Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-1996 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: June 17, 1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m.Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Vern Jones, Manager 01 Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary ITEM TO BE WITHDRAWN 6. ZONE CHANGE 1182-96 - ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A proposal to reclassily property from R-1-7 (Residential, single family, minimum lot size 7,000 sq. ft.)to P-I (Public Institution) zone. The site is located at the northeast corner of Handy Street and Katella Avenue (1401 North Handy).NOTE:Negative Declaration 1502-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project.Per a ietter dated June 6, 1996, the Orange Unified School District has withdrawn their request for the zone change.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept the Orange Unified School District's request to withdraw Zone Change 1182-96. AYES:NOES:IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 6/3/96 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of 6/ 3/ 96 as recorded.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 IN RE:MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS 2. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 16-96 - WAL-MART STORES, INC.A proposal to demolish the existing vacated Broadway Store and construct a new Wal- Mart Store,approximately 142.000 sq. ft. in size. This project will also include a modification to the parking lot.This site is located at the north end of the Orange Mall, 2300 North Tustin Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1504-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Joan Wolff, Sr. Project Planner, presented the full staff report. The use itself is permitted in the zone.A retail store is permitted in the Commercial Tustin Redevelopment zone. The application is before the Planning Commission in order for the Commission to review the physical features of the project, the way in which it is to be constructed and how it will fit into its surroundings. This would include the architectural design and form of the building, the parking lot layout, circulation plan, landscaping and any environmental impacts. The site plan review is a new process. About a year ago the project would have come in and there would not have been the opportunity for the Planning Commission to review this. This points out the need for the site plan review aspect of it. The project is located at the north end of the Orange Mall and will consist of demolishing the existing three- story building and constructing a new one story building. Wal-Mart is somewhat smaller in size than the Broadway. Wal-Mart is approximately 142,000 square feet; the Broadway was approximately 167,000 square feet. However!with single story construction, the Wal-Mart actually covers much more of the site, and will cause removal of some of the existing parking areas, particularly those parking areas north of the store, and some of the area to the west of the store. The Wal- Mart building faces east and is oriented towards Tustin Street. Loading and storage areas are on the west side of the building, facing the theater. An outdoor garden center is at the northeast corner of the building. The area of the garden center is inciuded in the overall building area calculation. The Design Review Board reviewed the project at two separate meetings. At the second meeting the DRB recommended approval 01 the project subject to 18 conditions of approval. The conditions are listed in the staff report. The plans have not been revised to reflect any of the changes that are recommended. Additionally, the signs are shown on the elevation plans, but a detailed sign submittal was not given to the DRB; therefore, the DRB's recommendation does not address signage. That will need to go back to the DRB. One letter has been received in opposition to the project. Two actions are requested of the Commission: the environmental document, Negative Declaration 1504-96 and the major site plan review.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Joel Meyer, Pacific Retail Partners, 2750 University Avenue, #200, Riverside, represented Wal-Mart.They have reviewed the staff report, conditions of approval and have met with the Oesign Review Board twice. They concur with staff's recommendations and requested approval of their project.Chairman Bosch noted Wal- Mart intended to conform with the conditions of the staff report;specifically, the Design Review Board' s recommendations, although they are not on the plans before the Planning Commission.Mr. Meyer stated that was correct. The DRB approved the plans that are Planning Commission Minutes June 17,1996 Commissioner Smith asked if they accepted the conditions for additional landscaping, planters, shrubs and trees to be added? It looks like people can enter the store from the east side, but cannot enter from the north or west sides. And, people will be able to enter the store through the Mall on the south side. Mr. Meyer responded yes. They have gone through the conditions in detail. They've added about 35 more trees from the original submittal. They will pull out the existing Eucalyptus trees and make the trees consistent throughout the parking areas. Those entrances are correct. There is also a door in the garden center that people can enter or exit from. This is a typical, standard layout for Wal-Mart, to put the one entrance off center -- off to one side or the other. The registers needed to be on the south side of the building because 01 the entrance to the Mall. Chairman Bosch noted the DRB conditions included some trees back along the remnant parking on the east side of the existing AMC theater building. His concern was about the theater building in several aspects. One is with regard to deliveries to the proposed major loading dock location, and the necessary circulation of trucks around the theater. He wanted to know the hours 01 delivery as they might relate to hours of operation of the theater. He was concerned about the large amount of pedestrians crossing the delivery lanes at a time Wal-Mart was making a delivery.Mr. Meyer said the parcel behind the Wal-Mart is owned by Newman Properties, the Mall developer.The AMC theater is on a month-to-month