Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission June 1,1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy ABSENT: Commissioner Smith STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 18.1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of May 18, 1992 with the following corrections: Page 4, last paragraph -the speaker's name was spelled Bredehoft; and Page 6, second paragraph, second sentence - "It's not an over powering number of units for the site." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Alvarez did not vote. IN RE: ELECTION OF NEW VICE-CHAIRMAN Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to appoint Commissioner Murphy as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-92 - CffY OF ORANGE June 1, 1992 A proposed amendment to those sections of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code) adding mobile food vending carts to the listing of allowable uses in the C-1, C-TR, and M-1 zones and/or other districts considered appropriate by the Planning Commission. NOTE This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This item was continued from the May 4, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.) Mr. Godlewski said the Commission requested more information be brought back to them. Staff provided additional information, including the revised ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to re-open the public hearing to hear additional public testimony regarding Ordinance Amendment 2-92. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED The reading of the staff report was waived. Applicant Ed Dart, 1011 West Taft, represented The Hot Dogger. He drew the Commission's attention to the recommended ordinance amendment, which he inserted. There is a question about the different zones. They're concerned that the site be a commercial or office property where there is 300 feet of clearance from the street -- that narrows it down to about five properties in the City (Home Depot, The Mall, Union Bank Plaza, K-Mart, and Target). 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 Those speaking in favor Tim Perlick, 501 West Maple, represents the Snack Man. He agreed with Mr. Dart to protect the City, but the City should consider expanding the ordinance to include other push carts. He's an ice cream push cart guy. Push carts currently operate in the City. He thinks a high quality of standard can be maintained by requiring licensing fees. He suggested looking at the County's proposal and what they use for the parks. The use of permits would also increase the enforcement of push carts by self-policing. Those speaking in opposition Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said this is precisely what they have been afraid of with The Hog Dogger. He told the Commission to talk to Anaheim or Santa Ana about push carts. He doesn't believe the residents of Orange are ready for push carts. Once this is started, there is no way to stop it. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch had several concerns in the wording of the ordinance. He felt that control by location on property and relative to zoning is important. The ordinance, as proposed by staff, calls for C-1, C-TR and M-1 zones. That covers the major employment centers in the City and that is an appropriate way of putting it. But he has concern with distances. Three hundred feet minimum is proposed from a public street or sidewalk, and 200 feet minimum from any church, school or park. The 200 feet should apply to distance from residentially zoned property as well. If the City is to consider this ordinance, approval from the Orange County Health Department should be obtained prior to submittal for consideration of the C.U.P. so there are no mixed signals in terms of looking at a potential site or vending cart related issue that has not demonstrated a license ability at the County. Design Review Board approval should be received prior to consideration of approval of the C.U.P. rather than prior to commencement of business in order that the bodies considering the C.U.P. can have all the information before them to understand the full extent of the application. He struggled with the concept of 30 feet of display area for the sign on such a small device. There appears to be a typo on Item 3, second line, within" -- he presumes the word is "with" the cart at a fixed location. 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 His key concerns are the relationship to residential zones, and being able to spot, find and control these carts. It's a shame to have to consider requiring a C.U.P., but the C.U.P. and fixed location appears to be the only way the City can assure the standards will be met for health and safety. Mr. Godlewski asked if the conditional use permit were a suggestion because the ordinance, as proposed, does not require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Bosch was leaning towards requiring a C.U.P. even though he understood that will be an imposition on the public hearing process. He's concerned about demonstrating no impact upon the rights of established businesses and yet recognizing the right of commercial enterprise that the cart may allow. Commissioner Murphy asked if there were truly only five pieces of property in Orange that will meet the requirements of zoning and setbacks? Mr. Godlewski responded staff has not done aparcel-by-parcel survey; however, with the requirement of 300 feet, they anticipate it will be a relatively low number of parcels. Chairman Cathcart asked where in the ordinance would the need for a conditional use permit be inserted? Mr. Godlewski said it would be inserted in the first section of the ordinance where it said "permitted uses". The title would be changed to conditionally permitted uses". The numbers would then be changed to reflect the uses requiring a conditional use permit section. Commissioner Alvarez referred to item 3 and asked about the office- professional zone. ~ ' Mr. Godlewski said it was an inconsistency that needs to be corrected. The C-1 zone and C-TR zone are commercial sections; the M-1 zone is an industrial section. If the Commission wanted to add Office- Professional, as per Mr. Dart's request, or expand the industrial zone, then that part of the ordinance would need to be amended. The zoning would not be changed. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 Commissioner Alvarez referred to items 6 and 13 in terms of enforcement. It seemed like Orange was asking the County to generate a report on the acceptability of the proposal, but then also asking Code Enforcement to step forward in order to make sure the agreements are followed. Mr. Godlewski said the County Health Department currently will review all of these types of push carts. That is part of their responsibility; staff is asking for them to forward their report before the use is approved. Code Enforcement in the City of Orange is actively searching out push cart type uses and confiscating the carts. Commissioner Alvarez had a problem with the M-1 zoning, which would include all of M-1 zoning. One group that hasn't been addressed is the large lunch trucks; it seems like they will be infringed upon with the M-1 zoning. It would make sense to him to withdraw the M-1 zoning and add Office-Professional, He would also like to see the property owner be the policing agent rather than the County or Code Enforcement. Commissioner Murphy said at the previous meeting there was discussion about using the word transportable hot dog vending cart rather than just hot dog vending cart. He thought that should be put back in. Mr. Godlewski included at the back of their packets the County of Orange regulations. Their title for this is specifically hot dog cart. That's why staff titled it that way (to be consistent with County regulations). Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to adopt Ordinance Amendment 2-92 as presented by staff with the following changes: To amend the second paragraph to add the 0-P zone to the sections and zones listed; to entitle this for conditionally permitted uses with an adjustment of the appropriate paragraph numbers; in standards, item 3, to add industrial zone to the properties and remove the typo within; and require a 200 foot minimum distance from residentially zoned properties; in standards, item 6, require the Orange County Health Department report prior to submittal for consideration of the conditional use permit; in standards, item 12, approval of the Design Review Board shall be received prior to consideration for approval of conditional use permit. 5 Planning Commission Minutes AYES:Commissioners Bosch, NOES:Commissioner Alvarez ABSENT:Commissioner Smith IN RE: NEW HEARING Cathcart, Murphy June 1, 1992 MOTION CARRIED MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMff 1939-91 - GRADY HANSHAW A request to revise a previously approved site plan for the construction and operation of an automatic car wash facility in the C-1 (Limited Business) District. Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Main Street. NOTE In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Negative Declaration 1395-91 has been prepared for this project. The full reading the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Grady Hanshaw, 9711 Crestview Circle, Villa Park, took another look at their site plan and dug into the project. They hired a traffic engineer and solicited the input from Exxon Corporation. They've also had several meetings with Chuck Glass, Chris Carnes, Frank Page and Bernie Dennis. Everyone has helped them to formulate a new site plan. He quoted from Page 3 of the staff report: "The applicant's reasons for proposing the revised site plan is to improve on-site circulation by moving the drying area away from the driveway entrance on Katella Avenue, and to encourage additional gas sales by having a separate gas pump for customers who want to only purchase gas." They have read the staff report and agree with the conditions with a couple of changes and corrections. Condition 18 -- will there be a credit given towards the TSIP fees against the funds he will be spending for improvement and widening of the public street and right-of-way? Condition 23 -- he believes there was a typo; the words "Do Not Exit" should be replaced with "Do Not Enter". Condition 25 -- he requested this condition be eliminated or modified to state that the requirement become effective with the construction of the future median in the center of Main Street. 