Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-1999 PC Minutesc[~~~ MINLJTES Planning Commission City of Orange August 16, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Carlton Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1605-99 - PAUL HUDSON The applicant requested to continue his proposal to allow the demolition of the rear portion of a 11 1/2 story, 1911 Craftsman Bungalow and to construct a new 1 1/2 story, 1,454sq. ft. addition at the rear of the structure to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1999. The site is located at 212 South Orange Street within the Old Towne Orange Historic District.li> TIONMoved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Mitigated Negative Dedaration 1605-99 to the meeting of September 8, 1999 with no readvertisement of the item. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2292-99 & MINOR SITE PLAN 97-99 - SHEPHERD ACADEMIC OAKRIDGE PRIVATE SCHOOL)The applicant is requesting to continue the request to allow the construction and operation of a private elementary school, and the use of modular structures indefinitely. The site is located on the northwest corner of Spring Street and Prospect Street. (This item was continued from the July 7, 1999 meeting.)M!) TION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue Conditional Use Permit 2292-99 and Minor Site Plan 97- 99 indefinitely. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Bosch pulled the Minutes from the Consent Calendar because he was absent from the meElting. 3. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 101-99 - SELECT LEASING AND VIKING PLUMBING A site plan review of two new three-story industrial buildings totaling approximately 22,000 sq. ft. and demolishing 1,567 sq. ft. of existing structures. The site is located at 2300 North Batavia Street in thE~ M1 Industrial Zone.RECOMMENDATION: Approve Major Site Plan 101- 99.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED 2. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of August 2, 1999. MJ;!llilli Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes of AU9ust 2, 1999 as written. AYI= S: NOES: ABSTAINED:ABSENT:Commissioners Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 5. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 4-99 (RE: DRB NO. 3444) - AL & ED' S AUTOSOUND The, applicant is appealing the Design Review Board's denial of a proposal to replace wall signs on an existing retail business. The site is located at 1171 North Tustin Street. (This item was continued from the July 19, 1999 meeting.)The applicant was not present and the Commission agreed to continue the item until later in the Meeting.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Design Review BoaJd Appeal No. 4-99 to later in the Meeting. AYES: NOI=S:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 6. IVIODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2233-98 - THE MILLS CORPORATION A proposal to modify a previously approved sign program for The Block at Orange. The site is located west of 'the City Drive between Chapman Avenue and SR-22 (Garden Grove Freeway). (This item was continued from the August 2, 1999 meeting.)NOTE:The environmental impacts of the proposal were evaluated by previously approved Negative Declaration 1568-98.Thore was no opposition to this item and the public hearing wasopened.ill!J)licant, Jerry EnQen. The Mills Corporation, One City Boulevard, talked about the issues that were brought up at the previous hearing. The stylon program was to be an icon that tells a story about the project. It was to set the tone and character of the project and by changing the signs, it would keep the project fresh. The stylons are not seen from anywhere outside the project. There are two stylons that fao3 City Drive that are a little more visible, but it depends on where a person is. They are asking the City to amend their conditional use permit to allow them to put either a logo or the name of the sponsor that would be sponsoring the art program or story as part of the project.Chairman Bosch noted for the record that he reviewed the Minutes and staff reports from the previous meeting, and also read the Minutes where the previous actions were approved to begin with so that he could participate in the hearing.Tho public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith recapped the previous hearing about the concern of the large stylons. Even though it is not the stated intent of The Block to use the stylons as advertising, she could see no other definition for that if a corporate name is included on the artistic stylons. She would like to stick to the original intent wh43n the signs were originally approved. The 90 foot stylons were approved as a piece of the architecture at The Block and a piece of the design element rather than as advertising.Commissioner Pruett thought they would be setting a precedent for the Sign Ordinance to move to include at the bottom of the stylons text or a logo (any type of advertisement) that might be incorporated into the stylons. In terms of the concern of trying to provide recognition to the individual who is sponsoring the image that is going to be put on to the stylons, the shorter, 32 foot stylons, do givl3 an opportunity to provide that recognition, where the Commission did approve text on the lower signs. The ori9inal approval was that all signs would carry a theme throughout the project. The larger stylons neEld to remain as a design characteristic that has been incorporated into the overall Center.Chairman Bosch commented on the large stylons and thought there were other innovative ways of recognizing the sponsors. He's loath to make a change in the Sign Ordinance.Commissioner Pruett said there was another part of the proposal for modification and that was to change it to allow the stylons to be either black and white or color. He's not going to approve that change because the existing condition does allow for the change, but it is approved by the Director of Community Development or his designee. He thought the sign program needs to be in existence for a little while before making changes to the conditions of approval.MC~Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to deny the Modification to Conditional Use Permit 2233- 98. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 Mr. Jones explained the appeal procedures regarding the Commission's action. IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2297-99 - SAEED SAMMY MEDAL! (INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES) A request to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the operation of an existing restaurant. The site is located at 707 North Tustin Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this item. If the, City approves the applicant's conditional use permit request, it would allow the applicant to proceed to the State's ABC Board and receive a Type 41 license, which would allow him to sell beer and wine for the purpose of on-site consumption. The Police Department has reviewed this request, and even though it is in an area of high crime with a high concentration of ABC licenses, the Police Department has recommended that the application be approved because it is an existing restaurant, and they havo not had any problems with the operation of the restaurant in the past. Staff has included 14 conditions of approval.Th'3 public hearing was opened.Melissa Hernandez, represented the applicant, Saeed Sammy Medali, 707 North Tustin Street. The applicant's main goal is to serve beer and wine as an option with their meals. IHOP has already si9ned conditions with the ABC. Lunch and dinner items have been added to their menu and they no longer just serve breakfast. They have read the staff report and agree with the conditions of approval.One person spoke in opposition:RavCross, 1804 East Mayfair, does not object to the beer and wine sales, but there is a parking problEim in the area. Employees of IHOP are parking in front of his house every day of the week except Thursday, a stmet sweeping day.Applicant' s response:Ms. Hernandez was not aware of the parking problems, or the employees parking in the neighborhood rather than in the parking lot. She did not think there would be a big impact because of the beer and wine sal'3s because it is just an addition to their existing meals.Commissioner Romero said the staff report indicates there are 29 parking spaces. He wondered how many employees work at IHOP because there could be a parking problem when the restaurant is full.ThE3 public hearing was closed.Mr. Jones explained the site contains a 3,800 square foot facility and the parking requirement would be about 38 spaces. The site is currently a legal, non-conforming use because it only has 29 parking spaces.If the Commission feels with the expansion of the use it will generate additional parking demands, the Commission has the ability to not grant the request, or condition the project in such a way to address the parking issue of requiring employees to park on the site and not in the neighborhood.Commissioner Romero thought the expansion of the use would potentially cause additional parking problems throughout the day. He would be in favor of denying the conditional Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 Commissioner Pruett shared the same concern. He didn't see any measures to mitigate the parkingproblem. Commissioner Smith would like to hear if anyone is parking in the parking lot. Maybe there is room in theparkinglotforboththeemployeesandcustomers. Business on Tustin struggles and there are manyvacancies. She would like to see the use of the business properties encouraged, but not to the detrimentofIthequalityoflifeintheneighborhood. It's difficult not having the owner present at the meeting to givethe' Commission his experience of the property. She knows of a large parking lot across the street at theshoppingcenterbetweenMayfairandCollinsthatisneverfull. And, the property owner is quite op~9n topromotingbusinessuseonTustin. She wondered if shared parking use could be negotiated betweenthetwoownerstomitigatetheproblemofemployeesparkingintheresidentialneighborhood. Chairman Bosch didn't believe the addition of the incidental sales of beer and wine with the lunch ordinnermenuwilldramaticallycauseproblemsintheneighborhood, other than the concern about parking.He thinks it is the duty of the applicant to demonstrate how a solution may be found when there is aperceivedexistingparkingproblem. The shared parking concept is an opportunity that the applicant maywanttolookintoasanalternative. An adequate study is needed to identify what can be done to miti1gatethecurrentlyexistingand/or perceived impacts of employee parking, and also to look at alternativos tohandletheparking, given the substandard condition of the site. Commissioner Pruett would like staff to give the Commission a report of employees crossing Tustin,especially after dark, and the conditions for shared parking off site. The Commission asked the applicant's representative if she would agree to a continuance, to which sheagmed. M.QTlON Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Conditional UsePermit2297-99 to the September 20, 1999 meeting for the purpose of allowing the applicant toconsultwithPlanningstaffwithregardtoCityordinancerequiredconditionsandlimitationsforsharedparkin~loffsite, as well as for the applicant to provide documentation to demonstrate control of employee parkingandaprovisionofadequateoff-site parking to offset the impacts on the substandard property. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2298-99 - SPECIALTY RESTAURANTSCORPORATION (ORANGE HILL RESTAURANT)A request to allow the construction of a one-level parking structure over the existingparkingareaand3,070 square-foot, second story addition to the restaurant, with a small, third-story bell tower proposed as an architectural embellishment. The site is located at 6410 East Chapman Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1606-99 was prepared toevaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, presented a staff report as there was oppositiontothisitem. This request is also a modification to Conditional Use Permit 1904. The Commission last reviewed development at Orange Hill Restaurant in 1991 when it permitted a minor expansion oftheparkingfacilitywithatandf3mparkingarrangementcontrolledbyfull-time attendants. TheCity's zoning ordinance allows construction of parking structures and restaurants in commercialzones. The Commission is reviewing the proposal because of the nature of its design and because it isadevelopmentprojectthat would Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 Orange Hill Restaurant is a 14,900 square foot building with a private driveway that is approximately 1/4 mile long and aligned with a traffic signal at Cliffway Drive. The site has a secondary, unimproved emergency access road that connects the restaurant and the parking area with Calle Alta, the nearest residential street to the East. The restaurant proposes to build three (3) additions to the building, including a banquet room on the second story, a decorative bell tower, which is not habitable, and a new trash enclosure and service area attached to the back of the kitchen. When completed, the restaurant size would increase to 18,600 square feet. The parking structure would cover 29,800 square feet and is thEI more significant component of the project. The project satisfies the City's Development Standards concerning height limitations, required setbacks, and the minimum required number of parking spaces. The parking structure would be situated at the northeast corner of the site to provide adequate separation from the restaurant, and to maintain clearance for emergency access along that roadway that connects the Sitl3 to the adjacent residential tract. Construction of the parking structure would require some remollal of earth from the slope that is adjacent to the east edge of the parking facility. The slope is part of a knoll that ris,es to the height of about 850 feet above sea level, and 50 feet higher than the existing surface of the parking area. Staff estimates that about 1,200 cubic yards of earth will be cut and removed from the site in order to build the proposed parking structure. The applicant has previously considered two (2) other parking expansions at Orange Hill Restaurant, including an extension of surface parking beyond the parcel boundaries, which would have requilred a terraced parking lot, but would essentially move down the northern slope of the adjacent open space parcel. The second proposal included a larger parking structure that would require adjustments to the current property boundary and a zone change to drop the Agricultural designation from the adjacent parcel, and permit commercial development. Staff regards this proposal as being less harmful to the environment or the views of surrounding properties when compared to either of those two plans. The Design Review Committee recommends that if the project is approved, the applicant should prepare a detailed landscape plan and return to the DRC for review. The landscaping plan should include planter amas along the tops of the slopes that are adjacent to the north and south edges of the parking facility to conceal the proposed structure behind a vertical screen. Use vines and planter boxes on the structure itself. Use naturally occurring stone from the site as a masonry application at the base of the parking structure. Provide detailed section drawings that provide a better understanding of the structure's relationship to the natural terrain. And, also consider minimizing the size of the structure by eliminating surplus parking spaces. The staff report notes that an increased number of parking spaces is one of the applicant's primary objectives of the project, and the structure has already been reduced in size from when it was originally proposed. The public hearing was opened. Phil Bennett, 5535 East Cerritos Drive, is the project architect for Specialty Restaurants Corporation. He said they were proposing three (3) additions to the restaurant: One is an addition to the banquet room on thl3 south end. The second one is a second floor banquet room addition, and the third addition would be storage rooms, a walk in refrigerator and a trash compactor room on the back side of the existing kitchen, facing the parking lot. The parking structure is one-story and they have tried to keep the structure as low as possible. The parking structure has been located to the back side of the parking lot. The DRC requested that they provide additional trees on the north and south side of the parking structure as a vE,rtical buffer, and they already had landscape planters around the perimeter of the parking structure. It was also suggested on the north end, where some of the foundation will be exposed, to take some of the native rock and use that as facing.Commissioner Smith would like to add a condition that the landscape plans be reviewed by the DRC. She also suggested that since the site is visible from many places, that landscaping and more greenery a9ainst the buildings might help to mitigate the visual impact of the project and parking structure. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 199B Chairman Bosch has not received a detailed topographical plan or grading plan showing the exactrelationshipsandgrading. The staff report indicates there will have to be off site grading at the east wall ofthBparkingstructuretothetoeoftheslopeoftheknoll. He wanted to know if the applicant had writtenpermissionfromthepropertyowner. Mr. Bennett replied the same owner owns the acreage around the restaurant and the restaurant'sproperty. Everything they are proposing to do is within their lease limits. It will not be a problem to obtainwrittenpermissionfortheexpansion. Chairman Bosch said several conditions of approval come from the Fire Department requiring FireDepartmentaccesswithin150feetofanypointontheexteriorbuildingwall, or other provisions. And. alsoforFireDepartmentfirelanesandturnarounds. The site plan doesn't have sufficient detail to prOVE! thatthe, applicant can meet the conditions. Mr. Bennett explained the turn around would be the existing turn around. The turn around is not on theirSitEI; it's outside the current limits of their lease. The main concern of the Fire Department was on thesouthside, the existing 26 foot wide fire lane that they currently have to access the property from the backandthatitbemaintained. Chairman Bosch is concerned with a current problem of arrival stacking and unloading, even with valetparking. He wanted to know how this problem will be mitigated with the new proposed parking structure. Mr. Bennett will take care of this concern with the parking consultant. During the busy hours, the receivinglinewillneedtobemovedupfurthertoallowformorestacking. Commissioner Smith avoids this restaurant because of the access up the steep road. She wondered ifroadaccesshasbeenreviewedastosafetybecausetheroadwindsupthehill. Mr. Bennett stated the road has not been addressed, nor has he been made aware of any concerns withtheroad. There is no way they could modify or change the road at this time. FiVE! (5) people spoke in oPPosition: Guy Wilson, 152 Calle Alta. Jacque Gates, 120 South Waterwheel Way.Anita Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres. William Ernest, 138 Calle Alta. The knoll behind the restaurant hides the activities of the restaurant and parking lot from the residentialneighborhood. The sight line is very critical to the residents and property values. The bell tower is aconcern. It was suggested to cut into the hill and drop the parking structure down a little bit. Parties bElingpagEldandvoicescanbeheardwhenpeopleareoutsidetherestaurant. The second story addition willvisuallyimpacttheneighbors. The proposal to expand is obtrusive. The lights in the trees are nice, butadditionallightingisopposed. Signage keeps being added to the property. The restaurant has not beenagoodneighbor. Illegal dumping of trash on the hill and in the parking lot has not been cleaned. Carshavebeenparkedonthefireaccessroad. Pictures were shared with the Commission. cant's response: Mr. Elennett explained the existing knoll is approximately 50 feet higher than the existing parking lot. Therestaurantisapproximately30feettall. The proposed bell tower will be scaled down in width, and it will notbevisibletothepeoplebehindtheknoll. They looked into the possibility of constructing a subterrane,anparkingstructure, but due to the soils condition it is impossible to do that without blasting. Orange HillRestaurantdoesnothaveapagingsystem. The management is available to meet and talk with peopleabouttheirconcerns. He has not heard of an accident on the entrance road going up to the restaurant. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 The roadway is one of the unique characteristics of Orange Hill Restaurant. With the trees and lights, it has created an atmosphere that people are aware of, At one time they received permission from the City and owner, to clean up the back area and use it for peak season employee parking. Commissioner Romero was concerned about increasing the outside dining area and the noise volume a8sociated with that. He was also concerned about additional lighting in that it will no longer be a rural looking hill. He would not be in approval of something that is massive or modern-looking. He wanted to SEle plans or pictures of the proposed additions.Mr. Bennett said there is no planned expansion on their plans for outdoor dining in the patio area.Although, they thought it would be nice to enlarge the outdoor dining area. During the holidays, the restaurant is crowded. They've had to use vans for satellite parking. By expanding the banquet rooms and building a parking structure, it will be an asset to them by keeping and maintaining everything on the sHe. In reference to the trash, they will look into that problem immediately and will take care of it.Commissioner Smith wanted to know the purpose of the bell tower and if it will be illuminated at night. She proposed testing the height of the tower with balloons.Mr. Bennett said there will be a non-operating bell inside the tower. The owner wanted to have a focal point (bell tower) so that people could see the restaurant. There will be lights in the ceiling that will be shining down from the tower itself. He agreed to make the tower smaller by downscaling it in size -- not so much in height, but width. He recognizes, though, that the concern of the neighbors is the height of the bElli tower and they will take that into consideration.The Commission discussed allowable entertainment at Orange Hill Restaurant. Live entertainment is not provided in the restaurant. But, when there areweddings/receptions, there is live entertainment inside the banquet room. A proposed condition will be added that only ceremonies could be performed on the patio with no live music outside. The hours of operation are from 5:00 to 10:00 p.m. during the week and 5:00 to 11 :00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Sunday, they are open for brunch at 9:00 a. m.