exceeds the City's code requirements. The truck washing facility and the badminton facility -- those numbers are in the traffic report and were considered as related projects. There are Duck games on other nights of the week. He only mentioned Friday and Saturday nights because they are clearly the peak nights for the movie theater. l,Tho is going to pay for the traffic signal? The conditions of the development call for the developer to pay for the installation and maintenance of the traffic signal. That is a development cost. Will there still be a U-turn on Katella? Nothing that is happening in terms of putting up a traffic signal at that Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 location would prohibit the U-turn at those driveways; U-turn movement would still be allowed there. They've been through the design and lane layouts, landscaping and medians of the whole curve. He thought City staff was satisfied that the traffic signal can be added in the corridor without adding a safety problem. Commissioner Pruett asked how they would manage restricting parking to only those people who are using the theaters? Mr. Gibson replied one of the City's conditions required an 8 foot fence all the way around this project. With the exception of the vehicular entry points, it's pretty hard to come in and park and then sneak out. If people are going to park at the theaters and go to the Pond, they are going to have to walk out one of the three limited access points onto Katella. It's fairly easy on those nights to have their security guards at these locations. People leaving the site to go to the Pond will be controlled on busy nights. Access to the bike path closes at a certain time of the day. Commissioner Romero said reference was made to the Spectrum with the retail-restaurant square footage. TJhat is the comparison of square footage of retail-restaurant of Century vs. the Spectrum? Mr. Gibson said this project totals about 175,000 square feet. The Spectrum facility that is open now is about 50,000 square feet larger. It's about 225,000 square feet. Commissioner Romero asked how much time was allowed between each individual movie? Joe Syufy said it was generally around 20 minutes between shows. The start times of the films would be staggered. The chance of having two movies the same length is unusual. When talking about 18 theaters being sold out, that's a "banner" night. That would be pretty unusual. The closest theater is the Cinedome, although that's not representative of what they're planning to build at this site. The Cinedome was built years ago. A person would need to go to Las Vegas to find what they are currently building. Mr. Talarico did not identify any other environmental issues. They have a mitigation measure relating to the tank farm. It calls for the cooperative redevelopment of the properties. They have called out a mitigation f_or a re-evaluation of the emergency response plan for the area. Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineering staff, spoke with. regard to the new access point. A question was raised as to its location. The design features have not been formalized yet and that's why there are conditions that pretty well cover the work that has~to be done to the City's satisfaction It does involve getting other private properties on the south side and agreeing to some mutual acceptable controlled access leg. They put this burden on to the proponent. One other thing that is going to occur there is there is a median break that is well in excess of 100 feet. This is almost twice as wide as the distance between the median noses at Katella and Main, which are two arterial highways. These need to be shortened up to make the new signalized access operate efficiently and safely. Another issue involved in coordinating between properties is a good possibility that some existing access to one or more of the properties could be lost. These are details that need to be worked out. With. regard 9~ Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 to the signal itself and its location, and visibility of the signal...he went over the sight distance in general. This particular segment of Katella is curve linear, with reverse curves. Beginning at the west, where they had proposed a driveway for emergency access (west of Struck), it was staff's opinion that they could not allow public egress unless there was some sort of sight distance easement, which would in- volve other properties just to the east, on the northside of the street. That access drive, as a public access, has subsequently been abandoned and there is a condition that it be restricted to emergency vehicles only. The access on Main is not a problem. The access to the east parking lot, from Katella, will be restricted to right turn only because of the curve of the road that is to the west. The same will be true with the signalized location. Because of the curve, it is curving to the south, you will be able to see the primary signal indications a lot better than Struck, which currently curves to the north. And the landscaping, trees, etc. on the north side of the street would, to some degree, block visibility of these primary signals. Because of the curvature, they're in better shape. Commissioner Pruett said a statement was made and he thought it alarmed some people in the audience. That was the issue of a left turn into driveways on the south side. Is it taking away any left turns that currently exist? Mr. Glass responded it possibly could. They have been observing existing traffic patterns. People will begin a left turn, going westbound at the nose of the pocket and actually travel on the wrong side of the street to get to one of those driveways to the west on the southside. It's not a problem that has been identified through an accident history. But, when signalization goes in, everybody can't be going every which way through the intersection. The same is true with trying to control those moves out of the