Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission August 3,1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart 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 Chairman Cathcart's absence, Vice-Chairman Murphy chaired the meeting. IN RE: MINUTES OF JULY 6, and JULY 20. 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve the Minutes of July 6, 1992 with the following corrections: Page 24, third paragraph, second sentence be amended to read - "It took almost two years to get rid of them."; and to clarify that Heart Throbs is a night club; and to approve the Minutes of July 20, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1972-92, VARIANCE 1934-92 -CORK A request to allow an accessory second dwelling unit in a single family residential district, with a variation from standards that pertain to the location of two (2) required parking spaces. Subject property is located on the west side of the street, approximately 130-230 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 north of the center line of Chapman Avenue, addressed 120 North Monterey Road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303(a). A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. A lican Jim Cork, 15500 Tustin Village Way, Tustin, requested the second dwelling unit on behalf of his mom, Millie Cork. They are wanting a room addition and have no plans to rent it out. The previous owner had the garage made into an extra room and there is no other place to add on. He built the garage with a foundation and set it up for a second story unit. There is no place to park in the back as there's an existing patio and pool. They also own the piece of property on Chapman Avenue, which is Opportunity Escrow. They have additional parking there with a gateway adjoining the two properties. That's basically where they park all of their cars. He suggested dedicating two parking spaces for evening and week end parking. Commissioner Bosch said the application was for an accessory second unit and the plans show a full accessory unit with two bedrooms, a bathroom, kitchen and living room. Then there is the main house on the property. The applicant is not going to rent the unit and is willing to accept a deed restriction not to rent it out. That seems to be rather incompatible with their desire to build an accessory second unit. Mr. Cork said it was an afterthought to build the kitchen. They would be willing to take out the kitchen as they really don't need it. It was thrown in because there was enough room for it. Commissioner Bosch said the kitchen vs. just a recreational room over the converting those in the future into created the need for the parking, request. was what creates the second unit garage. They worry about people second units. The second unit which resulted in the variance 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 Commissioner Smith commented the applicants have a very large back yard. It appears there is ample room to put in parking spaces. Would they be willing to do that? Mr. Cork said it would have been nice if the previous owner had built the second garage area, to have put it somewhere else. It's set up for a second story; there's no reason to tear that down and move it over. Commissioner Alvarez thought part of the problem was the two foot retaining wall. Is that a hardship in moving that? Mr. Cork stated they would have to tear out the deck and re-do it. To meet the 42 foot requirement, they need an additional 13 feet, right where the patio meets the wall. Public Input Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, asked if this was another dwelling unit or just a couple of bedrooms? Parking at the escrow company does not allow for more cars. It is really crowded. Mr. Godlewski explained the request before the Commission is a conditional use permit for an accessory second unit. If the applicant chooses to use it as a guest room or additional living space, that's up to them. Once the property is built out, the City is looking at it as an accessory second unit. If the request is not approved the way it is presented, the applicant can come back and the City can deal with it in terms of not an accessory second unit, but as additional living space at which point a number of deed restrictions would be added to guarantee it would never be rented. This plan suggests that the two additional parking spaces beyond the two garages would occur in the circular driveway in front of the house, behind the setback and that is the reason for the variance. The code does not allow parking to occur between the house and street. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch said the Commission also received a letter dated July 17 from Marjorie Thompson, 149 Monterey Road, who was concerned about the relationship of this. Taking this into consideration and the residences behind them on Maplewood, the Commission should 3 Planning Commission Minutes reinforce what the staff report says; it' property and if one were to pick a spot fo the location on the property proposed is commercial property, the two story comme parking just to the west along Chapman o~ by 50 feet so it pretty much secludes accessory second unit in this part of the lot. and he did not see a reason for the variai finding of hardship and there isn't a hardsl would require some work on the rear pool dE August 3, 1992 an extra wide piece of an accessory second unit, deal. It's adjacent to the cial building or at least its rlaps this part of the site as much as possible the This is a pretty good plan ce. A variance requires a ip because even though it k. a good design can have two parking spaces that are legal in the back yard and still have a decent looking architectural designed pool deck. The Commission does not have adequate grounds under the state law to find for a variance. He noted this was exempt from environmental review. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1972-92 subject to conditions 1 and 2, and to deny Variance 1934-92 because there are not adequate grounds for positive consideration of a variance. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property which restrict or deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1977-92 -WILLIAM SHORT A request to allow a second story addition to an existing two story single family residence located in the RCD (Residential Combining District) overlay zone. Subject property is located on the west side of Orange Street between Culver Avenue and La Veta Avenue, addressed 468 South Orange Street. N TE: This project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. William Short, 468 South Orange, requested to construct a master bedroom and bathroom; they need an extra bedroom for their new baby. Commissioner Bosch asked if the Design Review Board's recommended changes were ready to present for review? Mr. Short just returned from vacation and saw his architect/builder here at this meeting. They were waiting for the final approval before drawing up new plans. Commissioner Bosch stated it was helpful for the Commission to see that those recommendations would be carried through. Commissioner Alvarez asked if the applicant was aware of the request for wood windows since he resides in Old Towne. (That's fine; they planned on that.) He also asked if they had a problem with making the addition blend in with the house in terms of it's material. (The shingles will be continued on the addition as well; that will not be a problem.) The applicant was asked about his feelings regarding the balcony. (He was not too happy about that. They were asking fora 3' deep by 8' long balcony; however, the staff report did not approve it. They have recessed into their bedroom approximately 18 inches to create a 3' x 6' wide balcony.) Commissioner Smith commented the cantilevered structure of architecture really is not historically correct. Mr. Short was trying to maintain the depth of the balcony with the frame work of the bottom edge of the roof line that comes down. Those s ep aking in favor Rich Robertson, 477 South Orange, spoke on behalf of the Short family. They have been a fine addition to their neighborhood. When they moved into the house, it was run down and they've done quite a bit of work on it. Not only is the house an asset to the neighborhood, the family is as well. He encouraged a positive consideration of this project. 5 Planning Commission Minutes The public hearing was closed. August 3, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1977-92 to allow a second story addition to an existing two story single family residence with condition 1 for compliance with the D.R.B.'s recommendations. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Discussion prior to voting: Commissioner Alvarez wished to withdraw the D.R.B.'s condition as Mr. Short has demonstrated that in concept he is trying to meet the Old Towne Guidelines. To allow him to have his balcony is a small price to pay. Commissioner Smith was not in favor of that recommendation because the applicant is allowed an 18 inch cantilever overhang, which already is a compromise. Commissioner Bosch appreciated Commissioner Alvarez's sentiments and have heard the applicant would prefer it as well, but he's willing to live with the reduction. The intent of the reduction is essentially to keep the balcony rail in line with the eave of the roof below, which is the key point architecturally. He would also like to see the D.R.B.'s recommendation stand. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1978-92 -DICKEY A request to allow concessions in residential development standards to be granted in order to expand an existing 4-unit project and provide affordable housing. Subject property is located on the south side of Grove Avenue between Tustin Street and the Newport (55) Freeway, addressed 1838 East Grove Avenue. 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305. Barbara Gander, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to modify an existing 4-unit apartment complex by enclosing the patio areas attached to Units A and Bin order to create a third bedroom within each unit. The increase of bedrooms requires additional on-site parking spaces to be provided, of which the site cannot accommodate. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a waiver of on-site parking requirements. Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct a 20 square foot addition to Units A and B in order to provide a closet area for each newly created bedroom. The closet additions, as well as the enclosure of the patio areas conflicts with the current zoning codes front setback requirements and, therefore, requested as a waiver of up to seven feet of the setback requirement. The requested waivers °~~,~d' parking and setback requirements are being processed by a conditional use permit rather than a variance request through an interpretation of state density bonus law, which requires local agencies to grant such incentive for development of affordable housing. State law establishes a qualifying threshold of density bonus projects to contain five or more dwelling units. This project contains four dwelling units. Staff has allowed the application to be processed as a means of encouraging affordable housing. Staff recommends that if the request is approved, that Units A and 6 be maintained for lower income households with monthly rent levels restricted to a percentage of the designated income level. And that a deed restriction shall be required to reserve the units as such for 30 years. The City's Environmental Review Board expressed concern with the proposal's parking deficiency. Grove Street and the other neighborhood streets are currently impacted by parking problems because the surrounding apartment developments do not provide adequate parking. The Board feels the proposed increase in bedrooms will increase the demand for parking, and because of the parking deficiency, will increase the burden to public streets and alleys. The Environmental Review Board was also concerned with the conversion of the patio areas which reduce the amount of outdoor open space, and will potentially reduce the quality of apartment's living environment. The public hearing was opened. 