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Pruett wanted to know the parking requirements for the restaurant and the banquet facilities.Mr. Donovan said there was no difference between a banquet hall and restaurant in terms of dining areas.The requirement is 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet up to 4,000 square feet, and it increases to 14. 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet for everything over that 4,000 square feet.Commissioner Smith asked if the lighting impact is mentioned in the staff report. She also asked about live entertainment and road access/safety concerns.Mr. Donovan said the City has a Building Security Ordinance that was not in effect at the time the property was developed. The City did not control the initial development; it was annexed years after it was constructed. The City does have minimum outdoor lighting standards that the developer will have to satisfy. The Crime Prevention Bureau is working with Planning staff to make sure the property dOEls not provide more lighting than what is necessary. The DRC needs to see some fixtures that control lighting so that it isn't a glare from a distance. The Christmas lights are a decorative item that is not regulated by the City. The City has never granted authorization for live entertainment. In 1991 when the CUP was discussed the first time for tandem parking, the Fire Department looked into the access issues. The secondary dirt road needs to be improved to current standards. Staff has not reviewed the front narrow,stl3ep road, but they have accepted it as an existing situation.Commissioner Smith stated they should not overlook the health and safety of the consumers who use the sileo Key points of concern include: The actual parking requirement. If entertainment is not authorized Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 ancl it is going on at the site, it needs to be addressed so that it is official and legal. The proposed lighting impact may be too much for the neighbors. An approved landscape plan needs to be reviewed by the ORe. The height of the bell tower needs to be lowered and a test needs to be done to see how high 40 feel! is visually. The access road is substandard and it would be irresponsible of the City to approve a parking structure for more cars when the road is inadequate. She does not propose a total revamping of the road, but maybe a review to see what can be done to mitigate some of the concerns. She is not comfortable with the City accepting that road as an existing situation. It should be conditioned in that there would be a severe consequence for any trash thrown over the side of the hill, or a condition that it be called out what the consequence is. She wondered if the City needs written approval from the nei!~hboring property owner for access while grading. Commissioner Pruett said there will be a visual impact to some property owners. He likes the idea of a sight line study. Each corner of the structure should be identified with the balloons so one can truly get the full visual impact as to what is going to happen. There also needs to be a similar evaluation made of the parking structure because it will have some visual impact as well. He encouraged the applicant to work closely with the adjacent property owners who are going to have some impact and try to mitigate their concerns in some way. The neighbors need to be brought into the planning process so that their issues can be addressed. Chairman Bosch concurred with the concerns of the Commission. He wants to see more detail on the layout to assure that Fire Department requirements are met, including the ADA requirements for handicapped parking. He would hate to see the access road re-worked in the sense that there could be great damage to the hill that it may not be worth the outcome. A study of the access driveway for improvement and sight line visibility or minor adjustments, including safety barriers may be well worthwhile.Although the primary purpose of the addition drives the parking structure, other architectural featurEls or modernization, including the bell tower don't require coming before the Planning Commission for a CUP.It's the additional square footage and additional seats that drives the request. The parking structure and the impacts on the hill are substantial enough that even then the Commission would need to look at a Site Plan Review. He wants to see a landscaping plan as well. He's concerned not just that the landscaping appropriately enhance or provide a barrier to the parking structure, but he is worried too that the types of treElS and vertical elements used may create a greater visual impact on the neighbors than simply the sight lines of a well designed, well detailed correct material used on the parking structure itself. There is a point whEm you cut it off and let