Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-1998 PC MinutesLAssiG C- &.. S-Ol> . G-.~. - 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange October 5, 1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary, John Godlewski, Senior Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, George Liang, Senior Civil Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEM TO BE WITHDRAWN 1. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 59-98 - TUSTIN & COLLINS CORNING DEVELOPMENT (ORANGE CENTER) A proposal to demolish a 1,200 sq. ft. retail building and construct a new 7,386 sq. ft. retail development. The site is located at 940 North Tustin Street. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1567-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Applicant has withdrawn this request. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to withdraw Major Site Plan Review 59- 98. AYES:NOES: IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 2.a. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1998.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of September 9, 1998 as written. AYES: NOES:ABSTAINED:Commissioners Bosch, Car1ton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 2.b. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14,1998. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of September 14, 1998, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED 2.c. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21,1998. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes of September 21, 1998, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 3. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1570-98 - ROSALYN HOLLAND A negative declaration to study the potential impacts, if any, regarding a proposed project to include demolition of the front and rear facade and existing roof with the addition of a new one-half story and expand new front and rear elevations. The site is located at 803 East Palmyra.Commissioner Smith pulled this item from the Consent Calendar because there were a couple ofthingsthatappearedtohertobealittleunusual. It looks like there is a rather new addition to the back portion of the property. She questioned the mitigation measures and whether or not the property hadadequateparking. She was also concerned that this property is allowed a 20% reduction in the 20 foot front setback. She realizes that the reduction has already been allowed by the Zoning Administrator, but she wants to know why.Mr. Jones stated with regard to the mitigation measures the Design Review Board is authorized to review all projects in Old Towne and make determinations regarding whether or not they comply with the Old Towne Design Standards. The DRB held two meetings on this project. At the first one, the DRB asked for some revisions to the plans. The plans were brought back with revisions and the DRB determined that with the additional 12 conditions/mitigation measures, the project would meet the Old TowneDesignStandards. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the request to encroach into the front setback. It was found that a number of other properties on the street were closer than the 20 foot requirement, and based on that fact, the Z.A. approved the project as being appropriate.Commissioner Smith walked the two block area and she did not see any residences in the 20 foot setback.She believed this project sets a precedent by encroaching into the setback. She also wanted to know if the back project went to the DRB for review. She proposed that the mitigation is incomplete because of inadequate parking on the site. She did not feel right in approving additions to a second building on the property without adequate parking. This will impact the neighbors and Palmyra Street.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant, Daniel ArQento. 805 East Palmvra, lives in the rear unit on this property. They are wanting to remodel the front house and the proposed design has been approved by the DRB. They've owned the property since the early 1970's. The unit they live in was originally a studio apartment and it wasbeingrentedoutatthetimetheyboughttheproperty. In 1995 they enlarged the rear unit to make it more functional. They pulled building permits when they enlarged the rear unit; however, the project did notgothroughtheDRB. Parking was not an issue because they added less than 25%. They now want to make Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 the front house more functional. The actual living space is stopping at the 20 foot setback. The allowance is for a front porch. They were given the option of obtaining an Administrative Adjustment for the front porch. They want to enhance their property and blend in to the neighborhood by giving it a cottage- style appearance.Commissioner Pruett questioned the second entry off of the second bedroom.Mr. Argento explained they wanted a third egress and to be accessible to the back deck.Chainnan Bosch asked what the purpose is for the new dormers.Mr. Argento said the dormers will complete the cottage look of the house, and they just like the way the dormers look.Commissioner Smith asked if the steps to the porch extend further into the front yard.Mr. Argento said the steps do extend further into the front yard. The setback is for the structure; not the steps. They are required to have three steps.