lease. It could be there forever; it could be there lor a short period of time. Wal-Mart has one or two truck deliveries a day. All products delivered, except for Federal Express or UPS, come from Porterville. There is one delivery in the early evening hours and (depending on the time of year, a second delivery is made somewhere between 8:00 - 10: 00 p.m. The delivery trucks are owned by Wal-Mart.Chairman Bosch asked if they discussed with the adjacent property owner, the Mall operators, concerns about avoiding conflicts with the theater operation?Mr. Meyer said yes. The Newman Properties representative was present at this hearing. Everything has been agreed to by them.Chairman Bosch said there was very little landscape screening from the entrance to the loading dock with regard to the theater area. The specific concern was with parking across the east side of the theater. He noted it was being reconligured Irom the existing, but he saw no provisions for handicap parking spaces to serve the theater, as part of the revision. How did they intend to fulfill ADA access requirements for that area?Mr. Meyer referred to his engineer as to whether they took out any handicap stalls in that location.Again, that is not on the Wal-Mart parcel, but he understood il theyremoved them on the Newman parcel...They did not take out any handicap parking spaces. The Mall meets ADA requirements. That's an issue for Newman Properties and needs to be discussed with them.Chairman Bosch said since they were changing the aspects of the site circulation and parking, it may be the requirement 01 a permit. He wanted to be prepared on that. It appears they are in excess of the parking requirements so they could lose a few and put in the handicap parking spaces.Commissioner Carlton spoke to the issue of the bins for the shopping carts. It looks like there are only three on the plans. It doesn't look like there are any bins out towards Tustin. What kind of banner or sign would there be over the area where carts are collected? How many Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 Steve Reiner, Hall & Foreman Inc., 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Ontario, said the cart corrals are double loaded cart corrals. Six spaces are taken up. Instead of having 5 or 6 cart corrals throughout the lot, Wal-Mart has the double loaded cart corrals up near the entrance. The banner that is put on top can be subject to sign review, but it will be a standard display from Wal-Mart. He didn't know how many carts would be provided at this location. A lot of carts would be kept inside the store for people entering through the Mall. This is going to be treated differently because Wal-Mart is attached to the Mall.Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if the customers would be able to take the carts out into the Mall?Mr. Meyer replied no. They are planning to have a "cart babysitting" system in place for those Wal-Mart customers who want to go through the Mall. Carts will not be allowed in the Mall.Commissioner Smith wanted to know if Wal-Mart was going to be open 24 hours?Mr. Meyer responded no. Wal-Mart, however, likes the opportunity to operate 24 hours a day.Chairman Bosch asked if the handicap parking was appropriately placed for direct access to the sidewalk adjacent to the store with a protected aisle crosswalk? Twelve of the handicap spaces are 90 degree and back out into the primary circulation element, where half of the main field parking aisles to the east are maneuvering in or out at that point. He was concerned about the salety there. Did they have statistics or experience with regard to public safety in the proposed configuration vs. the alternative. (Mr. Meyer knows it has been done both ways and realizes there are both pros and cons for both --backing into the main drive aisle. But it's also safer they don't have to cross the drive aisle once they get out of their cars.Commissioner Pruett asked how security would be dealt with on the site?Mr. Meyer said Wal-Mart has made arrangements with Newman Properties to work with their security already in place.Commissioner Carlton asked about exterior painting of the building. Was there a standard color scheme?Mr. Meyer responded this building was very different from a standard Wal-Mart building. They tried to conform with what is already existing at the Mall. They will be using the Wal-Mart blue.Steward Holtz, D.S.W. International Architects, 2301 DuPont, #150, Irvine, stated the colors depicted on the rendering are different from the normal Wal-Mart colors. They plan to use the putty and earth tones to blend in with the Mall. The accent is not the bright red; it's more of a darker plumish color.The Wal-Mart background sign is with the Wal-Mart blue.Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received one letter dated June 17, Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 Public Comments Lisa Ackerman, 2295 North Tustin #28, was pleased to see a project was going in at the Mall, but had a couple of concerns. She wondered if it was anticipated for additional, signals to be installed. She thought traffic would be increased for Wal-Mart vs. a department store. She was concerned about the asbestos in the Broadway building. How would that be abated? She wanted assurances from the contractor the dust levels would be kept to a minimum. She asked how long would the project take before it was completed? How would this affect the merchandise mix of the other retailers at the Mall?Is there a vision of where the Orange Mall is going, with the addition 01 Wal-Mart?Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked if the addition of Wal-Mart to the Mall would hurt the other surrounding businesses of K-Mart and Target? She did not want to see grocery carts out in the Mall while she was shopping. She has been told once Wal-Mart is approved and is open for business, they do not keep the store up (she referred to the new Anaheim Wal-Mart).Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, said it was difficult to address this issue when there was no presentation from the applicant. She had a lot of questions about the store and would need to talk to someone specific to get her questions answered. She had a bad feeling the Mall would change if Wal-Mart were approved. She expressed concern about Target and K-Mart across the street. Does the City want to be "discount city"? Are Redevelopment funds being used for this project? Will this project be heard by the City Council? (The Planning Commission takes final action, unless appealed to the City'Council. I Ms. Wolff spoke to the Redevelopment Agency and they have not been approached by Wal-Mart for financial assistance.Judy Kidd, 3521 East White Spring Lane, was opposed to Wal-Mart going in at the Mall. There are enough discount retailers in the area. She was concerned about security as she likes to shop by herself. Additional crime is not needed in the area. Currently the existing mix of tenants at the Mall is adequate.Rebuttal Mr. Meyer addressed the merchandise mix. Newman Properties had the same issues when Wal-Mart first approached them. It would be best if Newman Properties spoke to the issue.Mr. Reiner addressed the asbestos issue. They currently have under contract an asbestos abatement prolessional who will perform a survey test and formulate a report. The report will then be given to an asbestos contractor who will abate all the asbestos and dispose of it in a proper manner, as approved by the State Air Quality Board. Once the building is deemed safe, it will be a normal demolition operation.Mr. Meyer said the Negative Declaration was prepared by the City, using their standards with respect to generation of traffic. Wal-Mart is decreasing the size of the building and trips generated have been assessed in the document.Ms. Wolff said that the traffic generation does not exceed existing street capacities. In addition, there are signals at Heim, which are accessible from this property and also at Mall Way. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 Commissioner Pruett's concerns were with traffic and traffic circulation, especially the off-site traffic circulation on Canal. He heard the applicant say they are anticipating two truck deliveries a day. He didn't believe Canal had that kind of truck delivery traffic going over to Meats. Has the City looked at the traffic issue, given consideration to the truck traffic that is being thrown into the neighborhoods to the west?Ms. Wolff responded in terms of the number of trips, the streets can handle the additional traffic.Commissioner Romero said it appeared there would be a fair amount of traffic congestion at the theaters.Ms. Wolff thought one of the concerns raised in the DRB meeting was the loading dock area was located in the same area as the theater trallic. There is adequate driveway access provided to the back.That driveway along the northerly side of the property does not change, but the visibility changes. You won't see it anymore from Tustin. Circulation should be adequate except for the times when the delivery trucks are there. Staff doesn't know what kinds of traffic volumes are generated by the theater so it is difficult to respond on what the magnitude of traffic will be.Chairman Bosch wanted more discussion on the mall entrance and cart control at that entrance. How will they avoid impacting the adjacent Mall? And, concern was raised as to the timing of the development regarding demolition and new construction.Mr. Meyer said the plan at this time was not to allow the carts into the Mall area. New construction at'a typical development site is about 8 to 9 months. They have not received their demolition bids yet and the asbestos has not been quantified in the building. However, they expect that to be about 2 to 3 months. From start to finish, they anticipate one year before opening the store. He confirmed that Redevelopment funds will not be used on this project.The Commission wanted to hear from Newman Properties regarding the proposed use at the Orange Mall.Barbara Toth is the Senior Vice President for Newman Properties, which is the managing- leasing agent for Orange Mall Development Associates. They are most excited to have Wal-Mart as a potential tenant at the Mall. They have researched several retailers. They petitioned for Macy's, but because of the strong competition at Main Place and Brea, it was felt it would be too much 01 a transfer of business.The existing Mall tenants are excited about Wal-Mart occupying the Mall. She said Criss Town Mall in Phoenix was an example of the mixed use tenants working well together. With regard to the cart corrals, a claim check will be given to those customers wishing to check their carts before shopping in the Mall. They will also be doing other things for the existing tenants from a public relations standpoint.Commissioner Romero asked the population of the local area of Criss Town Mall? And, are the demographics similar to Orange?Ms. Toth was not familiar with the Phoenix market place and could not answer the questions.The public Planning Commission Minutes June 17,1996 Commissioner Pruett had serious concerns about the traffic circulation, both on and off site. The truck traffic is a serious concern in that it will bring changes to the characteristics of the neighborhood. He thought there would be a deteriorating impact on the residential community to the west of the Mall. That's something that needs to be taken into consideration. The on-site circulation is also a concern.The at-grade trucking dock -- as that truck drives south to exit the site and makes a turn to the west,the truck has to get into opposing traffic, make a wide turn and turn into the opposing traffic lane that is going to the east. There is a problem of managing traffic flow during the day as the deliveries are .being made. That's a serious circulation problem that is on-site, which needs to be addressed and corrected before he could support the project. The other issue is dealing with the loading dock to the north, where the trucks will be pulling in, in front of the theater and then backing down into the loading docks. Theaters attract kids; they don't always find the most appropriate place to play or walk. He had additional concerns about the public safety issue as it relates to security. He didn't see a truck dock loading area as being compatible with people attending the movie theater, in terms of their personal security.Commissioner Smith was not particularly fond of Wal-Mart coming in, but that's not the task of the Commission to judge in terms of what the project will do to other businesses. Wal- Mart