7 Planning Commission Minutes i n August 3, 1992 Ruth Dickey, owner of the complex at 1838 East Grove. Her home address is 1941 Bayshore Drive, Anaheim. She has four families living in the units now who are qualified for Section 8 assistance. She is doing a rehab project with the City. She borrowed funds to complete this. She would like to increase these units to prevent overcrowded conditions. She understood the concern regarding parking. It would be a problem if there were more adults, but these are families with children. She commits to building these units and spending additional monies to increase the size of the units. Her tenants have a total of five cars and there are five spaces. Two of the adults use buses and do not drive at all. They're not adding to the parking. She doesn't feel there is a precedent because very few owners are committed to affordable housing and have availed themselves of the Section 8 rehab plan. Not too many owners will take Section 8 families. She's willing to expend her own funds and to agree to the deed restriction and dedicate the front two units for affordable housing, which carries a lower rent than the current Section 8, which the tenants are qualified for. The neighborhood is low-income and most families only have one car. There was a concern that the outdoor living space would be compromised if the front patios were taken away. She passed around photographs she took of surrounding 4-plexes on the same street showing that these areas have been used for storage rather than recreational activities. This would not have an impact on taking away the open space. Those speaking in opposition Mr. Galo, 18943 Date Street, Fountain Valley, owns two buildings on Grove Street. It is currently congested with many cars. All of the apartments on Grove Street are two bedroom and one bathroom. The area surrounding these apartments is primarily cement. There is very little space between the other buildings. He doesn't see this as a good idea for the neighborhood because there will be a lot more people and cars. The three bedroom apartments would add to the density of the neighborhood and approval of the conditional use permit would set a precedent for other owners wanting to maximize their building usage. There are no provisions for additional bathrooms with the added third bedroom. The patios that would be converted, while at times being used for storage, are also utilized by children as a play area. There is 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 little grass in the front so the children are forced to play in the back alley or in the street. He stated low income families seem to have more than one car. They don't always have insurance. This conditional use permit would encourage over crowding on the street that has maximum utilization. He wished there was a foot patrol because crime problems do exist. Affordable housing needs to be encouraged, but the living environment in the area should not be impacted any more than it currently is. Commissioner Alvarez asked him how long he has owned his apartments in the neighborhood? (About 3 or 4 years.) Was there a community play ground or common area? (He was not aware of any.) He was asked if he had rented to Section 8 tenants? (He has used HUD tenants many times.) R but al Ms. Dickey responded this was not simply a Section 8; it's more restrictive than Section 8. It's not setting a precedent; it would be unlikely that owners would commit to 30 years of lower than Section 8 rents. Having all tenants on Section 8 prevents overcrowding. She has a watchdog in the organization because her units are monitored. Her tenants all qualify for assistance and that's why she's doing the rehab. The program for affordable housing is even more restrictive than that. Her rents are not going to be as high as if she went straight Section 8 and didn't do this. In order to do the three bedrooms she had to commit to the deed restriction. She didn't believe this was going to set a precedent. Section 8 does not allow renting to a number of room mates who have cars. They restrict the units to families with children. Because of the program it puts its own restrictions on it and she's willing to abide by the restrictions. She has also committed to more landscaping in front. She's only coming out two more feet than the current building line and will be planting trees. Regarding the one bathroom, there are the same families in there sharing one bathroom whether or not there is a third bedroom. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch appreciated what the applicant was saying in terms of desire to assist the people who are currently tenants of this single building. He disagrees, though, that it would not set a precedent 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 because where one owner finds that is both socially correct to do for existing tenants and also economically correct for the situation, means there are others in the same condition. This is a neighborhood that caused the City to make changes to the development standards requiring greater setbacks in the front. It's a perfectly acceptable practice and prudent to them under state law to grant waivers of certain development requirements in order to provide for affordable housing, but here affordable housing already exists and there are sub- standard, legally non-conforming waivers grandfathered in for the site. The request for waivers close to 40% of setback and 40% of parking is too much. It would be very damaging to the living environment of the neighborhood. He felt there would be more cars if the property is affordable; there will be a precedent set with others desiring to do the same thing, whether they are able to approach it by means of the same housing subsidies or whether they look at it from a purely planning viewpoint. He can't see where this request is appropriate as a conditional use permit and has none of the conditions that apply as approval of a variance. These are the wrong kind of waivers. It's taking away what little open space there is -- it's the only viable recreation area and it's also the only viable storage area. The units are simply under developed for adequate support of the populations being placed there. It was noted this project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1978-92 because the conditional use permit does not respond to sound principles of land use in that it encourages increase of density and a deterioration of the living standards of the neighborhood and similar zones, and will cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems due to that precedent. The increase in traffic and congestion that will occur will have a negative effect on the community plan. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED MINUTE ORDER Commissioner Alvarez noted for the record his vote was incorrect; it should have been in the affirmative. 10 Planning Commission Minutes Council discussion prior to voting: August 3, 1992 Commissioner Alvarez voiced his support for Commissioner Bosch. He felt the same way. It's true the neighborhood has a lot of problems. Unfortunately, this neighborhood is going to impact the entire city. Commissioner Smith appreciated Ms. Dickey's efforts with the project and dealing with the specific families living there; however, it is rental property and tenants will change. The next people could come in and have more cars. The Commission must be sensitive to what it does to the quality of life of the whole neighborhood. She hoped Ms. Dickey would continue her efforts in providing Section 8 housing for her tenants. Commissioner Bosch felt the applicant's heart was in the right place; the trouble is the impacts upon the city. Mr. Godlewski explained the appeal process to the applicant. IN RE: NEW HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1153-92 - CITY OF ORANGE ON BEHALF OF THIBAULT/CRABILL A request to reclassify two (2) properties from C-1 (Limited Business District) to R-2-6 (Residential-Duplex District) zone, or other classification determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Subject property is addressed 603 and 613 East Palm Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 141 1-92 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Mr. Godlewski explained the request was to reclassify two properties in the C-1 district to the R-2-6 residential-duplex district. This item was brought before the Commission several months ago where the applicant, Ray Thibault, had a property and he wished consideration at that time. Staff suggested they proceed with the re-zone, but at that time the applicant did not feel that was necessary. After hearing the 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 item before the City Council, the Council recommended that a zone change be initiated with the concurrence of Mr. Thibault and his neighbor, who has adjoining property. It would be natural for these two properties to be considered in light of the R-2-6 development. They are both developed as residential properties and there is no immediate desire on behalf of the applicants to change what is on their property. They're requesting the duplex zone be applied to their properties. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 141 1-92 in that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on the environment or wildlife resources; and to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1 153-92 to reclassify two properties from C-1 to R-2-6. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ZONE CHANGE 1 147-91, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1947-91 -REEVES ASSOCIATES FOR PEP BOYS A revised site plan in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 1947- 91, arequest to demolish a portion of an existing shopping center and to construct a Pep Boys retail automotive supply and service facility. Also included is a request to reconsider a zone change from C-1 Limited Business) to C-2 (General Business) for the site. The Planning Commission recommended denial of both the conditional use permit and zone change on May 4, 1992. In appealing the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council, the applicant brought forward a revised site plan. The City Council referred the revised plan to the Planning Commission fora rehearing and recommendation prior to final City Council determination. The property is situated northeast of the corner of Katella Avenue and Glassell Street; the Katella frontage is located 400 feet east of Glassell Street and the Glassell frontage is located 150 feet north of Katella Avenue. 12 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 N TE• In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1400-92 has been prepared to address environmental impacts of this project. The public hearing was opened. li n Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, spoke on behalf of the land owner and applicant, Pep Boys. The proposed shopping center is struggling at best. It currently has a 35% vacancy with another 3,000 square foot tenant, which has already leased another place and is planning to move. The owner and applicant's goal is to put in a new anchor tenant to help revitalize the center and to keep the income and jobs in the city of Orange. They plan to do between 3 and 4 million dollars a year in sales. There were some concerns expressed at the previous hearing. He was not part of the team at that time, but he had some knowledge of the hearing because he was in the audience. The applicant appealed to the City Council. They took into account all the considerations and concerns that were expressed at the Planning Commission meeting. They have come up with a new site plan, which was presented to the Council. Staff indicated it was a significant change and thought it should be referred back to the Commission for a report and recommendation. A short slide presentation was made to show everyone Pep Boys has upgraded its image substantially over the years. It is really a super market anchor tenant in various locations around the Southland. To recap, the loading dock has been moved around to the side and put in an enclosed structure; the 10 foot landscape strip would be landscaped in a manner to provide a screening from Katella and