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith liked the design of the project. For her, a 121/2 foot front yard on Palmyra Street is not deep enough. She will not vote favorably on this project. Nor, does the parking comply and that applies to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.Mr. Godlewski reported there are two provisions in the O.M.C. that address parking for residential structures. He read the section of code that applies to this particular property.Commissioner Carlton thought the conditions were extensive and include requirements that must be met.The plans look nice and the front porch will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.Commissioner Pruett shared the concern of the porch extending into the setback. They way the third door is designed and how it opens onto the deck, it has the ability to isolate that room and it could be rented out as a separate bedroom unit.Chairman Bosch was troubled by the parking. He did not particularly like the dormers on the roof of the building, although it is very subjective. The front setback is the other key concern; however, he didn' t know if it would damage the street or set a precedent that is without regard to the context of the street.Commissioner Smith said that Palmyra Street has the potential to be widened. This shortens the yardby71/2 feet. A 25% change should govern the parking; it's too much of an impact on the neighbors. She would rather see the house being four (4) feet shorter and pushing everything back.Ms. Binning wanted to make sure that the action before the Commission is a vote on a MitigatedNegativeDeclaration. The Administrative Adjustment has been completed, and the appeal periOd is over. The issue of the setback is not the issue before the Commission. She recommended the CommissionidentifywhichoftheCEQAfindingstheyarepointingtointermsofnotbeing mitigated.Commissioner Smith pointed to the inadequate parking for the Mitigated Negative Declaration on this project.Commissioner Pruett referred to Page 9 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, under Cultural Resources.He heard Commissioner Smith say that she does not feel that the mitigating measures that have been identified reach far enough to mitigate the aesthetic value the project would bring to the overall neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 Commissioner Smith was in favor of a continuance to push the house back four (4) feet and she will give up on the parking. It's dangerous to have the steps 12 1/2 feet from the curb. Commissioner Pruett wanted to ask the applicant if he were willing to continue the item to allow reconsideration of his project. Mr. Argento preferred a decision at this meeting. The Commission and staff discussed the encroachment of the steps into the front yard setback. The steps are not considered to be part of the structure. The Administrative Adjustment applies to the structure. The issue becomes one of design as it relates to the neighborhood and to the proposed porch, which has been approved. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1570-98 as adequate and complete. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Romero Commissioners Pruett, Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith voted no because four findings do not comply with the Old Towne Design Standards. The 121/2 foot setback is not compatible with the streetscape in the 700 and 800 blocks of Palmyra Street where they are predominantly at the 20 foot setback. There is an adverse effect on the Old Towne District by setting a precedent of less than a 20 foot front yard without a compelling hardship reason to do that. The house could be made smaller by four (4) feet to preserve a 16 foot setback. The design is not compatible with the neighboring structures because it changes the rhythm of the entire two blocks, on both sides of the street. This affects the architectural character of the surrounding area by adding a front porch and steps into the front yard, which has dearly been established in Old Towne as a 20 foot setback. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the project (ORB No.3355) subject to the Design Review Board's conditions listed in the October 5, 1998 report.Discussion to the Motion Commissioner Smith will vote no for the reasons stated previously. The conditions are incomplete in not addressing the design issue of the steps possibly being able to be swung over to the side, which would have preserved four (4) feet of the setback.Chairman Bosch said although the encroachment is allowed, the design of the steps is one that does extend the appearance of the house further into the setback. There might be a less intrusive way of handling the steps that meets the intent and still falls within the Zoning Administrator's allowance. He invited the applicant to look at other alternatives, but the design of the railings and the steps clearly appear to be designed to strictly be an extension of the structure. He finds that to be objectionable and he would like to see a condition added or condition 12 amended to require that the steps and railing design be revised to eliminate the appearance of the steps as an extension of the structure of the house and porch. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 MOTION TO AMEND Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to amend the motion on the floor and to revise condition 12 to state: "Submit final revised plans to the City Historic Preservation Planning staff for approval. Said final plans shall revise the step design to the satisfaction of the City Historic Preservation Planning staff to eliminate the appearance of the front projecting steps, as an extension of the structure of the building. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero. Smith Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the project (DRB No. 3355) subject to the Design Review Board's conditions listed in the October 5, 1998 report, with the amendment to condition 12 as previously approved. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith NOES: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett commented on the inappropriate encroachment into the setback. He felt this should be handled as a package before one approving body. He is not challenging the decision of the Z.A. The administrative process needs to be reviewed. Chairman Bosch was disturbed about the Zoning Administrator's actions, and the Commission was not informed of this decision. He looked to staff for a follow up report on how the Commission will be informed of future approvals by the Z.A. IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 4. MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 58-98 - RALPH & LINDA ZEHNER Proposed demolition of an existing garage (located within the Old Towne Historic District) and construction of two (2) duplexes and one (1) cottage unit with garages located behind an existing singlefamilyhome. The site is located at 630 East Culver Avenue. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1540-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the July 20, 1998 and September 9, 1998 hearings.)John Godlewski, Senior Planner, presented the history of this project and brought the Commission up to date. The current submittal reflects the applicant's efforts to modify the plans to be more in keeping with the Old Towne Design Standards. This proposal is 1 1/2 stories, not requiring the CUP for two stories,and no building is larger than two units. The new plans were received on Friday and they were postedatCityHall. The Commission's concerns were pointed out. A new architect for the project, provided more detail and the overall height of the project is reduced by three (3) feet. Specific floor plans arealsoincluded. Staff has not verified the actual open space, but it does meet the minimum requirements, and there are 13 parking spaces provided. A letter has been received from Deborah Rosenthal, outlining the concerns of the entire process for this project.Commissioner Smith asked about a lot split for this property, which could be a possibility for this size of lot.Mr. Godlewski did not think the design was predicated on a two-lot split. The applicant could apply for a three-lot split. Under the current zoning, it would require a 6,000 square foot minimum Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant. Raloh Zehner, 630 East Culver Avenue, thanked the Commission for allowing him extra time to bring in a new architect. He introduced John Waters to the Commission. John Waters. 2144 East Monroe, said there were only two items they had conflict with. The first one is the requirement for wood windows. They would like to install white, single hung aluminum windows. They are prepared to use wood framed screens to help mitigate the windows. The second conflict is to eliminate the shed dormer in favor of a gable dormer. The buildings would be two to three feet higher if they put in a gable on the side that now shows eaves. They have applied a gable over the first building, over the garages to break up that long straight elevation. They have also lowered the scale of the buildings and reduced the storage building. All window proportions have been changed and relocated. They will be putting in automatic garage door openers. The screen doors have been eliminated. All units will have air conditioners. The air compressors will be outside of the units and no sound attenuation is needed. Chairman Bosch said the intent was to look at multiple gable dormers; not a single gable dormer. Public comments: Four (4) oeoole sooke in favor of the oroiect Mike Keller, 632 East Culver Avenue T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman Avenue Herb Runnells, 816 East Culver Avenue Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver Avenue The speakers felt the revised project is a good one and Mr. Zehner has complied with the City's concerns. Nine (9) oeoole sooke in oooosition to the oroiect Frank Tucker, 556 East Culver Avenue Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive Street Michele Fitzsimmons, 442 South Orange Street Mattie Link, 801 East Culver Avenue Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver Avenue Tom Strybel, 390 South Pine Street Tom Matuzak, 340 South Grand Street Gloria Freeman Bayer, 330 East Palmyra Avenue The project is still too big for the street. The cumulative impact is not known. The roof line seems to be a little unusual. The five units do not meet the negative declaration because of the bulk and mass. The development is not compatible with the neighborhood. Five units are just too many for the neighborhood. The material list has not been met (Le., wood windows, wood doors, wood screens, wood garage doors). The driveways eat up the land and the living space/open space is too small. The blight of Chalyn Circle is beginning to spread to East Culver. One (1) oerson sooke in neutral oosition Barbara DeNiro, (address on file), can't imagine that five (5) units are being considered a deterioration to a neighborhood. Her alc unit is noisier than the new alc units at the school near her home. 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Waters addressed the windows in the new units. The buildings sit so far back from the street that someone would have to walk a considerable distance to even know they are there. Other structures in Old Towne currently have aluminum windows and they have been covered with wood frame screens. Commissioner Pruett said one of the issues discussed was the bulk and mass of the garage and that particular structure. That still concerns him and he didn't know how to deal with that. Looking at the west elevation, the gable over the garage is not on the elevation. When it is added, it will add even more bulk and mass to that structure. Commissioner Smith addressed the list of concerns with Mr. Waters to better understand the changes and revisions to the plans. She asked if there was any consideration to eliminate the living unit on the garage. She also wanted to know if there was any consideration to separate out the three-car garage from the four-car garage with the unit over the top.Mr. Waters understood that Mr. Zehner and the Commission were in relative agreement that the site plan was satisfactory.Commissioner Carlton noted the patio areas are 10 x 18 1/2 and the ale compressors are going to be out on the patios. It's a poor design and takes away open space area.Commissioner Romero wanted to know how the five (5) units will conform to the historic preservation design of Old Towne.Mr. Zehner pointed out several apartment complexes that had five (5) or more units within Old Towne that were built within the last seven (7) years. They've cut the bulk and mass of their project as much as they can. They've tried to make the project work and they do not intend to split the property.Commissioner Pruett said the Commission wanted to address the bulk and mass of that one building of the apartment and all of the garages. The Commission is required to make findings in that the