driveways. If they are signal controlled, they can't have more than one driveway on the south side to control, They're trying to suggest to the applicant is to try to develop some sort of a neutral driveway arrangement between those properties. The condition is: Here's the issue, you guys solve it to the City's satisfaction. His guess is that U-turns will not be allowed there. As currently proposed, the exiting lanes for the proposed development will actually have four approach lanes. There will be conflicting moves with the U~turns. tahat they could and probably would provide is the U-turn capability further east at Main Street. Commissioner Pruett asked if U-turns could be allowed for west bound traffic because there wouldn't be a conflict? (Yes.) Mr. Talarico went over trees in the right-of-way. Normally, right-of-way trees are maintained by the City. All trees, shrubbery and landscaping on the project site would be maintained by the applicant. Regarding the two access points, the signalized access on Katella - condition 22 in the staff report specifically directs the applicant to work this out. More engineering needs to be done before it is finalized, The two replacement mitigation measures have been provided to the City and they include 2.1 dealing with the security program that was approved by the Police Department and condition 22 (a) related to the Main Street northerly access. Those should be incorporated from the environmental standpoint into any project actions the Commission takes. 10- Planning Commission P4inutes April 15, 1996 Commissioner Pruett had a question for the operator of the tank farm. There have been safety issues raised relative to this project and the tank farm and he wanted to ask some questions in terms of the operation. In looking at the project site photograph included in the package provided to the Commission, the actual tanks are located on the northwest corner of the property, which is a significant distance from the property line, Is that correct? (Yes.) Those tanks are located behind a berm that is required to retain any spillage or any accident that may occur with the operation of those tanks, is that right? (Yes.) So the safety measures taken there are taken to basically manage the site and situation so it doesn't present a problem to the surrounding properties. (Mr, Jensen stated that was correct.) Chairman Bosch said there were a couple of other comments that need to be addressed by City staff with regard to the concept of how the Katella Corridor Vision Plan and the adopted commercial-recreation zoning might be seen playing out for other properties in the area subject to the desires of the property owner. And, also if there were any Redevelopment funds involved in this project? Mr. Donovan said the Katella Avenue Corridor Plan was more of a concept than an actual blueprint for development in the future. Coincidentally, the City had envisioned a very similar use to what is proposed here for this particular portion of the property. But the City does not have any particular plan involving other properties at this time or any timetable for development. They are not permitting any new industrial uses along the Corridor, or expansion unless it is consistent with the new C-R standards. Mr. Jones said the commercial-recreation zone was created last summer, following studies by staff. The new zoning was placed on this property, which encourages commercial, retail and entertainment kinds of uses. Again, this particular project has come along; it's consistent with the new zoning of the area. It has an intensity overlay of 1.5 FAR. The project is less intense than what was envisioned for the site. He was not aware of any Redevelopment funds being committed to this project. Mr. Donovan pointed out a typo in condition 17 on Page 12 of the staff report. The correct word is "relocated" rather than '~recorded1P. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Pruett thought the project was compatible with the neighboring land uses and he didn't think it would cause any deterioration. It meets the Design Standards Design Guidelines and specific plan requirements given the changes for that area. He did not believe the project would cause any significant environmental impact Based upon the mitigated negative declaration. The on-site and off-site circulation was adequate to support the project. There are concerns and they have been expressed in terms of the uses to the west - that being in the City of Anaheim. The City of Anaheim does, however, maintain a traffic management system that is controlled from city hall. It includes television cameras, as well as electronic sensors in the street. It can control and manage traffic for the events at the 11- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 stadium, as well as the convention center and the Disneyland area, That project is on Katella, as well as on Harbor and on some other streets in the area. Given the fact Anaheim has that kind of capability for large events, it really helps to mitigate the issue of traffic at this site. On-site and off-site circulation is adequate to support the project. That's also considering the mitigation measure 22 (a). The project is compatible with the community aesthetics in terms of what they're looking for in that area of town. Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Pruett's comments, only with the addition she would like to see something written into the conditions that they would coordinate something with the Anaheim system. She would like to see a more pro- active involvement and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. She would like to require by condition that the developer be asked to specifically coordinate with whatever traffic monitoring systems are in place for large events. Her questions have been answered and she found the mitigation measure regarding the emergency services with the tank farms. It still remains a concern to her; however, she will put her trust in the Fire and Polio Departments'staff because they will review to see if any necessary changes to the City's emergency response and evacuation plan are needed. It also says the changes will be reviewed by the City of Orange Community Development Department. She will assume several people will look at this seriously; it's one of great concern, She didn't think they could be too cautious. Chairman Bosch was interested in coordinating traffic monitoring and put forth a potential condition, particularly given the developer's traffic engineer indicated it was in the best interest of the developer that they also manage traffic well and they will be having a vehicular control operating procedures manual relative to how their on-site personnel handles traffic flow on the site and help address exiting from the site. Perhaps suggest a condition 23 (a) "The developer shall be responsible for preparing a vehicular traffic control operating procedures manual. Said procedures to utilize available information with regard to coordinating significant traffic occurrences from adjacent major generators such as the Pond and stadium. Said procedure manual to be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and Police Department." The applicants concurred with the suggested condition. Commissioner Pruett's concern was that he would not want Orange to be subordinate to the City of Anaheim and their projects. There needs to be management of traffic, but Orange does not need to give up their operations and what they are doing just because Anaheim has an event. It's a matter of how it is managed and how it works. Chairman Bosch agreed; that was the intent. They have the information available, but Orange is not shutting down because Anaheim hasn't decided to appropriately coordinate their traffic issues with Orange. Commissioner Smith said the reason she brought this up was because she didn't want to see that happen. She wanted to have something in place that brings this around the table with Anaheim regarding the traffic as equal partners, 12- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 Commissioner Romero said in one regard he didn't see this as being positive for the City, but unfortunately their position, clearly from the land use, he didn't see it as a problem for the City. There is a problem throughout the City with strip centers. The number of theaters that appear to be built here and in such close proximity appear to be a potential problem for a few months or years down the road. He will give his support to the project from a land use position. Chairman Bosch was pleased with the way the developer has worked with the staff to arrive at a site plan for an allowed use that in its interface with adjacent property owners and with regard to public circulation and infrastructure really responds well to most of the Commission's concerns, other than the regional ones they can't control. It still reflects upon that through good traffic planning principles. He had an initial concern about parking regardless of the parking ordinance. He's assured though by the ratios, particularly tiith regard to the performance at the Spectrum and similar theater complexes that is the current rage throughout Southern California. He thought this was an appropriate site for this use and obviously that's why it relates to the existing zoning on the site; that these major impacts be clustered together, particularly where its toward the edge of the City and near major transportation corridors so it will hopefully reduce the impacts on the City. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the detailed design to help meet the concerns of adjacent property owners with regard to their access, as well as to inform them about the potentials they might look at for their properties and businesses in the years down the road as this and other uses that provide a transition from the heavy duty commercial recreation to the industrial areas and to the residential areas to the east continue to come into play along the Katella Corridor. He thought the findings they were required to make as a Planning Commission have been adequately represented and th.e environmental documentation with the great assistance of additional comments and responses received at this hearing. They're hopeful that given the land development standards and infrastructure that is in place, that this will be a positive benefit to the City of Orange and that any potential negative impacts have been met by the conditions for approval. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1497-96, and finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. FINDINGS: The City finds that the Negative Declaration for the "Century 25 Orange" project was completed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental duality Act and State CEOA Guidelines. The City has independently reviewed and considered the contents of the Initial Study. The City finds that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration identify all significant effects of_ the proposed "Century 25" project. The City finds that all significant effects of the project will be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels by mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are incorporated into a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). The MMP may be incorporated as a condition of approval for the project. City staff is directed to implement the MMP as approved. The City finds that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were available for public review and inspection in accordance with CE~A and the CE~A Guidelines. 13- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Major Site Plan Review 9-96, with conditions 1 - 30, adding condition 22 (a) "The developer will be responsible for contacting and working with Santa Fe Pacific Pipe- line Partners, L.P. to develop a mutually acceptable access plan from Main Street to serve both the theater site and the tank farm site, subject to review and written approval by the Director of Public Works."; and adding Mitigation Measure 2.1 (replacing the existing measure) - "Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare an overall Security Program for the project site. The Security Program may include but not be limited to the following: 1. Mobile, uniformed and licensed security guards; and/or 2. Stationary guards with audio/ visual equipment. The Security Program will address all structures, parking areas, and landscape areas on the project site. The Security Program will define the equipment necessary to assure a successful program. The Security Program will be approved by the City of Orange Police Department. Verification of compliance with this measure shall be the responsibility of the City of Orange Community Development Department."; and add condition 23 (a) "The developer shall be responsible for preparing a vehicular traffic control operating procedure manual, utilizing available information including coordination of information regarding significant traffic events such as at the Pond and Stadium, among other adjacent major uses. Said procedure manual to be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and Police Department." FINDINGS: The proposed project is sufficiently designed to avoid deterioration of neighboring office, commercial, and industrial developments, and is compatible with land use plans along the Katella Avenue corridor. Staff analysis verifies that the proposed project satisfies all applicable development standards for the Commercial Recreation district, and the project is consistent with community goals that were explicitly established with "A Vision Statement for the Katella Avenue Corridor." Access to the site is adequately planned through driveways on Katella and Main Street, and the applicant will provide adequate circulation between (and within the two parking lots that are proposed with this project. Staff Review Committee has evaluated the project and consulted local public utility companies to determine that adequate facilities and services are available for development of the project. The project is the first of its kind in the Commercial Recreation district and would become an architectural landmark that sets a tone for future development along the Katella Avenue corridor. The project exceeds the minimum standards for landscaping, and provides a comprehensive and integrated design theme that is appropriate for a project of this stale. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 14T Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2141-96; VARIANCE 2010-96 - UNOCAL A proposal to renovate the existing automotive service station which will include removal of the existing structure and construction of a new cashier/retail building, a self serve carwash tunnel, new gas pump islands/canopy structure and installation of new fuel dispensers. The site is located at 5344 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Delcaration 1493-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environ- mental impacts of this project. Mr. Jones reported the applicant had just given him an 8 1/2 x 11 copy of a revised cashier's area, which he will speak to. There was no opposition; the public hearing was opened. Applicant John Murphy, 7 Capobella, Irvine, believed the staff report was very comprehensive. Over a year ago the Commission approved a project, which is very similar to theirs at Lincoln and Tustin. This project does not have a full size food mart. The project meets the intent of the City's General Plan, its goals and objectives, and its policies. They have also met the intent of the City'z zoning ordinance and develop- ment standards in reference to service stations. In reference to the conditions of approval, they are in agreement with them. He also suggested two more conditions and asked for a minor modification to one of the conditions. He suggested a condition to read: "The applicant shall construct a 6 foot high masonry block wall along the southwest property line." The existing station right now has a small snack shop, approximately 300 square feet. He asked for another condition: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for approval a revised floor plan for the snack shop." They're only talking about 100 square feet. The condition he would like to modify is on Page 6 of the staff report. It is condition 8. A. He would like to delete tightening the radius of the curves on car wash approaches to provide more landscape area. They're providing over 3,000 square feet of landscapinn,. The site plan is functional and they feel there is adequate landscaping. They would like to keep the radiuses as they are designed; it's a standard for the entrance to the car wash. It was- his understanding in reference to the right-of-ways, they will be "reservations" for the applicant as opposed to dedications. He thanked staff for their help and cooperation, Commissioner Romero had a concern with another car wash, i~Thy build another car wash in the area? Mike Shay, 2955 Champion iaay, Tustin, was the manager of ProWash Operations for Unocal. This site is an old site with a very old building. They're trying to remodel :bhe old buildings and bring them up to current standards. They are also wanting to bring in more uses for the customers. They were trying to provide the uses for the existing customers based on surveys they have conducted throughout the state. Commissioner Romero asked what decibel noise is the car wash expected to generate? 15- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 Mr. Shay responded the loudest piece of equipment in a car wash is the blower or the dryer. It is oriented towards the exit end of the tunnel, facing Chapman. It generates 84 decibels at the source. The blower is approximately three feet inside the exit end of the tunnel. It is the quietest blower on the market and on top of that, they put a silencer on the blower. By the time the noise reaches Chapman, they're confident the decibel level will be no louder than the traffic. Commissioner Pruett asked if deleting the radiuses were a big concern? Mr. Shay said it was for them. If they were taking the car from the customer and putting it on the conveyor, they could do that. But in this case, the customers put the cars on the conveyor with the employees' help. They need to give the customer as much room as possible to negotiate that turn. That's why that radius is rather wide. It makes it easier on the customer to see where the conveyor is and also easier for the longer vehicles to make the wide turn to line up with the conveyor. Public Comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, supported this project. Some of them have been trying for a long time to do something about the clutter on East Chapman. This intersection is so busy no one will notice the noise from the car wash. Visually, this is an improvement. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, thought this was a beautiful project and it should be approved. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch said this was inkind replacement, except that it provides for a reservation for ultimate right-of-way, which is a benefit in off setting other impacts of the site along the way. He concurred, too, with the sound conditions at the intersection. One cannot differentiate the sound of the uses at the corners - the general traffic noise passing through the intersection - because of the configuration of the hill. The operators of these car washes have gotten the noise level of the equipment down to a point that at the property line the noise does not exceed the City noise reouirements. Since in this case the residential impact is not immediately adjacent to the west and even the office use is shielded by the wall of the building, including an escape wall to control the sound at the exit of the structure. That potential impact is well addressed. Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1493-96 finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOZtION CARRIED 16- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem with the applicant's two requests. There was also the request that another condition be added prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised floor plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director. That would be condition 10. Commissioner Smith agreed with the plans and respects the applicant's willingness to add two conditions to the project. She did not have a problem with deleting the one condition regarding the driveway radius. Commissioner Romero was not too enthused about the project. There are quite a few car washes on the street to begin with. The plans do show a very nice looking facility. They have mitigated the noise concerns so he's willing to support it. Chairman Bosch did not have a problem with the project; it would be a great improve- ment for this corner. He had no problems at all with the proposal with the additional conditions requested by the applicant. Commissioner Pruett thought the project was compatible with the principles of the land use and services required by the community, that being a gas facility that has a car wash convenience associated with it. He didn't see it causing any deterioration of bordering land uses; it's improving the use and reducing the noise factor. It was compatible with the community and the neighborhood plans for the area and it should be subject to the conditions that have been outlined in the staff report, conditions 1-10, and deleting condition 8 (a). Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2141-96 with conditions 1-10, deleting condition 8 (a) and approve Variance 2010-96. The variance is with landscape setback on the property line and its occasioned by the widening of the street with regard to the critical inter- section. It's clearly a circumstance that is not caused by the applicant, but reflects given the reservation they are making for the future street widening. It's a condition that doesn't constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and there are special circumstances applicable to the property. To wit, the potential widening of Chapman Avenue through the approved traffic circulation plan for the City of Orange, which without the variance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2144-96 - TOM PORTER A proposal to convert the vacant 'Sunkist Exchange" office building into a mixed use project consisting of retail (Fine Arts Gallery) with a small residential unit within the existing building. The site is located at 195 South Glassell Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(c). 17- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 The staff report was presented by Mr. Jones as there was opposition regarding this item. The Sunkist Building is typical of many structures in the Plaza Historic District in that it covers nearly the entire site. It is unique in that it is the only Plaza building that is setback from a front property line to accommodate a 20 foot deep front yard. The proposed art gallery plans to operate on a daily basis for approximately six hours, with several special evening exhibits throughout the year. Management of the gallery is intended to be a 1-person operation. Specifically, the proposal is to convert 455 square feet of the existing 3,045 square feet existing office space into a one-bedroom residential unit, to convert 1,572 square feet of office space into retail use for the art gallery, and two existing offices for gallery office uses. They also want to retain an existing vault for storage purposes and install a new wrought iron fence with ornate pilasters around the front property line, and provide an entry ramp at the rear of the building to meet ADA and Title 24 building regulations. Office and retail uses are allowed in the Plaza District. The conditional use permit is for the mixed use, residential nature of the proposal. The Sunkist Building was constructed in 1922 without on-site parking, and thus, is a legal non-conforming use under the existing code. It relies upon the public parking lots and on street parking to meet its employee/employer and customer needs. Since the prior office use and the newly proposed mixed use requires the same amount of parking, no parking variance is required since there is no additional impact. The Design Review Board reviewed this project and has added one condition requiring wrought iron rather than tube steel fencing. In summary, staff feels the combination of an art gallery and residential use should have a positive impact on the downtown by encouraging pedestrian traffic and revitalizing an important downtown historic building. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom Porter, 2440-A North Glassell Street, was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Smith noticed Mr. Porter only asked for six hours a day for his business to be open. She wondered why so few hours? Mr. Porter said he will be operating the gallery on his own and has commitments to another business in Orange as well. Commissioner Smith thought it was rather limiting to receive a permit that only allows a business to be open six hours a day. This is a busy commercial area; she encouraged him to have longer business hours. She also wondered about his intention to add residential space to this nice building, which has never had a residence. Mr. Porter believed it would be a real asset for him to be on the site, from a security standpoint and availability standpoint. It's a kind of business that lends itself to appointments and meetings. Commissioner Smith asked if he were in agreement with the DRB's request for wrought iron fencing rather than tubular steel? Mr. Porter replied yes. He was interested in the historical aspects of the building. 18- Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor April 15, 1996 Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, didn't think Orange had an art gallery downtown. It would be an asset to the community. A landlord would be on site and would know what is going on. Those speaking in opposition Ann Seibert, 340 South Olive, spoke as President of Old Towne Preservation Association. They're not against the project; just part of it. They were concerned about the residential use on the first floor of the building. She knew there were mixed uses in the downtown area, but the residential uses were on the second floor. It would set a precedent to have on-site living right along side a business on the first floor. It takes up valuable commercial space as it is proposed; she thought it could be used in a different manner. Another concern, down the road, if the building changes ownership, what happens? Will it convert to a residential use? ?dill a precedent be set for more residential to come in under a business-commercial use? Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, was not in opposition, but had questions. On Page 2, it says existing uses - no parking provided. The proposed uses - no parking provided, but 15 spaces are required. Was this true? Chairman Bosch explained this proposal has no greater impact on either required or provided parking than the existing use. Ms. DeNiro continued on Page 3, a review of current parking demand for the Plaza shows that parking demand is down at this time. She saw they just eliminated 12 parking spots in the parking lot behind Army-Navy. Chairman Bosch replied the lot is being redeveloped by Public Works and in addition to solving the trash control and access problems, it has a net increase of about 17 spaces when the construction is finished. Ms. DeNiro noticed on Page 5 it talks about the TSIP, fire and police facility fees, sanitation fees, school district fees, and water main connection fee -- is that common to place that on the Staff Agenda for all the other applications? Chairman Bosch referred to the top of Page 5 and it states that they are code provisions applicable to the project -- they're not conditions for the project. They are required by other portions of the City's ordinance and their applicability is judged based upon the proposed use and any change from current uses for the site. Rebuttal Mr. Porter mentioned the application for occupany (a small portion of the building), it is intended for one person. The building to the immediate north is a residential building, consisting of 8 units. And there is occupancy on the ground floor in that building. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett spoke about the issue of setting a precedent for this type of use. How would that affect future use? Regarding the hours of operation, in approving this project, would they be limiting the hours of operation? He didn't think the 19- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 hours were stipulated as a condition of approval. Mr. Jones said the conditional use permit would run with the site. If a new indivi- dual were to occupy the site, they would have the ability to have the one residential unit. It goes with the site. The conditional use permit is for the mixed use residential nature of the project. What the Commission is considering is a mixture of office, gallery, retail and residential use. If the use were to come back that did not require discretionary action - it was a permitted use - they could change the use to the permitted use. If they wanted to add a second residential unit, they would need to come back to the Commission. Regarding hours of operation, if the condition is not listed stating the actual hours of operation, the City would not enforce an intent that was stated in the staff report that does not apply to other merchants in the downtown area. Other shops have the ability to be open until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Soo-Hoo said that was consistent with his interpretation of the