Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-1995 PC MinutesC. oZ sib. ~-. a~ 3 Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Roach, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith August 7, 1995 Monday - 7:00 p.m.ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager ct Current Planning -Commission Secrcretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Ariomey,Bob VonSchimmehnan, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE JULY 17 1995 PLANNIN(' COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of July 17, 1995 as recorded.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Prueri, Romero NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner SmRh MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 211495 - ROBERT SETTEN A proposal to convert the second story of an accessory building into a dwelling unit on a single family residential property. The property is located at 282 North Magnolia Street.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from Calitomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.This item was continued from the July 3, 1995 hearing.)Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Pruett were not present et the July 3 hearing, but have read all the reports, Minutes and reviewed the documentation regarding this project and both believe they are well acquainted with the details to partiapate in the hearing.Barbara Gander, Associate Planner, presented an updated staff report. At the July 3 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject request to allow the conversion of an existing detached 2-story structure to an accessory second dwelling unit. The Commission's discussion primarily focused upon the visual appearance of the existing structure, which was one of the neighborhood's concerns.The structure' s massive size and height overshadows neighboring single story structures, and its design looks like a motel. The Commission recognized that this project presents a difficuR situation. The building is permitted as an accessory structure, not for residential purposes, and can continue as such, and there is no opportunity for the City to impose a requirement to change the building's sizeor root line. An opportunity to require building changes is presented through this conditional use permit, because the applicant is requesting to change the building's use to elbw for a residential dweAing. The Commission Planning Commisswn Minutes August 7, 1995 requested that the applicant revise the roof plan by uncovering the patio areas to reduce the size of roof to cover only the 840 sq. ff. accessory dwelling unit. Further, the Commission requested that they see the roof plans before making a recommendation to the City Council. The applicant agreed to a continuance In order to show the Commission a revised roof design and building elevations. Revisions have been made to the floor plan, building elevations and roof plan. The rear (west) stairway and covered patio area, and the aide (south) balcony have been removed. Single access to the acoessory dwelling unft is now proposed with a standard staircase, which replaces the spire) staircase. The interior floor plan has been rearranged with the primary living spaces abng the east side of the building and the secondary spaces along the west side. The building elavatbn plans show the removal of the balcony and stairway and a revised window pattern, which places smaller windows abng the north and west elevations. The structure's root has been removed above the path area and eaveline along the north aide hors been cut back by 2'6", whidi complies with building Dods requirements. The elimination of the rear access and patio area, and the rearrangement of the ibor plan help to mitigate impact to the privacy of neighboring reskdeMs to the south. The potential for privacy invasion is further mitigated by utilizing smaller windows, placed ctoser to the ceiling, abng the north and west aides of the structure. These measures Improve the quality of life for neighboring residents beyond the current situation. The eaveline modification with the installation of rain gutters resolves the problem of water runoff onto the neighbor's property to the north. Staff brought the first version of the plan revisbns to the Design Review Board on July 19, 1995. The first version did not include removing the roof above the patio area. It did propose a roof reduction through cutting back the eaveline on all four sides of the bulkding. The D.R.B. though that redudng the size of ail the eaves worsen the buikding's design end made it appear more "boxy". The eaves add dimension and relief to the building's elevations. Two of the three Board members agreed the roof should be removed from the patio area to reduce the building's massiveness. Their motion included requiring some additional architectural detail to the building's south elevation, lowering the screen wall along the north side of the patio, and adding a landscape planter with tree on the south side of the building at the east corner to screen a blank wall. The applicant consklered the Board's motion and revised the plans accordingly with exception to the landscape planter. A stairway aocassing the second floor is proposed for this