project is compatible with the current historical architectural context, and the bulk and mass of existing buildings in the neighborhood. The roof line in relationship to the rest of the building is huge and needs to be brought down.Commissioner Smith said the Commission was really specific at the last hearing about the project's design,which are listed in the staff report. She thought they had given a very direct indication of what would work.But, the applicant opted not to take the Commission's advice. The shape and size of the garagebuildingstillneedstobeaddressed. She asked if Mr. Zehner had considered separating out the garage away from the other 4-car garage. The elimination of the fifth unit is strongly encouraged to reduce the bulk and mass on the property. And, she would like to see the gable dormers on the units in the back. The 7-car garage does not fit.Chairman Bosch had hoped Mr. Zehner would give up the rear shed for more open space. He had also hoped a redesign of the shed dormers to be several gable dormers to perhaps break up the bulk of the front elevation of the two rear buildings. The buildings are very well detailed though. The key is also building #1. And, there has been substantial improvement by lowering the ridge height of the overall building, elimination of the false dormer over the northerly garages~ But, the building is still huge. There still needs to be specific focus on substantially reducing the bulk of building #1. The height of the ridge line and overall bulk needs to be reduced. A portion of that is encapsulating the stairway to the unit upstairs. There are several different roof slopes. The main roofs have a far greater slope than the secondary roofs of what is currently shown as shed dormers and the one gable dormer. Why can't the height of the roof over the significant portion, if not all of the front garage, be chopped down through reducing the pitch of the roof. Then, handle enclosing the stairway, which is the only extension Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 the main body of the second floor dwelling, by making the roof over it an extension of the shedding down of the slope of the roof. Commissioner Carlton would like to see building #1 go away. She had a problem with the cumulative impact for compatible development and with the full build out of that area. She liked the duplex in the back. She suggested doing away with the whole middle section and put all of the garages in the back. Mr. Zehner was willing to continue his project to revise the plans, which will be submitted to Planning staff on Thursday. Commissioner Pruett suggested setting a special meeting on Monday, October 26, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Minor Site Plan Review 58-98 to a special meeting on Monday, October 26,1998 at 7:00 p. m. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Reynolds spoke about the cumulative impacts. One of the recommendations staff is making is that the Commission will approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but incorporating by reference the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was approved in 1993. In 1993, the cumulative impacts were analyzed and included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council found that there was not a need to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report.RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 10:15 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 10:20 p.m.IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2244-98 - TAQUERIA JANITZIO A proposal to allow the on-site sale and service of beer and wine within a restaurant. The site is located at 2520 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The full presentation of the staff report was waived because there was no opposition. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant, Mrs. Pascual. 2520 East Chaoman Avenue. spoke on behalf of her husband, Gustavo, owner of the T aqueria Janitzio. They have a small restaurant and believ~ that by selling beer and wine, it will boost their sales. Hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. They have read the staff report and agree to the conditions of approval. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2244-98, with conditions 1-9 listed in the staff report, modifying condition 2 to read: "Sales and service of alcoholic beverages shall begin no earlier than 11:00 a.m. and cease at least one (1) hour prior to the close of business each day." The Commission finds that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It is granted because it will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located.It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood for which it is located. And, it is made upon those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2248-98 - BONNIE & GORDON HIGGINS A proposal to allow a mixed use of residential and professional office space in the existing building, which is presently office space. This site is located at 910 East Chapman Avenue.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this project. On April 12, 1997, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to convert this historic residential structure to a professional office building. The structure measures about 3,600 square feet and was built in 1923. It was identified in the City survey as having a Spanish-Colonial Revivalstyleofarchitecture.There are 16 outdoor parking spaces developed to serve the approved office use, and the original 2-car garage remains available for parking purposes. The applicant proposes to re-establish a partial residential use of the structure through a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use, using the building as an interior design studio and residing on the premises. The parking facility is adequately developed to satisfy the City's parking requirement of 15 spaces for this proposal. No other development standards would apply to this request. The property is surrounded by professional office buildings, telephone company facilities and a legally non-conforming commercial building, which sits adjacent to the parking facility. Staff considers this proposed use to be less intensive than the general office use that was approved through a prior Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that the building be permitted to revert back to commercial use if that is the property owner's or tenant's desire in thefuture, and simply that the parking area be left available during business hours for the approved use of this property.