is an American institution and will have its place in history. It is to the detriment of many small businesses. Many small downtowns have been lost. It is an approved use for the site, and the conditions and requirements, if met by the applicant, must be respected as such because it is the proper use in the proper zone. The project is laid out appropriately. She had concerns about the traffic and circulation,but also realizes that the Mall has been lunctioning as a large, bustling Mall for many years in this particular neighborhood. She was willing to discuss the loading dock issue further and maybe even'restrict deliveries to certain times where pedestrian traffic was low or to where there wouldn't be such a great impact. To service the other stores in the Mall, there must be trucks that come and go on a continuing basis. She was concerned that the theater was shadowed so greatly by this development,but she respected the right of Newman Properties to lease to who they would like to. If Wal-Mart becomes successful, it will be to the advantage of the people of Orange by generating sales tax. She appreciated Wal-Mart's sensitivity to the requirements, which were heavy by the DRB, to drastically improve the landscape, the design of the building, to change their colors. She was in favor of the project.Commissioner Romero felt the traffic would cause a problem, but he had more of a concern with the size of the property, considering the total reduction in parking spaces and the size of the store, would be a negative result to the neighborhood in its entirety.Commissioner Carlton agreed the use will impact traffic. The landscaping is not adequate. She drove by the Wal-Mart in Anaheim and took photos. She was disappointed at the size of the trees; they looked like 1 gallon size trees and haven't grown much. The conditions specified to add trees, but it didn't call out for the size of trees. The neighborhood and neighboring land uses will be impacted.Chairman Bosch shared the concern about traffic circulation on the site, especially with the truck maneuverability for deliveries at the rear 01 the site in proximity to the theater, circulation and cross aisle to gain access off the site. That circulation needs to be looked at, both on and off site, to arrive at a solution that won't negatively impact the site without necessarily damaging the intent of the layout of the building. He was concerned with Canal where the movements require a cross over into on-coming traffic on site to get the trucks on and off the site. That is creating a liability that need not occur with a little revision 01 the site design. He had concerns about the front side of the site, where it is presumed the majority of the shoppers will access the proposed Wal- Mart at the main drive access from Tustin to the proximity of the connection between the Mall shops and Wal-Mart comes to an angled intersection vs. a right angle intersection, and it's not the Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 radius for shoppers coming across the Mall. And, also the access and exiting from the east parking field immediately adjacent to Tustin. There is already a significant problem at the northeast corner of that parking field with vehicles exiting from the parking area to gain access on Tustin. This is continuing the significant problem that also exists adjacent to Tustin at the southeast corner. Both of those need to be addressed to see how the circulation and parking could be modified somewhat to take care of the hazards. He understood this was looking at utilizing a great deal of the parking lot as is, with existing tree wells and existing parking, but there is a significant new improvement to the site and a parking lot that may not meet the existing City's standards in all aspects with regard to parking lot circulation and landscaping. It's extremely important and should be required that some basic design improvements be made to solve those problems. He would like to see demonstrated as to whether a different way to handle the handicap parking and pedestrian access across the main aisle to get to the main entrance to the store. As it stands, the majority that is coming through again very near the busy non-perpendicular intersection with the first parking aisle north of the east-west drive off of Tustin also exiting west into the edge 01 that intersection is a major traffic conflict that perhaps is pre-existing, but needs to be fixed at this time.Relative to the architectural design of the building, he thought the applicant's architect has done a great job of creating a building exterior design that is compatible with a major structure in the area and has kept the identification of the owner and user, yet not made it overwhelming to the remainder of the design. His concern had to rest primarily with the site circulation; he sees great problems with it and hoped there was a method by which they could look for alternative solutions in that area to resolve the conflict points. Relative to the merchandising and the potential effect of Wal- Mart, he was very concerned about what the effects of a Wal-Mart would be on the community, but, it was not within the (Planning Commission's purview to see what will occur. Is this another trend, another change where they see a center of this type combined with an existing Mall and can it work successlully? They don't know. He sees it as a growing trend, given the number of obsolescent malls because of location or significantly greater investment dollars available to other malls that cause some loss of major tenants.Will it negatively affect some of the smaller shops in the Mall or along Tustin? He' s certain it will affect some. But it doesn't affect how well the building fits on the site or not. Some businesses may find in comparison to what's offered with Wal-Mart that their businesses are enhanced by the new store. The answers aren't known. But, back to the major issue. Given that with the approval of the site plan,then only permits need to be drawn because it meets the parking requirement. He shares a concern about a loss of parking count, but he will never go against something that if properly arranged and meets code with regard to the number of parking spaces, that serves as a total elimination of virtually any aspect to the code they want to pick