the parking lot; and the breezeway will be closed in with a 12 foot wall for noise and security. There was another issue that was raised and that was in order to put the project in here, it might be necessary to zone the property C-2. There are several solutions to that. The property owner is willing to zone the property with the C-2 zone, but then record a deed restriction on it that would limit the uses to the conditional use permit and all of its conditions and any other C-1 use, but exclude all C-2 uses. The condition is a bit cumbersome, but it could work. They're also willing to zone just the area of the store itself if that would be a better solution. He thought there was even a better solution. He handed his proposal to the Commission for their review of the following zones: C-P, C-1, CTR, C-2 and C-3. Over the 13 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 years the intent in the commercial zones has been that the language would allow the Commission and Council to make a finding that the proposed use is similar in character and not more detrimental than the other land uses that are allowed. In the C-1 zone a full fledged auto dealership complete with repair shop, engine rebuilding and auto body shop is technically permitted in the C-1 zone by a C.U.P. An automobile service station is also technically permitted in the C-1 zone by a C.U.P. It's logical and appropriate to make a finding that this is a similar use and not more detrimental; therefore, the City would not be required to change the zone to C-2, but simply grant the C.U.P. with the appropriate conditions in the C-1 zone. Commissioner Alvarez asked if Pep Boys would have a problem with the conditions/recommendations in the staff report? Mr. Mickelson responded no, they would concur with the recommendations. One of the mitigation measures recommended in the acoustical analysis was that dock deliveries be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Pep Boys would rather see those hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. because they don't need those extensive hours. Deliveries would be made five days aweek -Monday through Friday. Those ,peaking in favor Larry Reeves, Reeves Associates Architect, 717 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, added the truck access to the loading dock will be restricted to the lower driveway. At no time will it ever run past the R-3 or down the side of the building. They will not be using any of the driveways adjacent to any of the residential properties with their trucks. In order to keep people separated from the residential zone, they propose to put the entrance to the building facing more to the shopping center. The entrance is facing east into the shopping center. Commissioner Alvarez was curious why this site was selected? Mr. Reeves explained they had looked at a number of sites in town over a period of time. This was the best sized site and economically it is a better site. From a traffic standpoint, it is an ideal site. They are now phasing out the stores who do not have service bays. There were two size stores before -- one about 10,000 and one about 16,000 square feet. The additional square footage is reflected in the service bays. 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Reeves to explain the services that are provided. Mr. Reeves said the services were restricted to light services. They do front end alignment work, tune ups, smog certification, install radios and install only those items that they sell themselves. They do not do any body work, removal of engines, reconstruction or any work outside of the bays. By adding the trellis it will further screen the service bays. If cars are left over night, they are left in the service bays and the doors are closed at night. Partially completed projects are not left outside. Very few cars are even held overnight. Those speaking in o~ osp ition AI Lelchuk, 1431 North Grand Street, talked about Pep Boys and the services they perform. He handed an advertisement to the Commission that talks about all the services performed by Pep Boys. He addressed the issue of air pollution. The prevailing winds come from the southwest. Any pollution coming up through the vents (smog and asbestos) would come down into their homes behind the store. Pictures were given to the Commission showing the pollution problem at different automotive stores. He requested the property be left as C-1 and find Pep Boys another place such as Renfree Motors which is zoned M-1 or in front of Home Depot. Rebuttal Mr. Mickelson stated it was not really fair to brand this new upgraded store with some of the past practices of other stores in town. Those conditions were non-existent in the new stores he toured for the slide presentation. The management of the centers forces them to maintain their cleanliness and they are an asset to the centers. With the wall they are proposing, the existing sound level in the rear yard of the residential area or the cul de sac to the north would be lowered by about 3 db and the ambient noise level will be lower than it is currently. AI Meloro, National Director of Site Development for Pep Boys, 3111 West Allegheny Avenue, Philadelphia, PA said their concerns were the same as the neighbors. He quoted some statistics of how Pep Boys protects the environment and passed around a newsletter that is given 15 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 to all of their employees. They're cognizant of the environment and the serious concerns that take place throughout the industry. All of their stores are company owned and they sell only automotive parts and service the items they sell. In this new store, there will be 28 to 30 new jobs. They anticipate between 3 and 4 million dollars in gross annual sales. Commissioner Smith asked if the new jobs included the policing the parking lot for trash and oil spills? (Yes. Part-time employees are responsible for these jobs.) Commissioner Alvarez wished for more elaboration on the service bay roof vents. Mr. Meloro said they were installing a new system in their stores. The tuns ups will only be in one or two bays (#7 or #8). He showed the Commission a picture of the above ground exhaust system. It is activated with an electronic filtration system. Their waste oil is an above ground tank that is kept inside a compressor room. It's a double wall tank and exceeds the federal standards that are mandated at this time. There are no underground tanks at this location. Commissioner Alvarez asked if this system would be installed at the Orange location? (Yes.) Is it regulated by any government agency in terms of its effectiveness? How do we know it is working or not? (It is 100% useful.) Commissioner Smith asked about the mitigation measures on Page 3 of the staff report -- item 3 requires the applicant to close up the breezeway next to retail A. Did she understand that the breezeway could not be closed because of the manhole that needs to be serviced? Mr. Mickelson explained that the separation wall between the R-1 immediately to the north and the shopping center to the south is approximately six feet and it has in the back yard of that existing residence some wrought iron above that to restrict people from climbing over it. They can't raise that wall any higher without processing a variance and probably having the concurrence of that property owner. The wall he was referring to and the one that is referred to in the mitigation measures is to move forward in that breezeway up where those access ladders to the roof are and build a 12 16 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 foot high solid wall which would block off not only the noise, but would also prevent unwanted people from entering into that area. Then that area would be landscaped with trees. The condition would be met and both the property owner and Pep Boys agree to it. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch addressed the issue raised by Mr. Mickelson relative to allowance of automotive retail and service type uses in similar zones. What is allowed by right and what is allowed by a C.U.P. in the CTR zone and the C-P zone vs. the C-1 zone? Mr. Herrick has looked at the code and can verify the information Mr. Mickelson has provided the Commission is correct. That language appears in various sections. He could not provide the Commission with a definitive answer to whether or not the deletion of that language from the C-1 zone was intentional or unintentional. There's at least two interpretations that could be given to its absence. Commissioner Bosch asked if the C-2 zone were approved, what other uses would this site be opened up to? He understood the applicant mentioned the potential for a deed restriction or any other variety of devices to secure the approval only of this application. Mr. Godlewski stated Mr. Mickelson had laid out correctly the hierarchy of the zoning ordinance in the commercial section. What he's quoting is what staff refers to as a bail out clause. If it's not listed and it's similar because of new technologies, maybe it could be considered by the Planning Commission by a conditional use permit. Under the allowable uses or uses listed as being allowable after approval of a conditional use permit, the primary difference is that those uses which involve automotive uses. It goes from less intensive to most intensive on the list before the Commission. In the C-1 limited business district, it has been a question for some time as to what automotive related uses can occur in the C-1 zone. A couple of years ago they had a question come before the City Council in regards to oil changing and tube and tune type facilities. At that time it was brought before the Council because the applicants wanted the tube and tune facilities out on East Chapman, which is exclusively zoned C-1. There is no C-2 available out there. In order to provide the service to the residents, the Council did make a policy in the C-1 zone that would allow oil 17 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 changing and tune ups by a matter of policy in the C-1 zone. They would consider them by a conditional use permit, but nothing greater. No uses that would generate large amounts of noise or air hammer activities would be allowed in the C-1 zone under that policy. Commissioner Bosch said the request being considered is definitely C-1. It appears it is the only C-1 parcel on Katella between Glassell and Tustin. There is a chunk of R-3; it's primarily C-P until California; and CTR from California to Tustin. What is the difference between CTR and C-1 relative to an allowed or conditionally permitted automotive uses? Mr. Godlewski explained CTR in general is more similar to the C-2 with the exception that CTR does not allow the automotive uses. That is something that was brought up in the zoning studies when they were talking about changing the various zones. CTR does allow more of the restaurant and recreational type uses, either by right or by conditional use permit that the C-1 limited business district does not. Other than that, it is very similar to the C-2 with the exception, again, of automotive uses. It does not allow automotive repair without the conditional use permit. Mr. Herrick had a copy of the ordinance and it indicated in the CTR zone automobile dealers, sales and service facilities, are permitted subject to specified conditions under a conditional use permit. It also provides that sales and services related to retail merchandising of auto tires, batteries and accessories is permitted by a conditional use permit. Commissioner Alvarez appreciated the comments in terms of the impact of a store like this after looking at the site. There is a noise factor that does travel. He's impressed with the filtering system, but was hung up on the trash problem. He could see that the applicant was making an effort to mitigate most of the problems. Commissioner Smith thought this plan was much better than the first one. She was accidentally at the hearing before being on the Planning Commission and heard the first hearing when it was denied. This plan appears to be much better. She appreciated what the residents were saying in opposition; however, they are living behind a commercially