report. That the hours were stated for informational purposes only as far as the applicant's intent at this time. It was not intended to restrict his hours of operation. Commissioner Pruett did not want to put a condition on the hours of operation and he didn't think Commissioner Smith did either. Commissioner Smith thought this was a lovely building in the Plaza Historic District. She was very much in favor of the commercial use of this property. An art gallery is a missing component in the downtown area. However, she was not in favor of the residential use. She went over the findings to clarify why she was not in favor of the residential use. She was generally in favor of mixed residential use with the commercial use in the downtown area -- what she's not in favor of is the residential use on the ground floor. One of the required findings for a CUP is that it is based on sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. She believed that good land use of this particular property would be to use it to the maximum benefit of commercial and retail use. Given the fact there is a greater demand in the downtown area for commercial square footage than for residential given it is in the center of a residential area. The second finding required fora CUP is that it may cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. She thought that would be somewhat of a problem given the location of the building. It's on a corner, behind a restaurant and across the street from a church, and in a very heavy pedestrian area. The compromise is to the actual resident of the living unit, because the residential part isn't pushed to the private part of the building. It's on the public corner of the building, which also has an alley behind it. The third finding required for a CUP is that it must be considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located. She re-iterated it takes that valuable retail space and adds a residential space of which there is alot already in the area. It doesn't support in a positive way the downtown plan for economic growth and rental of commercial space. The fourth required finding is that the CUP should benefit the community; not the individual welfare of the applicant. In this case, it would definitely benefit the individual applicant, but it compromises a historic building, it compromises commercial use for the community, it puts limits on the amount of square footage in the downtown area for commercial use and she believed it was an inappropriate compromise of the building use. 20- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 She didn't think it was a good spot for a residence for a person. It's noisy, there is a 4-way stop at that corner, it's behind a restaurant which is going to continue to get busier. The windows front on a public street. It's in very close proximity to the general public. The privacy of the resident would be compromised, especially by the presence of the alley, which has a speed bump so that people can't race down the alley. If a second story were proposed for this building - not an addiiton - but if it were a 2-story building asking for residential use, she wouldn't have a problem with it. At the same time, she wanted to say there are a couple of pieces in the code provisions she would like to see conditioned. That is, on Page 5, towards the end of the code provisions, it calls out that existing hardware and lighting shall comply with, or be upgraded to comply with current building security standards. She would like to see that conditioned or an appreciation be made by staff and willingness to call forth the Historic Building Code so that any hardware and lighting would be upgraded to be appropriate to the design and vintage of the building, while meeting the safety standards of the City. There are many times improvement is made on old buildings to meet the current code, but it really compromises the design aspects of the building. The next bullet does the same thing. This was her most unfavorite of the illuminated building addresses, which look exactly like they came out of the hardware store and stuck on the front of the vintage building. It could be done much more sensitively to compliment the building. If this were to go forth for approval, she would like to see it be conditioned that those two bullets regarding the hardware, lighting and illuminated building address be in conjunction with the Historic Building Code and appropriate to the building's design and vintage. Commissioner Romero personally liked the application and the idea of an art center. He didn't see how it would negatively affect Old Towne by having such a small residential area on the first floor. Art, in general, is not a very high income generating type of retail use, Therefore, by providing a residential area, along with a small display area, it would be advantageous and desirable for the applicant. It retains all the architectural designs that Old Towne wants to keep in the area. It will attract people with regards to the facility itself. Chairman Bosch thought a couple of key factors came into play in support for the project. He shared concerns about the introduction of a residential unit in the building. It isn't detracting from the retail space potential of Old Towne since this building since from its construction in 1922 has not been a retail building. Rather, it has been a regional serving office building. He thought they were gaining some retail space in the majority of the building. The living unit is the sole purpose for the application being before the Commission, as well as the translation of office space to retail space could be a component of looking at parking and other impacts. He saw it as a very secondary accessory use. He didn't know how it would function as a full-time residence. It would be wonderful if the building had a mezzanine or a second floor to place this very small accessory use on, but it doesn't. He appreciated the great addition to the