area. Commissioner Smkh questioned the installation of reinguttere. A condition could be added to address the installation of reinguttere and downspouts to fully mRigate the problem of water runoff. Commissioner Pruett asked where the water was being cwlleded and dumped? The applicant's architect would be able to respond to this issue. The public hearing was opened. A~glicant Robert Setten, 282 North Magnolia Street, has complied with the requests of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. He hoped everything was satisfactory; they want to cooperate with the City. Commissaner Pruett woukd like to see automatic garage doors be installed on aR three garages. Commissioner Smith wanted to know more about the wire (chain link) fence Mr. Appel spoke of in his recent letter. Mr. Setten never liked the fence; K should not have been put up and ft will be removed. Those spag king in favor Bob Mickelson, 721 West Rose, reviewed the application and has followed the project through the years. As a friend and neighbor, he supports the revised project. Those soeakina in oooosition Jean Parsons, 273 North Maplewood, objected to their lack of privacy in their back yard. She felt if he changed his plans and do what he says, ft might be a different story. 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Gary Appel, 17592 Irvine Blvd., #112, Tustin, represented his dient's property north of the Seriens. The end result will be a granny pad and elevated patio (sundeck) on the second floor. It will Invade Pablo Valdivta's privacy. However, the problem could be resolved by redudng the sundeck 1 /3 In size. Debbie Crawford, 238 North Magnolia, though they have lost the battle for a rental in the neighborhood. What will happen when Mr. Batten sells his property? They have a quiet, little neighbofiood and wish to keep ff that way. Mr. Batten's original intent was to rent the property. The neighbors have been split in hall over this Issue. John Koontz, 242 North Magnolia, does not believe the plans will improve anything. The sundeck will create an unbearable s(tuation for the neighbors. He did not understand the proposed changes to the eaves on the north side of the house. John Crawford, 238 North Magnolia, said their son was attacked by Mr. Batten's dog and he was conoemed about safety. He also felt the neighbofiood will deteriorate, but he wants to preserve It the best he can. Rebu of Larry Lane, Newport Beach, represented Mr. Setten ~ his designer. He explained what they proposed to do about the roof and eaveline. In addition, they will install the proper drainage system. He dldnt know of any other alternatives to make the path area smaller. Commissioner Pruett thought a planter with lattice could be utilized on the patio to shield and provide privacy for everyone. It would also soften the bulk and appearance rather than a 6 foot high wall. Plans shook! include an automatic irrigation system for maintenance purposes. The Commission was concerned about the lack of privacy for the neighbors. They also discussed the issue of the fence/gate. The fence would limit vehide access to the garages and cars would end up parking on the street. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Smith thanked Mr. Serien for complying with their previous requests. She was concerned over anothar change being imposed at this hearing. Commissioner Cathcart concurred there should be conditions regarding the rainguriers and automatic garage doors. The gate should be manually opened and closed rather than being electronically croMrolled. He still heard a lot of animosity between the neighbors and the Seri's; there was no answer for everyone to be happy. However, he believed no one would be happy ff the project were denied. Commissioner Romero said the project looks terrible the way it stands now and he agreed wffh Commissioner Cathcart's comments. Chairman Bosch wanted the chain link fence removed. He preferred the manual gate to an electronic gate. Another condition should be added to require the second floor patio be reduced to 4'x4' in size with a mansard roof on the first floor. The deck would Include a 4 foot vertical trellis that would provide a privacy screen. Revised plans are to be submitted to the Planning staff for review prior to Building plan check. This wit avoid the applicant having to come back before the Planning Commission a thkd Ume. He pointed out the ordinance for second units required owners to reside on the property. The deed restriction must be filed with the County Recorder's Office. He was not personally in favor of second units, but it was imposed upon the City by State law. He fell the applicant has come a long way to resolve the many problems assodated with this project. It was noted the project was categorx:ally exempt from the provisions of CEQA review. Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 211495 with all the conditions listed in the staff report and as suggested by the Commission. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2119-95 -LUCKY STORES, INC. ( SAV-0N)A request to allow the retail sale of general alcoholic bevere~ges, for off site consumption, at a drug and variety store. The property is located at the northwest corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue, within the Orange Mail parking lot.