up. If the parking ordinance is inadequate, it needs to be addressed and modified, but that has not been demonstrated either with regard to this type of use. As long as they are exceeding the code, the parking lot is well designed, the parking is placed in appropriate locations with regard to access from off site and access to the uses on site, then there is a proper design. In most cases on major commercial developments the parking ordinance has been difficult, not because of the number of spaces, but because of the physical design or management of the parking lot. That's something the City needs to pay more attention to. It will help solve the perception that Commissioner Romero holds as to the apparent loss of parking resources and problems that might occur with this. But, not in terms of the physical application of the code. He would like the applicant to address if they are willing to look at the very severe truck circulation and several major vehicular congestion points that exist on site in the parking lots up front, and also with regard to the theater and Canal Street before the Commission felt comfortable about Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 Commissioner Pruett agreed the circulation points need to be addressed. But, also as you leave the project going north, that's not the way the traffic pattern would be. That's an alley that serves those businesses to the rear. So what cars do at that point would turn right and then make a left to go to Heim. That is another traffic circulation issue that needs to be addressed as well. Before, there was a traffic flow that would go straight through. A person could go straight north where there was just a minor offset. From that standpoint, it has been moved over to the west to where it is going to cause more of a right turnlleft turn problem. He clarified his truck circulation issue on Canal Street. The circulation on the property, when Broadway's footprint was there, provided for truck deliveries that were made and the traffic circulation was one that was not thrown on to Canal with those trucks. And, the same thing with Sears. They dump off their trucks onto Meats and pull out to Tustin. There is very little truck traffic on Canal. What is being proposed with Wal-Mart is a major impact on those neighborhoods with the truck deliveries twice a day. That must be taken into consideration.Chairman Bosch asked the applicant a specific question: Were they willing to take into advisement the trallic circulation concerns and other specific concerns regarding the standards and bring this back to the Commission with a continuance in order to resolve the issues? There needs to be in place a management plan or a detailed engineering design with regard to these issues/ concerns.Mr. Meyer explained they had a fixed point to site this building. The location of the building is difficult to move. They need to attach it to the Mall. With respect to the parking ratios, he pointed out that there is less parking stalls but they meet the same standards because the size has shrunk. The parking ratio should still be acceptable. Wal-Mart is always concerned about the parking field; it's as important as the building. The trucks are owned by Wal-Mart. They were open to keeping the trucks on site, but'he didn't know if that would be safer. He suspected their truck traffic was less than Broadway's truck traffic and less than Sears or the other stores. They were open to discussing how to move the trucks on site; it's something that will need to be worked out with Newman Properties as well.Commissioner Pruett said by driving through the shopping center, it would present a major problem.That's the trucks driving southbound from the dock at grade, making the turn to go west to Canal. The truck has to swing over into on-coming traffic in the parking lot, swing wide into on-coming traffic going west.Mr. Meyer was willing to continue the hearing and come back with revisions to the site plan. They were willing to work with staff to address the concerns of the Commission.Commissioner Pruett knew the floor plan was laid out to conform with the other stores. He suggested they flip their floor plan and rotate it 90 degrees. By flipping the floor plan and rotating it 90 degrees,the loading docks would be to the north. There would be much better access to that and you would still have an entrance to the Mall. The building is not square; it's a rectangular building and it would give them much more distance to the north property line and the building for which they may be able to make U-turns with the trucks in the delivery area and not have to go out onto Canal Street. It' s a much better site layout.Mr. Meyer said there were a couple of issues with that: The major parking field would be on the side of the building and that is unacceptable to Wal-Mart. That's an issue Wal-Mart will not compromise on.The reason the entrance is near the Mall entrance is for the registers to be in one section. They have not been able to get to the point of two register sections.Commissioner Pruett noted their entrance would still be on Tustin. Using the rendering on the wall, he explained his concept and showed where the entrances would be. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 Commissioner Carlton asked if all Wal-Mart stores had to be one story? Was any thought given to modifying or reconfiguring the existing structure? Economically speaking, that would be a good idea.Mr. Meyer responded they thought about it. It's very expensive to demolish the building and then rebuild. Wal-Mart is not necessarily single story. In Canada there are some two story buildings and there are a few buildings in America. But that is not the preference or route Wal-Mart wants to take on this property.Mr. Meyer asked if there was any way to continue this item two weeks rather than 30 days because of their time constraints? The Commission was willing to get their packets a few days late in order for Wal-Mart to be considered in a timely manner.The issues to be addressed: Flipping the floor plan and rotating it 90 degrees for a better site layout.Specific intersections to be addressed - one is at both access points from Tustin at the northeast and southeast corners of the parking field, the access drive adjacent to Tustin at the northeast corner.That's