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Gordon Hiqqins, 6411 Kinqs Road, would like to live in the design center so that they can work 24 hours a day. Traffic will not be affected and the proposed landscaping will enhance the area.Commissioner Carlton stated for the record that she sold the building to Mr. Djang and his partner 20 years ago and she believed there was no conflict in ruling on this application.Two (2) oeoole sooke in oooosition to this oroiect Gary Meserve, 153 South Cambridge Street Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer Street They voiced concern about the size of the Higgins' living space and wantedtoknowifthisbuildingwouldbeusedasaprimaryresidence. They questioned how many other Planning Commission Minutes October 5. 1998 Avenue. Parking might be a problem and they wanted to know how many spaces were available for his use. Chairman Bosch noted the staff report indicated that 15 spaces are required for the existing uses and there are 16 on-site parking spaces plus a 2- car garage.Aoolicant' s resoonse Mr. Higgins addressed the parking concems. They had to sign in their lease not to sub-lease any of the parking spaces. They have to be used by Higgins Design Center. The parking is more than adequate for their use. Most people live in their family rooms, and basically that's what they will be doing just in the upstairs portion of the house. This will become their primary residence.Chairman Bosch asked if Mr. Higgins would be willing to stipulate to another condition that would require parking spaces that meet code for the use in the building shall not be sub-leased for any other use.Mr. Higgins did not have a problem with adding that condition.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith disagreed with the new condition for parking. Shared parking is a real land use possibility. In this particular block where there is limited parking, she could see in the future the shared use of that lot could be advantageous to the block. Unless the condition is limited solely to this particular lease, she would not want it to be part of the CUP that goes with the land. It should be left up to the lessee and lessor to work out those details.Chairman Bosch said there is still an underlying CUP, which by approval of this, they are allowed to go back to if they desire to revert to total office use. His intent would be that this condition applies to this specific CUP use, and not the underlying one.Commissioner Pruett came up with language that states: "The applicant shall not sub-let parking spaces required for the proposed use."It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2248-98, with conditions 1-5 listed in the staff report, and adding condition 6: "The applicant shall not sub-let parking spaces required for the proposed use." The Commission finds that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. It is considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. And, in granting the conditional use permit, it is subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith is glad to see a residential use put back in this property. East Chapman is a very special piece. There is mixed use downtown and she's glad Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2249-98; MAJOR SITE PLAN 68-98 - INVESTOR REALTY COMPANY A proposal to approve three (3) drive-through uses, including a pharmacy and two fast-food restaurants.This site fronts on the west side of Main Street between Culver and La Veta Avenues.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1571-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. Mr. Jones stated the Commission was provided with a 2-page memorandum that identifies three (3) specific issues. The public hearing was opened.Aoolicants, Steven Gumoert and David Valentine, requested the Commission' s approval of a Conditional Use Permit for their project. Elevations are not being considered at this hearing. The architect, Larry Reeves, discussed the width of the drive-through lanes. The homes on Alpine have been purchased;however, the homes are still occupied. They will be given a OO-day notice and hopefully construction can begin the second week in January.Chairman Bosch questioned the drive-through windows and the interior sales of alcoholic beverages at Rite Aid. A key concern is traffic flow from the drive-throughs. He's concerned with the Carl's Jr. drive-through lane exit towards the back of the site. The turning radius to get out north to Culver is extremely tight. He wanted confirmation that the design standards are met. He's concerned with the Taco Bell drive-through that after people have received their food and are exiting near the point where all the drives are crossing the throat of the two main driveways off of Main Street. He asked what is going to be done there in terms of signage, safety, and visibility. He wanted to know if this is the best use for this extraordinary visible high-impact corner. He thought it was. He didn't have a problem with the pharmacy drive-through,but questioned the other two drive-throughs.The applicants have spent nine (9) years working on this project and they felt the uses will be a good mix for this comer. The Commission and applicants discussed the design of the drive-through lanes, turning movements and traffic concerns. The Commission wanted to add a condition that the architectural design of all the buildings shall be completely integrated and submitted simultaneously to the DRB. The applicants concurred with that condition.