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived.The public hearing was opened. A nt Paulette Dewire, 1500 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, said they were being forced to relocate and they were transferring from one site to another. They were not changing the use.The public hearing was dosed.It was noted this projed was categorically exempt from CEQA review.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2119-95 wAh the conditions as listed in the staff report. And, the Commission recommendedtotheCityCoundlpublicconvenienceandnecessitywasbeingservedbythisrequest, as it relates to State law regulations governing alcoholic beverage licensing.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smth NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 4 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2120-95 - INVOCAL A proposal to renovate an existing automotive service station, and to add a self serve carwash to the operation. The renovation includes removal of the existing structures on the property, and construction of a new cashier-retail building, gas pump islands, fuel dispensers, canopy, and car wash tunnel. The site is located at 2756 North Tustin Street (southwest comer of Tustin Street and Lincoln Avenue).NOTE: Negative Dedaration 1473-95 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.A staff report was not presented as there was ra opposition. The Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Harry Ericson, Project Manager, 3328 Alabama Circle, Costa Mesa, said they proposed to renovate an existing automotive service station. They were available for questions, and believed their project was compatible with staff's evaluation. Chairman Bosch asked about dreulation problems on the site since tuture street widening would take an additional 10 feet of right-o}-way along the Lincoln Avenue frontage.Mike Shay, Manager of the carwash operations, responded once the property was taken along the frontage of Lincoln Avenue, they were not corxx+rrred. The retell mini- mart and carwash tunnel were not likely to generate a significant amount of addtional Vaffic beyond that of the existing service station. The new site plan layout would improve on-site dreulation by consolidating the fuel pump islands and dispensers into one area wRh the same north-south orientation.It was staff's opinion most cars will leave the site and not return to the mini-mart, and would not cause on-site circulation problems.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Pruett was concerned with cars bbcking the exits, creating traffic problems.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Dedaration 1473-95 as the project wiq not have a signirficant adverse impact on the environment or wAdlife resources.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2120-95 wkh all the condftions listed in the staff report.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pniett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 5 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2122-95, VARIANCE 199!3-95 -PLANET KIDS A proposal to utilize an existing building for an indoor recreational and educational youth center. This project requires a condkional use permit to allow for a shared parking program, and a variance to permit greater wall sign height and area than allowed by the zoning ordinance. The stte is located at 1536 East Katella Avenue ( southwest comer of Tustin Street and Katella Avenue).NOTE; This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.Barbara Gander presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item. Planet Kids represents a new type of indoor t~mmmerdal use geared toward children. his similar in concept to the Discovery Zone,Kids-A-Saurus and Fun Dazzle. A Planet Kids recently opened in the City of Laguna liilis. This is a commergal use that is consistent with the C-TR zoning of the property. The center will provide educational opportunities, supervised recreation, family dining and limted retail. A full-time staff will be comprised of a manager and 15- 20 staff members. Planet Kids will be open seven days a week, from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. It is intended for children up to the age of 13. Visits are limited to 4 hours. Review of the development proposal was conducted by the Staff Review Committee on July 12, 1995. The Committee liked the use concept and Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Corridor. Planet Kids might be a catalyst for new businesses to the area. The applicant's traffic consultant updated their parking analysis to show that the use generates a maximum of 550 vehicle trips/day, which does not exceed the CMP threshold of 1,600 trfpe/day. The commercal center contains two restaurantusesoccupyingapproximately2t% of the gross floor area. Based upon the parking code, 211 parking spaces are required for retail and restaurant use of the property. 