community to have a retail art sales and gallery representing fine arts on the site and the preservation of the building. It's worth making some allowances, His concern is with the usual things about how CUP's carry on with the property and not with the current user. He looked to the City Attorney to see if they could have a condition that does in fact relate, because of the findings necessary, that the proposed residential accessory use is part and parcel of their findings of appropriateness only with regard to support of an art gallery and retail art sales on the property. If this turns into another use, because they allowed retail 21- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 use now, they're not stuck with something that then might not be appropriate because it doesn't relate to a proper support of a business. TJhat tool is there to assist in this regard? Mr. Soo-Hoo thought the concept is defensible because of the compatibility issue between the proposed residential use and the art gallery use. Perhaps a condition that would require a deed restriction would accomplish this purpose. The deed restriction was important because in the event the property was sold, it would be incumbent upon the City to provide notice to any subsequent property owners. Chairman Bosch looked to the applicant to see if they concurred with placing a deed restriction on the property? Mr. Porter asked the City Attorney about the deed restriction. Would it be recorded with the City? Mr. Soo-Hoo said it would be an agreement - a restriction on the owner's title - that would be recorded with the County Recorder's office, It would be a matter of public record and people would be notified that upon the termination of the art gallery use, the residential use would automatically be terminated as well. Chairman Bosch said it would have to come back to the City for action to change the use and change the relationship in the future. Mr. Porter agreed to a deed restriction. Chairman Bosch thought it would be appropriate to add a condition that stated something to the effect that any exterior lighting, including address and hardware upgrade, should be of a design appropriate to the design of the building. Also, place a condition that states hours of operation shall not be limited by this approval. Commissioner Smith said one of her concerns was addressed by the deed restriction. She was concerned this would set a precedent for a deludge of other applications for .residential uses in the commercial area. They know there is residential down- town and she thought it would be fascinating to live in the Flats or one of the places over Orange National Bank. A deed restriction is a strict component for the property and she sees it as an appropriate use for an art gallery. She was more comfortable with the deed restriction and appreciates Mr. Porter's willingness to accept that. Commissioner Pruett thought the mixed use was granted on sound land use principles and in response to services required by the community. A gallery is an appropriate use and it's an exciting use for the downtown area. With the deed restriction as proposed, it will satisfy some of the concerns on that issue. The project, in being granted, will not cause a deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems in the area. With that kind of mixed use, it may bring some benefit to the area. The general welfare will be preserved; not the individual welfare of the particular applicant, even though a deed restriction has been suggested. It does not set a precedent. 22- Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1996 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2144-96 subject to conditions 1-5, adding condition 3 - the hours of operation shall not be limited by this approval; condition 4 - the single occupancy accessory residential use is found to be appropriate solely with regard to the major use of the property as an art gallery and retail art sales, and the applicant shall record a deed restriction with the County Recorder with language subject to the approval of the City Attorney; and condition 5 - exterior lighting, address and hardware upgrades shall be of a design appropriate to the design of the building. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Barbara DeNiro, 111$ East Adams, asked Dan Ryan a question, but he couldn't give her an answer. Can anyone tell her-(regarding Citrus City Grille)-they applied for a CUP on one piece of property and apparently they didn't use it. They moved to another piece of property. How .many times can a person do this? Chairman Bosch responded as many times as a person wants. The CUP is judged based on the property and the proposed potential for that property, without regard to who the applicant is. Ms. DeNiro asked if the previous one could be used by someone else? (Yes.) She keeps asking what is happening to the Mall of Orange and Mr. Bennyhoff keeps telling everyone what is going on. She keeps reading ?dal Mart is going to go in where the Broadway was. Chairman Bosch said there have been various propsoals (submitted on an informal basis) submitted to the Planning staff for review. He didn't know if there was anything at the formal stage to report on. Mr. Jones said a few weeks ago the Staff Review Committee reviewed a new Wal Mart building to replace the Broadway. That was a preliminary plan and they haven't heard anything more about it. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, reported Harry Newman called Dave Rudat in the afternoon and said he wanted to talk about a very important announcement. Mr. Bennyhoff didn't know what it was. He doubted if Harry would call to say nothing. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to a joint study session on April 16, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. with the City Council to review the Capital Improvement plan. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith. NOES: None M(?TION CARRIED sld 23-