Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange August 17,1992 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart Murphy, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF AUGUST 3. 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve the Minutes of August 3, 1992 with the following correction: Page 18, second paragraph, first line, fifth word be amended to read site in lieu of request. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSTAINED: Chairman Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1961-92 - MANUEL RUBIO A request to construct a self serve car wash facility within the M-2 (Industrial District) zone. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Batavia Street and Taft Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1407-92 has been prepared for this project. The staff report was presented by Mr. Godlewski because there were several people present opposing the project. The applicant was requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a self-serve car wash facility. The proposal is to construct aself-serve facility consisting of seven covered wash bays and eight open vacuum/drying stalls. The wash bays are oriented in a north/south direction opening towards Taft Avenue. Also_included is a small 250 square foot equipment storage room located between car wash bays 3 and 4. The City's parking ordinance requires that open paved area be provided equivalent to 2 1/2 spaces per wash bay. The area between the vacuum area and the drying area is going to be used to fulfill this requirement. This is the minimum area necessary to fulfill this requirement, and therefore, there may be some on-site circulation problems. Due to the nature of the use, however, and the anticipated times of peak operation being the weekend, the Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 surrounding properties will not be such that there will be excessive pressure on the transportation system. There is a significant lull of the industrial area on weekends. Staff does not anticipate a major problem occurring. The intersection of Taft and Batavia is designated as a critical intersection. Right-of-way dedications are required as conditions of approval. Vacuum equipment, which is typically a concern of car washes in most commercial areas, is not anticipated to be a significant problem in this area because it is completely surrounded by industrial and some commercial uses. The car wash is proposed to be open 24 hours a day. The Design Review Board reviewed the application and expressed concern as to whether or not the car wash was actually an appropriate use for the comer site since it is a prominent arterial street intersection. The D.R.B. noted the quality of some of the recent developments in the vicinity and that this project should be designed to be consistent with the contemporary architectural styles of such development. In the D.R.B. recommendation, they recommended approval subject to the final plan and building elevation, as well as landscape plans, being brought back to the D.R.B. for their final consideration. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Manuel Rubio, 1525 East Washington Avenue, Santa Ana, was seeking permission to build a car wash. He built the meat plant next to it. He didn't feel it was going to be a detriment to the area. He would be happy to answer any questions. He has reviewed the staff report and agreed with the conditions. Commissioner Alvarez commented the use being asked for was not the highest use for that prominent intersection. He was curious as to why he chose a car wash rather than building it out with an industrial building or something that would fit in with the area. Mr. Rubio responded because of the care that's required in a self-serve car wash; it's not as labor intensive than other businesses. Those speakna in favor Dr. Donald L. Hayes, 11817 Golden Dale Drive, La Mirada, was the architect/designer for the job. He was available to answer any questions. He has designed over 150 car washes in Southern California and just a few months ago he won the United States 2nd place award for car washes. The lot is perfectly fitted for the car wash; there is ample room for turn around. Those ~eaking_in opposition Marla Richmond, 11374 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, represented Mario E. Antonine, owner of four buildings located at the southeast corner of Taft and Batavia. The Planning Commission was in receipt of Ms. Richmond's letter dated August 12, which outlined her objections. Ms. Richmond explained Mr. Antonine was her father and she managed the family's real estate portfolio. They're the owners of 26 acres of industrial/commercial property within the City of Orange. When her father purchased the 6.5 acres at Taft and Batavia, he 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 could see that the area was gradually being upgraded and wanted to be part of the area's future. He has built 810 West Taft, an award winning 60,000 square foot R&D facility currently leased by United Western Medical Centers. Also, 1635 North Batavia, a 30,000 square foot high end warehouse building; and most recently, a 28,000 square foot business park in which they are in lease negotiations. Her father has invested over 7 million dollars in developing the corner to what they strongly believe is the highest and best use. They have great faith in the potential of the area. She believes the construction