232 spaces are currently provided, of which about 4-5 spaces will be eliminated by this proposal due to State Title 24 AccessibilityRegulationsthatrequirehandicapaccessfromapubl~ sidewalk to the building. A surplus of 16 parking spacesexistson-site that can be used to accommodate the proposed use during its peak parking demand times. The building space Planet Kids plans to ocx:upy is allocated 60 parking spaces. The parking analysis submitted by the applicant establishes that Planet Kids has a demand for 90 parking spaces during thepeakperiod.The sffe can accommodate approxgnatey one-halt of the increased demand (30additionalparkingspacesrequired) due to its parking surplus. The remaining parking can be accommodated by the commercial development to the south. ff contains 235 parking eparx~s. There is an opportunity to share the use of parking spaces to axommodate Planet Kids' peak demand because h is primarily unoccupied and because much of the center does not have commercial frontage and Is more suitable for office development. Most of the spaces that are oawpied have tenants that are dosed during the evening and on weekends. The applicant intends for the Orange Planet Kids to be the flag-ship In a series of other fadiffies, and plans to focus media and specal events at this fadlity. The exterior facade improvements that are proposed are intended to promote the energy and the activffies thatoccurInsidethebuilding.The Design Review Board evaluated the Planet Kide' proposal and the overall intent wasto retain the building's integrity by limffing the facade renovation to Improvements that could be removed u PlanetKids vacated the build'mg. A favorable recommendation maintains the buildings archiecural features and adds a wall sign above the entry on an architectural backdrop that slightly raises theroofline, painted plaster panels along the lower facade, neon band along the root line and above thesign, decorative panels (two planets) on each bookend, and accent colors to the roof Ana, column bases, window and door frames. A wall sign is also proposed for the east elevation on the corner bookend. The variancerequestistoallowforanincreasetothewallsignheightandarearequrements. The Dods currently limits wail sign height to 24 Indies. Based upon the sign area requirements, the Planet Kids' building is allowed 255sq. ff. of sign area. The Proposed logo wffhin the sign frame (s approximately 368 sq. ff. in size. The requested variance is to albw for a 16 tt. high waU sign and a 7 ff. high wall sign, and to allow for a total sign areaof438sq. ff.,exceed'mg the sign area limltation by 183 sq. tt. Through the variance procedure, the City has been flexible about increasing the height of waNs signs, and relatively flexible about inrxeesing the height and area of signs. The comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance recently approvedbytheCityCouncilandPlanningCommissionmodffiesthesigncodewithregardtoheightofwallmountedsigns. The new code limits overall sign area, rather than sign height, because the 24 inch heightrestrictronwasfoundtobeoverlyrestrictiveandIimffscreativityindesign. The new code is effective September 1, 1995. There are special circumstances providing Justification for waiving the sign code provisions to allow the requested building identification. Planet IGds' Is located at the interior rear of a comerbt. The building's facade is approximately 230 feet from the public right~of-way. Theeastelevationissetbackapproximately260feetfromthepublicright-of-way. Street visibility of the buildingisblockedbythefourotherbuildingslocatedontheproperty, which are situated abng Katella and Tustin. And, other sign code waivers have been granted under circumstances that were similar to this request.The public hearing was opened.Larry Lazar, 3636 Birch Street, A~290, Newport Beach, spoke on behaff of Planet Kids, which is owned and operated by the Untied Leisure Corporation. Untied Leisure has been operating Camp Frasier in Irvine for over 15 years and currently operates threesummerdaycampsinSouthernCalifornia. Concurcently,Unffed Leisure has been managing a Planet Kids in Laguna Hills during the past year. Extensive market research was performed and the Orange Planet KidslocationwasselectedoveroiherpotentiallocationsinAnaheimandTustin. They intend to be good long-term neighbors and wilt deliver upon their promises.By design and operation, Planet Kids will not paste unusualnoise, traffic or other conditions that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with other permutedusesinthearea. He spoke about the traffic analysis, parking demands and the concept of shared parking in the center. The report was Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Mr. Lazar had Ms. Cdlins speak about the Laguna Hills fadlity and their success over the past two months. Planet Kids will be a professionally supervised tadlity. It is expelled many parents will axompany their children to participate in recreation and educatbn, creating a social element for the community. This setting win provide a location for birthday parties, boy/girl scout outings, different school groups and functions. Commissioner Smith was conoemed about health and safety issues, and the licensing requirements of Planet IOds' staff. Mr. Lazar realized they were asking for a bt -- spedal consideration on parking and exterior treatment.They believed they would return a bt to the community. When dealing with children, they cant afford to have a bad experience; they canR afford to have a parent be uncomfortable with leaving