zoned area. In this time of a depressed economy, she thought they needed to look carefully at the opportunity for a business who is 18 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 willing to take on the anchor position in a shopping center which does not have much traffic. They need to look carefully at the jobs to be generated and should not look lightly at the potential of 3 to 4 million dollars gross revenue to the City of Orange. On the other hand, in order for this store to work there would have to be a commitment to parking lot clean up. Once a day cleaning is not enough; she would like to see the same thing enforced here as they do at McDonald's Restaurant. She personally was in favor of the plan and of this business coming in, especially in these economic times. Commissioner Bosch suggested the condition regarding hours of dock deliveries be modified and add a condition that would require a vehicle exhaust extraction system to be installed at all service bays with all bays connected to an electrostatic air filtration system that must be in use and operating on all vehicles whose service requires engines running unless otherwise mandated by state regulated rules. Commissioner Bosch said without regard to the zoning issue, Pep Boys have made a vast improvement. He sees this obviously as being a focus to recycle the whole center away from office uses that are currently there and back towards a retail use. The zoning issue is the tough one. He noted the placement of the building on the site is adjacent to the property line of the R-3 zone, rather than the R-1, with just a minor overlap, if any, onto the R-1. It creates a condition with the building wall and property line that meets either zone. So the impact of the building itself regardless of the use on the neighbors is no greater than what would be allowed by merely pulling a building permit for reconstruction of the shopping center. The effort to provide security and noise/visual separation at the gap between buildings A and B also will help the neighbors. He doesn't see how they will have an impact on their residences. He's more concerned about the impact on the remainder of the shopping center and what the intent of the City is with regard to Katella. He didn't know whether the Council desired as a policy matter to review upgrading the potential for similar C-1 properties elsewhere in the City, even though the remainder of Katella has no other C-1 properties east of this site. They have done a wonderful job, but is it right to change the zone in order to accommodate them on this particular site? Commissioner Murphy echoed those same comments from the standpoint of the design and efforts placed to making it more of a suitable 19 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 neighbor. He applauded the applicant as well. The changes are dramatic in comparison to the first proposal. He wrestled with the same issues of the zone and what the implications were for the rest of the property. Commissioner Smith would like to add two other conditions; one being restricting deliveries to only Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and to add a monitored parking lot clean up. In response to the question of a similar condition, Mr. Godlewski could not recall any other applications. In this particular application, staff is requiring the best management practices, condition of engineering to be put in, which requires that all run off from the parking lot be filtered or separated before it goes into the public storm drain system. In addition to that, staff would want to monitor the parking lot and that can be inserted as a condition. Moved by Commissioner Alvarez, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to re-open the public hearing to hear from the applicant. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Mr. Mickelson said there was a mitigation measure recommended that requires re-examination of the sound analysis in 30 days. They would be happy to stipulate at that same time the City could examine the quality of maintenance of the site. And, staff can re-advertise the application for consideration of changes or whatever. Mr. Meloro would be more than happy to write in there would be lot cleaning done on a daily basis or twice a day. Mr. Lelchuk pointed out one more issue on sound mitigation. He said 3db changes double the sound level. Sound reflects. He suggested a committee be formed to investigate an appropriate location for Pep Boys. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith agreed it was a great job, but questioned whether it is right to change the zoning. She would be more inclined to a 20 Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 1992 permitted use under the C-1 zoning. She would not be in favor of changing the zoning of the entire shopping center. Mr. Godlewski said new information has come up and a suggestion that perhaps a zone change is not required to allow the use, but some other method. Staff originally was under the belief that a zone change was required to facilitate a use that is allowed in the C-2 zone. They have not performed any background data to suggest that perhaps something other than a C-2 zone would be appropriate for this use. If the Commission wants staff to do that research, they could do that. He did not feel confident in saying that leaving the zoning C-1 is an appropriate solution to the problem. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to continue Zone Change 1147-91 and Conditional Use Permit 1947-91 to September 9, 1992 for further clarification of questions regarding the zoning use in the C-1 and C-2 zones. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED The applicant concurred with the continuation. IN RE: PUBLIC INPUT Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, thanked the Commission for speaking more loudly. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to adjourn to a public work session on August 10, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the potential re-zoning of Area "E" of Old Towne. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 21