of a self service car wash would have a substantial and adverse impact on the Taft and Batavia area. In addition, it would have a detrimental effect upon property values. Left unsupervised, self service car washes often provide a venue for criminal activity and graffiti vandal. They can attract litter, noise and gang activity. The construction of a car wash would reverse the trend of recent years in upgrading the Taft and Batavia area. She asked for a denial of this request. Geoff Nunn, c/o Cadway, Inc., 15505 East Whittier Blvd., Whitter, owners of 1036 West Taft. He also requested denial of the permit. They believe this is not of the same quality that the building they own is. This does not equal the use of the area. The area has become substantially new quality, upgraded office industrial complexes. To put in a self-service car wash with its problems and conflicts would downgrade the potential for future growth in the area. Rebut al Dr. Hayes stated the lot is going to be well lighted and will cut down on any crime that would take place. The facility is completely open and can be seen from the street. A crime effect is non-existent. They find that most of their car washes do not downgrade surrounding properties. The equipment in the car washes is quite costly. No one has complained about downgrading their property values. The building will be nice looking. The old car washes built in the 60's were kind of an eyesore; but they've put a lot of time and money into the new buildings. Mr. Rubio's mentioned the general budget will be in excess of one million dollars for this project. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alvarez stated for the record that the Alvarez Family Trust, of which he is the successor trustee, owns property in the 1900 block North Batavia, but he did not fall within the 300 feet or extended 2500 feet. Commissioner Bosch noted there was a Negative Declaration for the project and it appears it was well and appropriately prepared. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1407-92 in that it has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act: and that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 Commissioner Bosch personally appreciated the investment the applicant presents, but the purpose of the Planning Commission was to determine whether this was an appropriate use for the site in the area. Car washes are a necessary support service in the community. There are a number of similar uses within the area. He felt there were far more appropriate uses for the site. It's a small site but it is able to be developed given the size and configuration of it. It is not appropriate to put a car wash on this site; it's a good use, but the wrong place. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1961-92. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Discussion Commissioner Smith said reference was made to the car wash being a possible magnet for gang activity and personally she does not believe that. Her vote does not necessarily reflect her agreement with the reasons that were proposed for denial. Commissioner Alvarez noted that TSIP fees would be triggered for the project. He asked staff to explain why this use would trigger TSIP fees? Mr. Godlewski explained the TSIP fees are for any new commercial construction. It is a new building used for commercial dollars. It is determined by the ordinance for TSIP that such a use will pay the standard rate for commercial activities. Mr. Godlewski apprised the owner of his appeal rights. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1979-92 -DAN SHERBONDY A request to allow the operation of 14 coin activated amusement devices (including 4 pool tables), live entertainment and an outdoor sand volleyball court at an existing restaurant/nightclub located in the C-2 commercial zone. Subject property is located at 3845 Metropolitan Drive. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Dan Sherbondy, 4540 San Antonio, Yorba Linda, was trying to bring some needed business to The City shopping center. There's plenty of parking and there are no residences nearby. The volleyball court is for an athletic type atmosphere rather than just having a bar. Game machines will be visible to the employees. The reason they wish to stay open until 4:00 a.m. is so that people can stop drinking at 2:00 a.m. and 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 eat, dance and sober up before going home. They want to compete with other restaurants and have provided a patio for dining. Commissioner Smith asked what kind of game machines would be provided? Mr. Sherbondy said they had four pool tables, a couple of basketball games, dart boards, pinball, video games and Pac Man. The games are rotated every couple of months. Those speaking in favor Ken Miller, represented Tishman West Company, #1 City Blvd. West who spoke in favor of the request. They are also trying to stimulate business and revenue for the shopping center and the City. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy wanted staff to clarify for him the conditional use permit request. Was it strictly for the 14 amusement devices or does it include the live entertainment, the volleyball court and staying open until 4:00 a.m.? Mr. Godlewski explained the specific application was for the operation of the amusement devices, as well as the operation of the live entertainment. The hours of operation until 4:00 a.m. is something any commercial business can offer. In this particular case, it becomes part of the conditional use permit because conditions can be issued as determined by the Planning Commission. The volleyball court is part of the application as well (considered as part of the recreation/live entertainment). Chairman Cathcart said the staff report referred to monitoring by the police department. In past C.U.P.'s the Commission has been given the option to put on there a certain number of months to evaluate whether or not it is working. The concern about traffic and the volley ball court, reflectors on the chain link fence; 4 o'clock in the morning -- is that going to be just for the people who are there to sober up or will all the people coming out of other places pile in here for a wild time? He thought maybe a condition of 6 months for evaluation to determine whether or not this is working might be valid. Mr. Godlewski said on Page 5 of the staff report it was discussed the Crime Prevention Bureau will on a continual basis go to this place and monitor it to see if there's a problem. If there is a police type of problem, it will be brought to Planning's attention to place the item on the Agenda and bring it back to the Commission. If the Commission wishes to add a condition that gives staff specific direction to go out every six months or every year, they can do that and report back to the Planning Commission with their findings of how the operation is going. Or, the condition can be worded that it would be brought back as a public hearing item every six months. Chairman Cathcart would like to see something crafted that the staff investigate the situation and make a report of their findings to the Planning Commission in six months. Commissioner Alvarez questioned Page 2, Item 5 in which City records indicate that a conditional use permit has never been issued for this site. How have they operated to this point? 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 Mr. Godlewski said this particular building has been used for a restaurant and nightclub type use over the years. It's very possible there may have been some consideration at the time the overall center was applied for, but staff has not been able to find any record of that. With the new request, which is an expansion of this type of use, even if it had a C.U.P., staff would require them to come back and get permission to expand the use. Therefore, it was recommended to issue a new conditional use permit and start from this point. Commissioner Bosch referred to Page 8, condition 10 which speaks to the applicant's responsibility for control of customer activity and moves through levels of monitoring to the requirement of an uniformed security guard if there are mayor problems, to bringing the C.U.P. back to the Commission. Has the Planning Department and Police Department, based upon an analysis of this or other similar live entertainment projects, identified a threshold which objectively based on the number of complaints, level or size of complaints, created that threshold? How will it be decided? Is the language sufficient to automatically kick in the requirement of provision of the guards? Mr. Godlewski responded to the first part of Commissioner Bosch's question. There is not a specific ratio of how many complaints or a level of rowdiness that is quantifiable. At this point it's left to the discretion of the Police and Planning Departments. Mr. Soo-Hoo reviewed the condition and thought the language was a little vague; however, his conclusion was that the Police Department probably has the option at this time to require the maximum amount of security and is going to abstain from doing that at this time in order to give the applicant the benefit of proving that level of service is not needed. There probably is no threshold or quantifiable way of wording the requirement. Commissioner Bosch suggested making a minor modification to 10 B. He wanted to be sure that under State law they were covered on this. "Should the level of police services demonstrate that the applicant has not controlled excessive or unnecessary activity resulting in high use of police services, then at the sole discretion of the Orange Police Department, in consultation with the Planning Department, upon analysis of that level of police services at least one licensed, uniformed security guard must be provided for each fifty people or fractional number thereof." He wanted an automatic provision rather than having something stretched out for months. Commissioner Murphy thought these folks were trying to make sure they had the right permits where in the past it appears the previous owners weren't quite so conscientious. Commissioner Smith was at the site this date and noticed the trash container was in an awkward place. She wasn't sure where the proper place for the trash was? It should be included in the design of this plan. Mr. Johnson did not have any information on this particular dumpster. He knew the normal procedure required an enclosed trash facility. It could be the trash container was not in the enclosed area. 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to re-open the public hearing in order for the applicant to answer the question regarding the trash container. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Sherbondy said trash day is on Monday. They push the dumpster out front so the trash people can get to it easier; they keep the back gate locked. Mr. Miller explained there is a common trash area between the restaurant and night club. It is gated with redwood fence slats per the City's requirements. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1979-92 subject to all of the conditions listed, along with the modification made to condition 10 B. by Commissioner Bosch. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 30 day status report on the economic analysis being prepared in conjunction with Zone Change 1151-92 regarding the reclassification of property in the 300 block of North Olive and Lemon Streets. Mr. Godlewski stated at the July 20 Planning Commission Meeting staff was directed to proceed with the study under the guidance of Land Economist AI Gobar to prepare an analysis of various development alternatives related to Old Towne. Staff was asked at that point to report back within 30 days on the progress of the study. Staff has met with Mr. Gobar last week to review the methodology and assumptions related to the economic analysis. Mr. Gobar was able to make suggestions to streamline the necessary staff work while still ensuring that sufficient information was included in the analyses to make them complete. Even with the slightly reduced scope of work, it is anticipated that the analysis will still require 60 to 70 staff hours to complete. A number of staff will be working on the study and it is estimated that a completion time sometime in the middle of September can be accomplished. A second part of the study is a units per lot yield study, which will also require significant staff time. Both of these studies are under way. The units per lot information is anticipated to be available in early October. Staff is prepared to provide another staff report for the September 9 Planning Commission Meeting. Public Input T. J. Clark, 811 East Chapman Avenue, requested this issue be settled at this meeting one way or the other. This has been going on for at least eight months. Either re-instate the R-4 zoning or reject it and return it to the City Council. He felt it was a waste of time and money to have all these studies. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 In response to Chairman Cathcart's question about an advertised public hearing, Mr. Godlewski stated in order for the Commission to take action, it would have to be advertised in a method prescribed by law. Chairman Cathcart reassured Mr. Clark that some of them share his frustration. He asked him to bear with them and they'll get through the cumbersome process. Commissioner Alvarez agreed with Mr. Clark. He had a hard time looking at the AI Gobar study and relating it back to Mr. Clark's problem. He would like to see it brought back as soon as possible and would like to put it on the agenda for the next meeting. The Commission and Mr. Godlewski talked about the earliest dates possible for this item to be put on the agenda. The first meeting date all information would be available is October 5, 1992. Chairman Cathcart would personally like to hear the entire staff report before making a recommendation. Commissioner Smith's understanding that the staff reports were called for to give them clarification and a good decision in bringing continuity and conformity into all three zoning plans. She would not be in favor of any special treatment for this particular quadrant's issue, especially in the light that it was already under public scrutiny for a good number of months and a decision was made. It's important to remember that this does not only affect us as individuals, but our community as a whole for a long time. Commissioner Murphy also concurred he is looking forward to getting that information to consolidate his opinion. Commissioner Bosch pointed out the Planning Commission initiated the request for the economic study based upon this specific area -- not the others. He does not like to see this much time either, but asked for patience as they're getting close and have put pressure on the staff to be sure the hours are put in to get the needed information m plenty of time for the Commission to review it before making a decision. Commissioner Alvarez had to disagree with the Commission. This was a re-zone that this particular neighborhood was not aware of. It was brought to the attention of the Commission through Mr. Clark. What he is basically asking for is to be turned back to what it was prior to that. That was done without the AI Gobar study. He thinks it could be returned without it again. He strongly agrees with Mr. Clark. The studies will not have an impact on this if the zoning is turned back to what it was originally. Commissioner Bosch stated the wrong doing was apparently in the notification process and the process of the original zoning. The AI Gobar study was requested during part of the hearings for this specific application to return the zoning; it is part in parcel of it in the minds of the Commissioners who were in that first public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Alvarez to put this item on the Planning Commission Agenda for their next meeting. The motion died from a lack of a second. 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1992 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to a public work session on August 19, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the potential re-zoning of Area "C" of Old Towne; and then to adjourn to their next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. sld 9