their children at Planet Kids. United Leisure has been in this business for 15 years. In the past year they have opened twootherCampFraziers.Commissioner Cathcart asked how successful they thought Laguna HGIs was now at this point9 Mr. Lazar ihougM their success was a 9 or 10; this was based not only on daily attendanoa, but also on the private birthday parties.Chairman Bosch explained the City of Orange did not have the most conservative sign ordinance. They alsolookforcaseswherehardshipisimposedonbuildings. The Commission is required through State law and the zoning ordinance to make specific findings wnh regard to granting variances that relate to hardship not caused by the applicant, but related to the topography, unique site shape, location and surroundings. Mr. Lazar said the building was the former Michael's. When looking at the building and site, n is hard to see. It's a very short face that can be seen from the street. It'sblocked on one side by Norm's and on the other side by Carl'sJr. The building has no visibiltty from Tustin. The building is setback from the street,wnhverybrightlandusesinfrontofft. In Laguna Hills, their tadlfty fs located in the middle of a residential area In Orange, they are not located in the middle of a reskteMlal area, but are surrounded by commerdai uses. They are looking for a signature pro(ed, which everyone can be proud of.Commissioner Pruett questioned the parking study. During peak hours 179 spaces are required. He counted 114 parking spaces Trom all the properties. What kind of impact will there be on shared parking?Heather Nix, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., 680 Langsdorf Drive #222, Fullerton, responded to questions. An error was made on the study. There are 232 spaces in the northern section. During peak hours96spacesarebeingutnizedinthenorthernsection. She explained how they made their analysis.Chairman Bosch ~mmented on the drop off and pick up of children. Had they identified a recommended number of shat term parking spaces near the entrance of Planet IOds? (No.)Mr. Lazar wanted to address the signage Issue. Many of the elements were recommendations of the Design Review Board. The symbds on the face of the building (planet and spaceship) were elements recommended by the Design Review Board. Their primary focus w~ on the centrel portion, which already exists, for their logo.Commissioner Pruett was a little confused by what Mr. Lazar was indicating the Design Review Board recommended because he read the Minutes. He read them aloud for the record. Planning Commission Minutes Those soeakinc in oop so Ilion August 7, 1995 Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, was surprised she did not have the color photo because it doesnR show the building being purple. She submitted pictures of the Laguna Hills site. She did not object to the operation; trtt Just in the wrong spot. The busy times at Norm's and Carl's Jr. is at lundt, Friday and Saturday nights and Sundays. H they open the Villa Theater traffic is going to be heavy. There is a problem at Tustin and Adams. There is also a high crime area. She recommended they look at the sites of H8H Floral by K-Mart, The City, the industrial areas -there are many other places this could be located.t~ildren and congested parking bts are not a good mix. It's an acadent waiting to happen. Would Adams 6e used onoe again as a safer route to Planet Kkis? Sometimes parking does exceed what is required.Mr. Lazar failed to understand the area Is a crime area and that there is loitering. There is not a better use for the area to help turn it around. They are proposing a highly supervised, indoor recreational and educational use. k's meant for children between the +~ of 1 and 13. It a child is signed in, they're not albwed to leave.The public hearing was closed.Commissaner Cathcart did not have a problem with the conditional use permR, but had a real problem with the variance. Parking is not an issue because there will be more drop offs. The color of the building is not acceptable.Commissioner Romero incurred with the parking. He had a problem with the color purple. It's not a positive cobr.Commissioner Pruett was concemed about drop offs. A limited time frame and area for drop offs was needed. It could help manage the parking situation in the center. No matter what the use is, the building,by being constructed there, creates the problem. In terms of the sign ordinance, the sign is overkill. The project will be sold based upon word of mouth and marketing by direct mailers. signage will not make or break the project. k's a good project and he would like to see tt in Orange.Chairman Bosch agreed it was a good use. He encouraged spaces be made available in proximity to the entrance for short term parking. Parking is essential and % is a very difficult center the way ft is currently layed out. He was not concerned with the overall perking demand on the center. He concurred with the issue of signage and the overall architectural appearance. There is overkill on the variance inquest for signage. The north facade, wfth the modiTication to the parapet area over the central roof and the dormer areas incorporates both the sign and a mural. That's the key area of identification along with a smaller