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 Commissioner Alvarez asked Mr. Hanshaw about his feeling on the easement that goes through the southern part of the property. Has the traffic been monitored at the easement? Mr. Hanshaw stated they are having to live with it. They've designed the site so that they will be able to deal with their neighbors; the neighbors benefit from that. He believes they benefit from the existing easement on the neighbors' property that goes the other way. Mr. Hanshaw has monitored the traffic at the easement. The people who use it, eat at Spires. The traffic is very limited. Those speaking in favor Richard Finkel, architectural firm of Bundy-Finkel, 20371 Irvine Avenue, Suite 265, Santa Ana, thought the staff report summed up why they modified the site. There were some circulation problems on the original site plan. They feel the new site plan more than rectifies the problems. The building has not changed significantly; it was very well received at the Design Review Board. The project will provide much less congestion, not only on-site, but cars off site, because they separated the functions. They have come to an arrangement of driveways and the in/out access functions very well as far as the limitations of the site are concerned. The driveway off of Katella, as it functions now, is their only means of allowing a gas truck to come on site, service it and exit from the site. Commissioner Bosch said they had a large plan dated May 1 and in the booklet, dated March 16, there is a site plan that is slightly different in one aspect relative to the dimension of the gas island. There's a 20 foot aisle shown before the first gas pump whereas on the later plan there is a 15 foot aisle. He's concerned about the clearance to the parking spaces adjacent to the entrance to the mini-mart. Have they studied vehicle movement around that parking space into that gas island to make sure there is safe and legal clearance? Mr. Finkel responded they have studied it, not only from the standpoint of actual car dimensions, but with respect to how cars will be using those parking spaces adjacent to the building. That is something that staff reviewed and they were in agreement with them that there would not be a significant problem posed by that. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 Commissioner Bosch asked staff to make a particular note for site plan review in the building division to assure that there is adequate clearance there. Mr. Finkel said they considered proposing elimination of the parking stall closest to the pump island, which would reduce their on-site parking from 19 to 18 stalls. Todd Chavers, Senior Project Manager and Associate with Kimley-Horn Associates, 2100 West Orangewood, Suite 140, was brought on board following the hearing on the last site plan and was asked to look into some of the issues raised by the Commission and staff. He was asked to look at the internal activities. It was obvious there were a lot of paths that were crossing. It was somewhat of a confusing site and provided the opportunity for a lot of conflicts. They looked at the previous site plan in terms of bringing in large trucks to service the gas pumps. They found you couldn't get a large truck in without either having to back it out onto the street to remove it or pull past driveway and back in and then pull out. Neither of them were acceptable movements for Main Street. They helped to redefine the internal circulation and find some access. He showed some exhibits regarding circulation. It was important that the large trucks be able to enter from Katella. They can't get trucks in and out of the single driveway if you didn't have anything on Katella. The conflicts are with the gas pumps and the width of the driveway. This particular pattern is extremely necessary for the welfare of the site. The only other issue would be the restriction of exit moves on Main Street. There is no operational reason to preclude a left turn out. Traffic will tend to meter that better than anything. It's an inconvenience to force people to go right when you want to get back to the Katella super street. Jim Jarnagin, Exxon Company USA, 8555 Garfield Avenue, Fountain Valley, commended the Commission for getting dual usage out of the property. By going to a combination service, he felt they were offering the community a chance to recover some dollars that would otherwise be lost. It's a very workable function and yet it adds some viability to the project to allow additional gasoline sales. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch asked staff to comment on the TSIP fees and how it affected this project. 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 Mr. Glass said the TSIP ordinance includes a capital improvement program where specific projects are listed. Unless one of those projects is listed, TSIP funds cannot be expended on it. Unless this intersection enhancement is on the CIP list, then the answer would be no. He will find out and let the proponent know. Commissioner Bosch was concerned about safety in regards to the medians and its restrictions. Mr. Glass said the condition should state ingress and egress. The intent is that at some point in time this will probably need to be restricted to improve safety or to reduce congestion. That restriction would not necessarily have to be tied into a raised median; it could be done with a painted median. Commissioner Bosch said there was a question on condition 23 relative to the proper wording on the "Do Not Enter" signs. Is the intent that the signs face onto the site to tell people on site that they should not enter that driveway to exit onto Katella? (That's correct.) Commissioner Alvarez questioned the concern of the clear sight lines on Page 4 of the staff report. He was concerned about the tree wells near the proposed monument sign location. Are they necessary? It would be prudent not to depend on the owner to keep the trees pruned. He thought they should be deleted because of the signal control device. Chairman Cathcart was hesitant to eliminate the trees. If the condition doesn't allow the line of sight to be unobstructed, then there should be some modification. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve modified Conditional Use Permit 1939-91 with conditions 1 through 27, adding condition 28, which notes that this approval does not constitute approval of signage, which requires a separate application and approval in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance; and amending condition 8: "Any monument sign or shrubs within the front and street side setback area (both Katella Avenue and Main Street frontage) shall be no higher than 36 inches (measured from top of curb), and any tree within the front and street side landscaping area shall be trimmed so that branches are no lower than 6 feet (measured from top of curb) providing also that no tree shall be allowed which obstructs 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 line of sight from the street to any traffic control device." Also, to amend condition 23 including that the signs shall face in towards the site. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1894-91 -FIRST KOREAN UNfTED METHODIST CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY A request to modify approved Conditional Use Permit 1894-91 to allow the use of a 480 square foot modular building as a church office. The Planning Commission previously approved Conditional Use Permit 1894-91 to allow a 1,440 square foot modular building for use as a Sunday School classroom. Subject property is located on the south side of Walnut Avenue between Hewes Street and Hamlin Street, addressed 4700 East Walnut Avenue. NOTE In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Negative Declaration 1371-91 has been prepared for this project. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Jim Lee, 4700 East Walnut Avenue, was asking for a modification of a previously approved conditional use permit. The only thing that is different is before they were only going to use the building on Sundays; the modification will be for the use of the building during the week, as well as on the weekends. Those speaking in favor Sandy Garcia, 4625 East Walnut, approves of the building. She requested that the no parking signs be removed in front of the church. The public hearing was closed. 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 Chairman Cathcart asked Mr. Glass if the no parking signs were City signs? Mr. Glass said the reason for the no parking signs is that there is not adequate lane width to provide thru traffic and parking. They cannot remove the no parking signs. Commissioner Bosch referred Ms. Garcia to the traffic division if she had further questions. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the requested modification to Conditional Use Permit 1894-91 with conditions 1-14 as listed in the staff report, noting that no further environmental review is required. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-92 - CfTY OF ORANGE A proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code revising the current zoning regulations that apply to condominium projects by requiring a minimum of five (5) units for the conversion to or the development of condominiums. NOTE This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The Council's policy statement dated March 17 is attached to the staff report. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of two unit condominium requests and the rationalization and proposed ordinance are included in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and closed. 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to adopt Ordinance Amendment 3-92 pertaining to condominium projects. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING 7 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Scott Morgan, Senior Assistant to the City Manager, presented the C.I.P. to the Commission. On May 26 there was a joint study session with Council. The Commission's role is to determine that the projects proposed are consistent with the City's General Plan. Revised pages were submitted this date in two sections. The first section, shown as Attachment A, shows those changes that were suggested by the City Council and Planning Commission at last week's study session. Attachment B shows the staff's proposed changes, which have come about since some recent discussions with Orange County Transportation Authority staff on potential Measure M grant funded projects. Development staff has reviewed these proposed additions and have found them to be consistent with the General Plan. The public hearing was opened and closed. Commissioner Alvarez questioned the Redevelopment Agency item number 91530. At the last City Council meeting they had approved an additional $40,000. Would that show up on this line item? Mr. Morgan responded no. That's for the projects that are located outside of a Redevelopment Project Area. They have been included in the operating budget. He met with Redevelopment and they included that in the Community Development's proposed budget, under the building division, other contractual services. Staff could amend the document to show that. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission finds the revised 7 Year Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan, with the exception of the projects highlighted with a grey 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1992 background; and that the Commission recommends the City Council direct that no funds be expended on the projects highlighted with a grey background prior to amending the General Plan to insure consistency. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a work shop on June 10, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss Section B pertaining to zoning and General Plan amendments. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to adjourn to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on June 15, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, with an administrative session at 6:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. sld 13