Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith ABSENT:Commissioners Cathcart, Walters STAFF PRESENT:John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 2. 1994 May 16, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the Minutes of May 2, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart, Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING VARIANCE 1968-94 -ICI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY A request for a reduction of parking and landscape requirements in conjunction with a 16,000 square foot expansion of an existing supermarket (Lucky Store). Subject property is located at 2512-2642 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1455-94 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Godlewski summarized the staff report as there was opposition to this project. The applicant is proposing to embark on a major addition to the shopping center in the way of a 16,000 square foot addition to the Lucky Store. The property has on it a historic tree, which has gone before the City Council for review to determine whether the tree could be removed or moved. It was the Council's decision the tree should be moved. In doing so, the applicant has designed his parking layout in order to accommodate the relocated tree. In relocating the tree it was found there was a requirement for a reduced number of parking stalls. The applicant has submitted an extensive report that indicates the parking demands on a center of this size and was of the opinion there would be adequate parking on site with the reduction as proposed. The applicant is also proposing a reduction in some of the parking stalls to what use to be called a "compact stall". It is now called a "urnversal stall", which would reduce about 9% of the parking stalls from 18 feet to 16 feet in length. Additionally, there is a request for some consideration for the landscape reduction in actual area devoted to the landscaping within the parking area. Listed in the staff report are a number of findings required for the variance and discussion on the evaluation of the project itself. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1994 A~nlicant Scott Bell, partner with ICI Development Company, 1 Charlotte, Irvine, said they came to the City Council a year ago and requested the tree be relocated to expand the Lucky Store. The store, in its current configuration, is not economic and they were considering relocating or closing the store. Because of the positive direction the City Council gave Lucky, they began working with ICI (the landlord) to establish plans to relocate the tree and expand the shopping center. Additionally, they have spent many hours with the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. They have had experts examine the feasibility of moving the tree. The Tree Committee gave them direction on where they would like to see the tree relocated. It was suggested they might want to do something special to create some synergy between the tree and shopping center. They have attempted to do that with their elevations. They have worked out a plan that accommodates the relocation of the tree, the expansion of the shopping center, the dedication of a bus turnout and the ultimate renovation of a shopping center. Their traffic engineer, tree expert and architect were present to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Pruett questioned the access to the loading area in the back. In looking at the original plans there was no parking on the east side of the property. The new parking configuration has stalls. Will that be sufficient for a delivery truck to negotiate that corner? Mr. Bell stated there was sufficient room for the trucks to turn, and the Planning staff spent considerable time looking at that very issue. Those speaking in opposition Nick Di'Meeko was the managing partner of LDC Enterprises, which is the shopping center directly to the east of the Lucky Store. Fie was not quite in opposition; he believed Lucky needed to expand according to present day competition. But the existing restaurant is level to the back to the present building line facing Chapman Avenue. If Lucky expands 70 feet or more towards Chapman, there will be a visibility problem. They lined that center up with the present front store of Lucky in 1978. He wondered if they could build to the west or if something could be done to help solve a potential visibility problem. Dolly Windsor, 139 Wheeler, wanted clarification about the trucks getting in and out of the shopping center. When the trucks exit the parking lot now they come through the median to go west. She spoke with Bernie Dennis who said there may be chance of closing that to alleviate the problem of U-turns and people using Wheeler, which is a residential street and should not be having to take the overflow of commercial traffic. She asked how the trucks were going to get in and out of the center if the median were closed? She also would like to know about the reduced landscaping -- what will they be taking away? Rebuttal Mr. Bell understood the visibility concern. They were about 60 to 70 feet off the property line from where the new building will be expanded. Hopefully by relocating the tree that will help the visibility. With respect to truck access, trucks can enter in either direction from Yorba or Chapman. Currently, they come in off of Yorba and they exit onto Chapman. The median will not prevent trucks from exiting that way. They've spent quite a bit of time with Lucky trying to lay out their various departments and the configuration that works for them is what is being proposed. This footprint fits Lucky's prototype; it's hard to change them around. There is a very large setback from the property line now and he can't visualize how that would materially affect visibility. Commissioner Smith felt a smaller building would accommodate meeting the traffic and parking requirements, as well as the landscape requirement. A 14,000 square foot addition seemed to be rather large, especially when it is requiring a reduction in parking and landscaping. Was there any consideration given to a smaller building addition? Mr. Bell responded yes, but Lucky's marketing requirements were such they needed 14,000 square feet. If they couldn't get the addition, then they would relocate. Commissioner Smith wanted to know when the tree would be relocated? Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1994 Mr. Bell said they would relocate the tree at the best time for the tree, according to their tree expert. The Tree Committee was still in place and were overseeing their activities. He was not opposed to a condition stating a specific month to relocate the tree. Commissioner Pruett asked if there were a time table attached to the plan presented to the City Council on June 8, 1993? Mr. Bell said there was no time table, but he was open to one. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch said he not only looked at the direct application of the parking requirements in the zoning ordinance, but also at the specific layout and intent for use of the buildings. The applicant has produced a parking and circulation analysis. He looked at the parking not just with regard to the impacts upon parking by the critical intersection improvements necessary on site, and by the retention of the landmark tree wF~ich he thought had been handled without any major affect on parking. But more importantly with regard to the analysis of what the typical parking demand is for this size and type of use. It appears the market trend is moving towards larger stores with a broader range of products that are causing existing shoppers to buy more in a wider range of goods. It helps him understand how they could have such a reduction in parking and still have the overall lot meet the needs if the flow is adequate on the lot. He shared the concern of the setbacks and the vision back to the existing restaurant and buildings next door, but the application is within the setback requirements allowed. He didn't see that as a restraint upon what is being requested. The key issue is whether or not the parking proposed with the reduction requested is still adequate to support the need the owner has put forth and whether that reduction causes any untoward impacts upon adjacent properties in terms of parking overload or causes safety problems in accessing or egressing the site. Commissioner Smith was concerned with the size of the building and the reduction in the parking spaces. She was troubled overall throughout the City of building shopping centers without adequate parking. She was concerned about approving a project that comes in with 56 fewer parking spaces than what is required. She appreciated the reduction for the landscape requirements through the landscape enhancement. She was also concerned about the dwarfing of the other buildings in the shopping center on the south side, and was not quite sure what to do about this application. Commissioner Pruett said the parking issue is a concern, but at the same time he thought the way the store is being designed, there will be a large amount of space without attracting any more shoppers than you have with the existing store. Most of the stores today have wider aisles, and a variety of different products, the bakery, etc. He didn't know if the parking would be the problem that it might be with other uses of the same size. His concern was whether the delivery trucks could get in and out, but that issue has been dealt with. Chairman Bosch thought the building was an attractive improvement over the existing. It was a well designed center, but it has aged. It will be an attractive addition to the community to help continue the improvements on East Chapman. Commissioner Smith also had a concern about the tree being moved at a time of year that may not be conducive to moving trees. Chairman Bosch suggested adding verbiage to condition 1 (after Community Services Landscape Coordinator), based upon a relocation schedule established and approved by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. On Page 2 of the staff report, as it refers to dedication and improvement in the public right- of-way and Condition 7, with regard primarily to the bus bay that in fact, because of the TSIP fee, which the applicant must also contribute, is intended to provide for those improvements, that the dedication is required of the applicant, but the improvements are not. The improvements are to be undertaken by the City. Condition 7 should have the words "and improvements" eliminated. Condition 8 speaks to elimination of the non-conforming Lucky's sign. He understood there was not a direct correlation between the project and the sign itself in terms of the action before the Commission, but in the documents submitted in support of the variance application some signage plans. He would like to see Condition 8 replaced with one that indicates that: "signage plans shall be submitted for separate action by the Design Review Board and are not part of this approval." Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Negative Declaration 1455-94 in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Walters MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Variance 1968-94 with conditions 1-10, and the additions/modifications to conditions 1, 7 and 8 as noted in the previous discussion. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM Mr. Godlewski brought forth a request from Mr. Barry Cottle, who requested that an upholstery business be considered by conditional use permit in the C-1 zone. There are provisions in the Orange Municipal Code that states that any commercial use, which is in the opinion of the Planning Commission, similar in character and not more detrimental to the uses enumerated in the C-1 zone, if it is not listed there, can be considered by conditional use permit. If the Commission chooses to agree with the request that an upholstery shop (not including auto upholstery) could be located in the C-1 zone, then it would give the applicant permission to come back at a later date with a conditional use permit to see if the details of the particular application warrant approval of the use in that shopping center. A letter of the request was provided to the Commission, along with the C-1 zone uses. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated since this item was not listed on the Agenda, the Brown Act would require an unanimous finding by the Planning Commission that there is an immediate need to take action on the item, and a finding that the need for action came to the attention of the Planning Commission subsequent to the Agenda being posted. Chairman Bosch said the item came to the Commission's attention subsequent to the Agenda being posted. Is there a need to take immediate action? Mr. Godlewski spoke with the applicant earlier and he expressed his desire that this item be considered because he does have a tenant that he would like to have occupy a portion of the building. And, if he needs to apply for a conditional use permit, it will take him 2 1/2 months to get the process done. He would like to move this ahead as fast as possible; that is his point of urgency so that he can get the tenant located and rent his building out. Mr. Soo-Hoo and Mr. Godlewski spoke during the afternoon and it was indicated there was a threat that the property owner might lose the tenant if the action didn't occur immediately. Commissioner Smith would be happy to consider the request under the circumstances of economic hardship. Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem with it. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith there was a need to take immediate action based upon the economic hardship, and the need for action came subsequent to the Agenda being posted. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Walters MOTION CARRIED Mr. Godlewski read from the C-1 limited business district zone, Section 1742. There was a section under Uses Permitted that relates to all retail stores and included in that list are uses such as appliance stores, shoe stores, and tailor shops that would probably most similarly equate to the type of use that is proposed by the applicant. There is no intent for this to be an auto repair business. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to direct staff to inform the applicant he could apply for a conditional use permit to determine whether the Commission believes the use is appropriate for the site. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to the May 31 joint study session with City Council to discuss the Capital Improvement Program and Affordable Housing at 4:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Walters The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. sld MOTION CARRIED 5