secondary sign for visibNity through the drive entrance coming off of Tustin. He had extreme diffiwlty with the planet and spaceship on the other facades, as well as the color purple around the building. He wouldnR have a problem with the store front portions of the building (bay display windows) being purple.The metal coping should be retained in a color that matches the remainder of the center.Commissioner Cathcart thought the mural could still be put on. By removing the purple color on the front of the building except at the entrance and remove the planet and spaceship, and put the top metal banding in a neutral color, the center section would leap out pretty well. The extra size was not necessary.h was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review.Chairman Bosch discussed the sign height because it was an issue where there were two items. The existing sign ordinance limited the height to 24 inches without regard to the volume and mass of the building or the shape and size. Also, there is the newly adopted zoning ordinance that comes iMo effect September t, which eliminates that problem. He felt they ought to allow that portion of the variance for Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 greater height to the sign and based upon the hardship caused by the strict interpretation of the code, which is counter to its intent. He was against the greater area because he didn't see the hardship given. Commissioner Smfth recommended adding a condition: "Compliance with all State educationJchild care requirements for screening of fadlity staff." Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Pennft 2122-95 with the conditions listed in the staff report, as well as the amended condition added by Commissioner Smith: Compliance wfth all State education/child care requirements for screening of faalfty staff. Another condition needs to be added: A portion of the front parking area be limfted to short term front ~ setback area, oand removalofthe)icwns on top of iheptwokends p anal and apaceshipt) The nretal str~s at the top of the bookends are to be returned to the color of the existing buildings in the center. To deny Variance 1996-95 with respect to the area of the sign, but allow the variance for the height of the sign. The mural is not to be considered es pert of the signage.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 6 -VARIANCE 1997-95 - NICK ARTIAGA A request to expand a restaurant by adding an outdoor patio dining area, wfthout providing additional on- site parking.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.There was no opposition; the full staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. li n Ralph Espinoza, 14711 Wesffall Road, Tustin, was representing the owner, Nick Artiaga. They were asking to enhance the look of their building by adding a patio and 3 tables.Chairman Bosch asked why they felt a variance was necessary. He explained the Cfty was looking for specific reasons to grant this request as ft relates to the parking.Mr. Espinoza responded initially the restaurant had more than suffiaent parking ,but it was taken away because the street was widened in front of the building. He didn't feel the restaurant should be penalized for that. Ten spaces were taken when the street was widened. The parking has never been full. Their peak hours occur around the lunch hour and most people walk to their restaurant.Commissioner Pruett asked if Mr. Espinoza received compensation (by reduced rents) from the owner when the Cfty widened the street? (No.)The Commission asked staff ft the required parking was 37 and prior to the take they only had 31, they were 6 short. How did the appAcant get permission to put in a restaurant at that time?Mr. Camas responded the restaurant existed before the street was improved. It was a legal, non- conforming use.The public hearing was dosed.It was noted the project was categorically exempt from Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1985 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seoonded by Commisskxier Pruett, to approve Variance 1997-95, based on the findings that the hardship of losing 10 parking spaces in front of the building in prior years and the addition of 3 tables would not impact the parking requirements for the restaurant. The property, after the taking, has an unusual shape and as a resuR, fl rendere part of the property to be unusable. The applicant also lost directingress/egress from Chapman Avenue as a result of the street being widened.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pniett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Pruett would like staff to kwk into the concept of looking at billboards es buildings, with the sign ordinance applied to those buildings. So, the billboards can be looked at from the standpoint of bulk and mass issues.Chairman Bosch agreed and asked staff to report back to the Commission with a brief non-technical explanation of how they arrived at this point.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to a study session on August 15, 1995 at 4:45 p.m. in the parking bt, for a tour ofthe City's signs with the City Council.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None The meeting edjoumed at 10:10 p. m.sld MOTION