an exit into the exit driveway - an area of significant congestion with cars blocking the driveway and overlapping from in front of the Olive Garden Restaurant causing a total loss of vehicular movement at the driveway. All circulation concerns were pointed out on the plan for the applicants to address.Cars coming around the corner and pedestrians having to look behind them - a very dangerous situation. As well as when pedestrians are crossing the main parking aisle from the major parking field to get to the front door. The front door location is wonderful in terms of visibility; the setback creates a nice entry plaza, but it is throwing the people right out into the major circulation pattern which is a significant problem. Traffic pattern routes people directly to the service drive behind Stroud's and the other shops. It may be a traffic management problem to prevent people from taking the short cut out to Heim on the north and it should be addressed. It needs to be kept as a service drive; not a short cut for high speed traffic. There were several concerns about the trucks around the theater, parking circulation and turning radius at the theater. And, the absence of handicap parking.Mr. Meyer still did not understand the concept 01 flipping the building and rotating it 90 degrees.Commissioner Pruett showed and explained what he had in mind, using the site plan on the wall.The Commission asked how the DRB would fit into this process? Mr. Jones suggested addressing DRB review as a condition since there wasn't a meeting scheduled before the next Planning Commission meeting on July 1. The DRB will meet July 3, and Wal-Mart would meet with them for final review. If Wal-Mart is unhappy with the DRB's final review and conditions, they could appeal it back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could leave that in the hands of the DRB to make those final decisions.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Major Site Plan Review 16-96 - Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to the July 1, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 3. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 17-96 - OUTBACK STORAGE A proposal to construct a 121,000 square foot self-storage facility, with additional outdoor storage for recreational vehicles and ancillary truck rentals. This is a surplus portion of Southern California Edison' s Villa Park Substation, presently occupied by Village Nurseries, on the south side of Taft Avenue, west of the Newport Freeway.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1 505-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Commissioner Smith excused herself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.The presentation of the full staff report was waived. Mr. Jones noted one letter was received from Dorothy Gibson.Commissioner Pruett thought there were some recommendations from the Design Review Board.Mr. Jones stated the recommendation from DRB was included in the staff report, in addition to the other conditions/recommendations. It was condition 2: "The applicant shall comply with all conditions required by the Design Review Board, as noted in the meeting minutes of May 22, 1996, unless revisions or modifications are approved by the DRB in a subsequent meeting.. If the Commission desires to incorporate the comments from those minutes, they should add them or expand on them in the conditions so they would all be in one place. 'The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Bruce Jordan, 34700 Pacific Coast Highway, Capistrano Beach, represented the applicant of Outback Storage. He brought with him a rendering of the proposed exterior. He addressed a couple of the issues: the DRB and staff requested he consult with Cal Trans to find out how this project would coincide with any of the freeway widening and if there were any slope easements that would be affected by the project. A letter was sent to the Commission from Cal Trans, stating they didn' t believe there were any impacts at all. They tried to create a project that would bring an upgraded image to an otherwise truck distribution center for the nursery. They have met with Cal Trans and they have allowed them to augment their landscape plan, at the applicant's expense, to add additional screening along the freeway, to screen the Edison Substation as that was an issue of the DRB. That will be incorporated into their plans. This is an excellent use for the site. It's well located. The traffic issues are very light. Site circulation will work very well. At one time Edison did consider selling this surplus piece of land. Outback Storage felt this particular proposal works well with the infrastructure Edison has on the site. They are clear of all the lines on the property. Edison's administrative staff have signed off on their site plan. There are a few small lines in the very back that run north and south; one that runs east and west. But those lines are 66 KV lines and are very small. The high power lines are out in front; hence, the 150 foot setback off of Taft. The meadow they have designed is a landscape treatment in the front. The buildings, with the exception of the office, are low, one story, with split face block. He showed the proposed color board to the Commission. They added additional screening for the project. He pointed to the area Cal Trans has consented to an additional wind row of Eucalyptus trees; they will also be adding a dense wind row screen in two other locations to effectively have coverage from one end to the other. There is also existing landscaping on the site. They proposed to put in 15 gallon trees - Red Gum Eucalyptus, which are fast growing trees. In the front there is a colorful, native meadow scape, which was a way to preserve a nice green area in front of the project 11 r'" ........-...,. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 and still give Edison the required access they needed to get to their towers. The two towers will be screened up in front with the additional landscaping. Commissioner Pruett looked at the northeast corner of the plans. There is a pole signage per City standards. What are they talking about? Mr. Jordan explained it would be a pole with a sign on it. They have not consummated the design yet. They've hired a sign company to come up with that design. It will be a sign for activity on the property. Commissioner Pruett also noticed they have a proposed cell site by others. Mr. Jordan replied yes. At one time the City approved a conditional use permit for a microwave antenna at that location, the northeast corner of Building B. He believed it was for L.A. Cellular and it was for a 60 foot tower. That remains approved; approval was given about a year or year and a hall ago. They have talked to L.A. Cellular several times and there is an indication that may not proceed, but they cannot get a final resolution to that. That is why they have accommodated their approved location into their plans. Commissioner Pruett asked staff if L.A. Cellular had to act on that approved conditional use permit before it expires? Mr. Jones explained an applicant has two years to make use of the conditional use permit. If they don't' utilize it within the two year time frame, then it expires. Commissioner Pruett asked under the new approved ordinance, would this require a conditional use permit, or would they be able to proceed with just a permit? Mr. Donovan clarified a conditional use permit is not required for a cellular antenna in an industrial zone. The approval the cellular company has was through a building permit. So there is still an approved building permit, and because it is in an industrial zone and it's at least 100 feet away from residential properties, the zoning ordinance allows it at that location shown on the plans. Commissioner Romero asked where it was on the plans they were going to remove the 175 trees? Mr. Jordan showed the Commission where the existing wind row started and how it proceeded diagonally across the site. That is what effectively dissects the site into two halves -- it turns a large rectangle into two large triangles and makes it undevelopable. That's why they are proposing to take out those trees.Commissioner Romero asked if they had a problem with Edison's height requirements with the new trees? How long is it anticipated the height will match what is existing?Mr. Jordan explained, based on the condition by DRB, they met with Edison to get their approval prior to putting their plan together. They have approved the locations on the plan for the trees. Southern California Edison would not approve a segment of the plans; that's why they went back to Cal Trans and sought their approval to be able to augment and amend their landscape plan. It will probably take six to eight years with the 15 gallon trees to match the height of the trees on the site. He knew security was an issue. They will have a computer accessed control gate for people to enter through the gate. Each 01 the buildings will be individually door-alarmed. There will be a separate gate and numerical entry to the RV parking area. They intend to have photo electric perimeter security with 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 beams. A resident manager will be on-site to monitor the situation in the evening. They will also propose a series of tv cameras with a fairly elaborate monitor system in the office. It will be recorded on tape 24 hours a day.Commissioner Carlton was pained to see 175 trees being taken down, but she understood the reason why. She couldn't find in the staff report how many new trees would be planted. How many trees will they replace?Mr. Jordan planned to plant the new trees as close together as good botanical processes would dictate so it will effectively screen the area. Cal Trans has standards that they are currently working out with them as to the density of the trees. The existing Oleanders will effectively screen the property without the Eucalyptus trees. They are limited, and cannot put in a dense row, on the freeway property. And they are constrained because of the power lines; they are not allowed to put in anything higher than about 1 3-14 feet. He didn't count the number of trees, but it will be denser than what is existing now.Chairman Bosch said with regard to the truck rental aspect, he was concerned with the combination of parking for those who would come and rent trucks and the code parking for those who come to access their storage units. He was worried about the number of spaces, particularly since there is handicap parking available. He asked if the applicant has studied the impacts of car parking for the rental trucks?And, how do they propose to manage parking for those rentals without consuming the rest of the parking?Mr. Jordan replied there is such a considerable amount of parking that is not shown on the plans. They'have 35 foot end aisles, which is considerably wider than would be required to meet any turning radius or the fire lane. There is a lot of parking around the project that is not defined as such, although the condition of the Fire Department requires them to stripe off the clear access way for emergency access.He guessed there were about 100 parking spaces that aren't depicted, as a result of excess area and drive aisles.Chairman Bosch clarified the use of the parking outside the gate was primarily for people coming to rent, and those who have access already just check in or use their code to enter the site. (Correct.)The other key concern was addressing the police and fire concerns about emergency access to require utilization of the service road along the old Southern Pacific Railroad easement. He wanted to make sure there were adequate safeguards built in to assure this doesn't become, through some future management, of means of access and egress for the RV traffic. What type of controls are proposed at the gates to the south end of the property?Mr. Jordan said the gates at the south end of the property will be locked and accessed by a knox device only. They will not have any public access there at all. He would not object to a condition stating that. They will take 100 percent of the access off of Taft.Commissioner Romero asked what kind of fencing would be used for the RV parking area?Mr. Jordan explained the existing fences predominantly to the RV section are chain link. They are proposing to use the same fences and will comply with the condition as written.Commissioner Pruett understood there is an existing fence outside of that. They aresurroundedby Edison property.Mr. Jordan replied yes, with the exception of the old railroad right-of-way on the south side. The project is totally buffered from Tustin by the split face block and vegetation. There is existing fencing on Edison' Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 Commissioner Carlton asked if this were a 24-hour operation for self-storage and the RV lot?Mr. Jordan stated no. The gate hours will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the business office would be open from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The gate codes would be deactivated during non-business hours.There was no public comment. The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Romero thought self-storage properties were quiet and this has a very appealing look.