the structure blend into the hill to try and naturalize the contours and lines where they are the most obtrusive. Put landscaping where it seems to fit, given the natural topography,and not over power it by having set vertical elements. He's concerned with the increased capacity of the restaurant and about the potential increase in noise and the issue of the outdoor dining area. It's not on the plan, and it is still subject to discussion. It needs to be nailed down in writing before taking action. The increased commercial success should not be at the expense or the reduction of property values or lifestyle of the adjacent properties. He wants to make it strong and clear that no outside amplified sound or live entertainment can occur on any part of the property. He's concerned too about the arrival stacking ana' loading problem needs to be addressed and shown on the plans as well. The traffic congestion on the hill has blocked the drive and something needs to be done to enhance the traffic safety whether it is by traffic control devices, lining, striping, signage, barriers, etc. He would like to demonstrate and show hoVl the design can be mitigated to the best extent possible through a sight line study, through an accurate topographically correct grading plan that the Commission can review, through a fully developed site plan and through amplification of conditions with regard to sound, traffic, safety and light. The increase in ridge line exposure by increasing the height and width of the second floor of the restaurant and bell tower, as well as enhanced landscaping, appears that it impacts more properties. He needs more information before making a decision to be assured that the negative impacts are going to be mitigated.Mr. Hohnbaum suggested the applicant do a brief alignment study to identify what the grades are ' from one end of the road to the other, and the ability to widen the road in certain places or provide some type of barrier to avoid potential impacts. Plcmning Commission Minutes August 16, 1999 Thl3 applicant concurred to a continuation after hearing the Commission's comments. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue Conditional Use Permit 2298-99 to the meeting of October 18, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARINGS 5. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 4-99 (RE: ORB NO. 3444) - AL & ED'S AUTOSOUND ThH applicant is appealing the Design Review Board's denial of a proposal to replace wall signs on an existing retail business. The site is located at 1171 North Tustin Street. (This item was continued from the July 19, 1999 meeting.)Tho pUblic hearing was opened.AI I3rotskv. 1171 North Tustin, is the President of AI & Ed's Autosound. He apologized for being late.ThElY would like to enhance their business with signage. The concerns are architecture and aesthetics of the building.Mal'k Frank, 701 Lakme Avenue. Wilminqton, represents San Pedro Signs. He explained the single line format of signage does not read well. They are proposing to use alternative lettering formats, and he distributed samples to the Commission for their review. The ORB denied their request because of the arcilitectural feature. One option shows channel letters on a raceway up higher on the building, and notl,ing is done to the building. Or, the wall could be rebuilt to lower the architectural feature and put the sign above it.ThE! public hearing was closed.ThE! Commission discussed the variety of visual alternatives. Two Commissioners liked Option C, which retains the architecture and character of the original design, and at the same time promotes the business;however, one Commissioner thought Option C was too busy.Mr. Godlewski explained the DRC reviews shopping center plans and signs over the tenant's space. The sign is within the allowable area. The bottom elevation faces Tustin and the long elevation faces the side street, Wilson. Staff requires the owner's authorization for signage prior to issuance of a building permit.Chairman Bosch would not support an appeal on the original proposal because it is a total destruction of the architectural element. Everything has to work together. He wanted the applicant to think of the architecture as well as the sign. He didn't think the signage was quite there yet. He suggested the applicant return to the DRC for review of the signage alternatives.Chairman Bosch is not in favor of removing the Palm tree, but Commissioner Romero thinks the tree has already been removed.Mr. Jones stated the Commission could refer this item to the DRC with the additional alternatives and some direction as to what the Commission would like to see. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1 999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Smith to refer Design Review BoardAppealNo. 4-99 (RE: ORB No. 3444) back to the Design Review Committee, noting that the applicanthasproposedalternativestotheproposaloriginallydeniedbytheDesignReviewBoard, and that a reactiontotht3findingsoftheBoardtorejecttheapplication, the applicant is now proposing not to removeexistingarchitecturalfeatures; however, the Commission requests the DRC to consider how proposedalternativedesignsbytheapplicantretainitsintegrateddesignelementfortheCenter, and review whethertheapplicant's proposed signage, with adjustments to the architectural feature, is in keeping withthebuilding's architecture and is compatible with the Center. And, finally to review the proposed removalofanexistingPalm tree. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 9:30 p. m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED slcl