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Pruett said there was a request by staff to identify who is going to be having the right to sell alcoholic beverages. The condition should state: "The sale of alcoholic beverages is limited to interior sales with no drive- through service between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight."MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1571-98, finding that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2249-98 with conditions 1-7 listed in the staff report, and adding condition 8 - "The approval for a license to sell alcoholic beverages is limited to the 16,660 square foot building that is identified on the applicant' s site plan as retail-pharmacy. The sale of alcoholic beverages is limited to interior sales, no drive-through service, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. Any other requests to sell alcoholic beverages will require Planning Commission and/or City Council review and approval of a separate application for a Conditional Use Permit." Add condition 9 . "The applicant may request relief from the requirement through an administrative adjustment permit, by reducing (by up to 10%) the width of drive-through spaces up to 1'4" for drive-through access, or 2'6" for back-Up space and two-way access in the adjacent drive aisle." Add condition 10 - "Architectural design of all buildings shall be completely integrated and submitted to the Design Review Board at one time." The Commission finds that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans in the area in which the site is located. And, granting the CUP with the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch voted in favor of the application; he had no difficulty with the Rite Aid concept. The other part of the Major Site Plan Review - staff will assure that adjustments are made to meet Traffic Engineering standards on the site for the drive-through lanes. He is not a fan of drive- throughs, but they are allowed by City ordinance, if the site plan is designed in such a manner that they function safely and efficiently.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Major Site Plan Review 68-98. The project will not cause deterioration to adjacent commercial or residential land uses. The project conforms to the commercial development standards and applicable design guidelines or specific plan requirements (including Design Standards for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area). The project will not cause significant negative environmental impacts, as proposed by draft Negative Declaration 1571-98. On- and off-site circulation is adequate to support the project with minor revisions to the Taco Bell drive-through lane. The City ( and other public) services are available and adequate to serve the project. The project is compatible with community aesthetics.AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 8. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPEAL #448 (REGARDING VARIANCE 2050-98) - FRED E. PETERS An appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s decision to deny Variance 2050-98 regarding the construction of a 6'-6" high fence within the front and side yard setback area, exceeding the maximum fence height required by code. This site is located at 706 East Walnut Avenue.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15311.The full reading of the staff Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 Aooellant. Fred Peters. 706 East Walnut Avenue. stated his reasons why the fence should be granted. He passed out his comments to the Commission and staff, and shared pictures with the Commission of other fencing exceeding the 42" height requirement, like the fence at Maple and Shaffer. He is seeking security and privacy equal to other residences in the City. Two (2) people spoke in favor of the fencing, which adds to the overall appearance of the neighborhood: Carole Walters. 534 North Shaffer Street M. J. Martini, 638 East Walnut Avenue The Commission and Mr. Peters discussed the fence materials and lights. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem with the height of the fencing, but with the lighting on the posts. Chairman Bosch was very concerned about the height of the fence because of the precedent it sets. He is also concerned about the other fences in the area that are not legal. He didn't want to see this kind of barrier in everyone's front yard. Commissioner Smith was also concerned about the height of the fence and the precedent that it sets for other fences. This much fence is too heavy to go around the entire property. She wondered if they allowed the pilasters to stay where they are, but drop the wrought iron down to the prescribed height between the pilasters, if that would help. Otherwise, let it stay at the 6 foot height in the side yard, but the pilasters would have to be shortened down to the 42" in the front. Commissioner Carlton agreed the fence is just too massive, but she was inclined to give a little latitude on the height and allow an extra 6 inches to make it a little bit higher (48") to preclude the temptation of trying to jump over the fence. She felt this was a special circumstance and the variance should be granted. After much discussion, the Commission agreed they needed to adhere to the 42" fence height in order to comply with the code. The Commission would also like to see a report on specific locations that clearly are exceeding the ordinance. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to deny Appeal #448 (regarding Variance 2050- 98). AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED The appellant has the opportunity to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council.IN RE:PUBLIC COMMENTS Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer Street. spoke about preservation of Old Towne, the Old Towne issues and protecting people who live in Old Towne.M.J. Martini. 638 East Walnut. relied on Code Enforcement in the past, but was turned in for the improper storage of wood. He pointed out a violation in front of the Officers, but they couldn't do anything about it because a complaint was not taken over the phone. Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 1998 IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn at 12:25 a.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 14