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1505-96, finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Major Site Plan Review 17-96 - Outback Storage with conditions 1-14, modifying condition 2 to specifically outline the conditions that were set out by the Design Review Board in their minutes of May 22, 1996 - bullet items 1-4. With regard to condition 14 and the secondary emergency access, the gate shall be locked and only used for public agency emergency access and be equipped with a knox box. The use is located within an appropriately zoned and planned area. The use is one that gives better community response to the site, with less of a commercial use and provides good access in a safe location to the'mini-storage concept that will be available to the residents of East Orange, Villa Park and a portion of Serrano Hills that is lacking at this time. It will not cause negative impacts or deterioration here or in other neighborhoods. The design of the project, and with the wind row screening in conformance with Cal Trans' standards, as well as the DRB requirements, along the interior lines is a significant improvement that again prevents deterioration of the site and the surrounding uses. The design of the building is done well and exhibits an excellent standard. And, on- and off- site circulation is adequate to support the project. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith returned to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 NEW HEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2155-96 - STEVE Y. KIM (DENNY'S RESTAURANT)IN RE:A proposal requesting an on-sale beer and wine license for an existing restaurant (Denny'sl. The site is located at 777 South Main Street, Suite #69.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEOA Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition; therefore, the presentation of the full staff Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1 996 Aoolicant Steve Kim, was the franchise owner of Denny's Restaurant at 777 South Main Street #69. There was a demand from his customers to serve beer and wine with dinner and he thought it would be a greattooltoofferthis. He has read the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval at this time. Commissioner Pruett was not familiar with Denny's offering beer and wine. Was this something they were allowing the franchises to do? Mr. Kim thought it was just another tool to include with dinners. He did not want to promote beer and wine for Denny's. He only wants to accommodate those patrons who wish to have beer or wine with their meals. Commissioner Smith asked if he were to extend his hours, how would that be done? Mr. Kim said most of the dinner sales are in the evening hours to 10:00 p.m. He didn't want to create a bar image with late hours. He was willing to work with the Police Department so that in the future he could extend his hours. The public hearing was closed. It was noted this project was exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2155-96 with conditions 1-12, with a finding of public necessity and welfare in that the proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of the surrounding community, or result in an undue concentration of premises for the sale of alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine, in the City or in the area involved. It will not detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned districts, after giving consideration to the proposed hours of operation and the proximity of residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals,public playgrounds, and other similar uses, and other establishments dispensing, for sale or other consideration. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-96 - CITY OF ORANGE A request for a General Plan Amendment to identify a new fire station site (Station #81. This site is located at Loma Street and the entrance to the Southern California Edison Substation, 2800 feet north of Serrano Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1502-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Smith excused themselves because there may be a conflict of interest subject to who actually owns the property at this time.There was no opposition to Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1996 Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, briefly explained the new proposed fire station site. It is not concisely in conformance with the General Plan. The present indication on the General Plan is a public facility or quasi-public accommodation of two uses between the existing City area and the East-Orange General Plan. The site is proposed as a fire station site and needs to be identified with the fire station symbol which is placed on all the other fire stations in the City. The site is 3.5 acres in size, but it does have a major water line easement running diagonally through the property. The site is a condition of development in the area. The area is rapidly developing with residential housing and the site is being dedicated to the City as a fire station site. The Water Division has also expressed interest in utilizing the site for a booster pump station. That communication has already been made with the Fire Department with regard to that additional use.Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1502-96 and finds there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 2- 96 AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Smith returned to the meeting. IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 9: 30 p. m.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION