Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1995 PC MinutesC' ~ 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange October 16, 1995 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2. 1995 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of October 2, 1995 as recorded.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 1. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-95 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment modifying provisions of the Orange Municipal Code Title 17.36 Sign Regulations", more specifically relating to the length of time allowed for display of banners and A-frame signs and conditions for such display.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines.This item was continued from the June 19, and August 21, 1995 hearings.)John Godlewski, Community Enhancement Manager, said this was a subject brought up by the Orange Chamber of Commerce and a group of businessmen that are proposing to modify some of the regulations in the ordinance to allow banners and A-frame signs to be displayed on a more liberal basis than they are currently allowed. Currently, banners and A-frame signs are allowed only under the special promotion signs section of the sign ordinance. Special promotion signs were designed for a limited period of time for grand openings, under new management, inventory sales and that sort of display of special signage. They are allowed fora 45-day period in any calendar year and there are specific regulations as to their height and area. The height being no higher than 42 inches for A-frame signs and portable banners and signs are permitted in the area equal to one square foot for each lineal toot of store frontage. It also requires that the signs be kept in good repair for the 45 days they are up. This is the ordinance that has been on the books for a number of years and one that was felt to be too restrictive by the business owners. They Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 Council three years ago asking for some relief. Rather than change the ordinance, the City Council suggested the City not enforce it and let the businesses display their banners so that during the hard times businesses could attract more customers and keep their revenues up. The ordinance that is before the Commission is the result of quite a bit of work with the business community and two rounds of discussion with the Planning Commission up to this point. The primary points of the ordinance are that the A-frame signs that were discussed originally are something that the Planning Commission had a consensus should not be allowed in the public right-of-way due to the liabilities that are involved. There was actually no further discussion as to the details of where they would be allowed, but in the public right-of-way it was recommended they not occur. What is before the Commission allows for banners and A-frame signs on a 90-day permit basis that can be issued for 90 days and if the applicant wants to continue with the banner, he can come in and get another 90-day permit so that a banner could be displayed all year round ( as long as permits are re-issued every 90 days). A-frame signs are allowed on private property and a banner is allowed on private property,based on the tenant space. Thearea is based on the width of the tenant's space; the same as before (1 sq. ft. for each lineal ft. of frontage). After the staff report came out and speaking with the proponents of the change to the sign ordinance, some concerns were raised, including the allowable area for banners and A-frames. It was felt by the business community that one square foot was entirely too small. They would prefer to see something more along the lines of 2 square feet. The height of the A-frame signs in tFie proposed ordinance is listed as 36 inches and they're suggesting something taller be allowed. In being consistent with the Planning Commission's discussion, if it's not in an area of a public right-ot-way, perhaps a greater height could be considered. One of the largest concerns of the business community was the requirement that has a management company or property owner signingoff approving the proposedbanner prior to the City issuing a permit. It's the business community' sconcern that this sign off by a management company is something that isn't likely to happen and will create a hardship for the tenants of a shopping center to secure permits, getting the owner' s signature first; they prefer that not be included in the ordinance. Flnally,a concern was addressed that a restriction was not included to keep banners off the same line of display as the permanent building's signs. This was suggested by the business community and they would like to see it remain so that banners and permanent signs are not co-mingled on the same fascia.Commissioner Smith asked for an example if one square foot Tor each lineal toot of store building front, what size would the banner be on the front of the store?Mr. Godlewski said a lot of the multi-tenant spaces are in the area of 20 to 25 foot widths on the store bay. A 20 foot width would allow one square foot. You could have 20 square feet of sign on the banner, which would be 2x10 or 4x5.The public hearing was opened.Chairman Bosch noted two letters were received; one fromBruce Patrick of the Temporary Sign and BannerCommittee in response to the 10/16/ 95 staff memo, and also a 10/16/95 letter from the Holiday Skating Center.Nate Wisely, 175 North Wayfield, owner of the Holiday Skating Center, was concerned about businesses not on the main streets. The skating center is located behind Thrifty's Drug Store andthey must continually have to tell people there is a rink in Orange, but it's difficult to find. They are not able to have signs that reach out to the public. They are in a critical need situation back there.By allowing promotional banners, they could get the word out on the main streets there is a good, tun and sate place at the skating rink. He requested the Commission consider allowing businesses that are buried back in, off the main streets, to rent or lease space on adjacent properties located on the main streets. He thought the size of thesignsshould depend on what type of streets they are on. Streets, under 35 m.p.h., could support a smaller sign. The taster cars travel, the less time people have to Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 Mr. Soo-Hoo spoke to the issue of advertising on adjacent properties for those businessesnotlocatedonamainstreet. The former sign ordinance did not allow off-site signs. Severalyearsagothecodewasamendedtoallowsignsthatadvertisethingsnotonsite. The problem isthattheamountofsignspaceislimitedonanygivenpieceofproperty. In order toadvertiseoff-site merchandise, the on-site business sacrifices a certain amount of sign area.Chairman Bosch affirmed if Mr. Wisely desired to negotiate with hisadjoiningpropertyowner (Thrifty)and that negotiation involved signage that did not exceed their right underthecurrentordinance, Mr. Wisely could do that.Bruce Patrick, 1733 North Modoc Street, handed the Commission a packet heputtogetherasaresultofadiscussionhehadwithMr. Godlewski. He expressed his appreciationforMr. Godlewski's help and participation in their committee, along with the Mayor and Mr. McGee. He stated Mr.Godlewski and their committee do not agree on everything. He felt theyweregettingclosetosomethingtheycouldmutuallysupport. Their intent is to have a workingordinancethatbestservestheCity. While the Chamber of Commerce's input has been helpful andimportant, the effort the Committee has made has not bean in the interest of the Chamber. The Committee has represented the business community. This is an emotional and important issue tothebusinessowners. They want to eliminate having confrontations between the business communityandtheCitybureaucracyoversomethinglikethetemporarysignandbannerordinance. The ordinanceshouldnotbeahardshiponanyone. And, the City's enforcement staff should not befacedwithaconfrontationwhentheyenterbusinessestodotheirjob. He made comments to hisletter. The current ordinance permits 45 days a year for temporary signs and banners. By eliminating theuseofpublicpropertyforthedisplayofsigns, they felt was unnecessary and did not presentafairandreasonableordinanceforthecommunity. They offered a couple of recommendations. One of the obvious areas it will create a hardship for is downtown. Displaying signs on publicpropertyshouldbewelldefinedandwellregulated. To just say no is over exercising the opportunity tosayno. By permitting one banner sign or A-Frame per tenant is not sufficient. It should be two. They took issue with one square foot for each lineal foot -- A 4x5 foot sign is not large enough to createasignthatworksbecauseitistoosmall. A sign, 4x10, would be sufficient. The height of A-frames will not exceed a height of 36 inches. Their recommendation is 4 ft. tall and 24 incheswide. That would provide a position for the A-frame without impeding traffic. That's assumingtheA-frame would be placed near the curb. Thirty-six inches is very low. They thought 42incheswouldprovideplentyofvisibilitytoon-coming people or traffic. Mr. Godlewski recommended A-frames not be allowed to be placed 10 feet from a public right-of-way. Thatwouldfurtherenhancethevisibilityofon-coming traffic. He spoke to the locationof signs. It wasallbutimpossiblefortenantstogetowner's or property management approval for signs and banners. There arealotofsignsandbannersouttherethatdonothavepermits. The ordinance is so overwhelming toatenantthattheyareafraidofitandtheywillnoteventrytogettherequiredpermits. They felt the City should not get involved in this arena by having this requirement in the ordinance. Theyalsosuggestapermitbevalidfor120days -- not 90 days. Signs and banners last a long time; a yearisnotalongtime. Every 90 days to renew a permit is too short and feesareinvolved (another expense for the business owner). There are some vehicles that are parked in the City (high traffic areas) solely for the purpose of advertising a business in a particular location. Some of the vehiclesdon't even have motors in them. Not only are they eyesores, but they block visibility. Language should be added to the ordinance that says what they are thinking rather than making it so restrictiveitdoesn't get the job done. They asked for theCommission to help the businesscommunitytoaccomplishthisbecauseit's something they've been working on very hard Tor a long time.Commissioner Smith wondered if therewasanyoneelsepresentwhowantedtospeaktothisissue?Ifthis is such a concern to the business community, why aren't they here to give their opinions?Mr. Patrick said they've hadanumberofmeetingsthroughtheChamberofCommerceandabout60peoplehaveattendedeachofthosemeetings. There has been a lot of interest. People are real busy with their businesses; many ownersareattheirstoresintheevenings. When this issue goes Planning Commission Minutes October i6, 1995 Commissioner Pruett viewed confrontation on issues many times is brought about by ambiguity in the law or the regulation. He was concerned how Mr. Patrick envisioned this working from the standpoint of not wanting oversight and regulation on the part oT the City, but yet when he talked about the use of the public right-of-way to put signs there, he used the words "wellregulated".That's the kind of ambiguity he thought caused the problems that exist. It was indicatedtheCityshouldopenupthepublicpropertiesforadvertising, but you want it well regulated. Andwhen you're on private property, you're not looking for any regulation. He was concerned it would create a lot of confusion on the part of businesses and they would not understand what might be in their best interest as it relates to the sign ordinance. He was concerned about the impact the banners and A-frames would have when you consider that every business has the opportunity to put one of these things out if the ordinance were passed as the committee proposed. The community will not benefit from being overloaded by signs. People will turn away andthey won' t shop.Mr. Patrick shared the same concerns and thought there may be some confusion in what he was trying to communicate. He agreed there Headed to be an ordinance that is clear enough for everyone to understand. Their proposal was quantified -- how many, how large, etc. Therehasn' t been a confrontation over ambiguity. He agrees with the position of the code enforcement officer.What they have proposed is very clear. The ordinance has not been enforced for threeyears.There are a few problems in the city, butit's not a runaway deal. They're just trying to get a more workable ordinance for everyone.Commissioner Romero was familiar with the business problems throughout the City, but the main problem he sees is with regard to the residents. What should be allowed in the City that is acceptable to the residents? Many of the businesses have not been aware of A- frames and banners not being enforced for the past three years. He thought about the area on Katella, west of Tustin, on the south side where the frontal area is very minimal. What will people expect to see in those areas on Katella, in Old Towne, Main Street and Chapman -- that's the problem he has. The signage will look terrible in these areas. He asked Mr. Patrick in a previous meeting if he were familiar with any other local city that does allow A-frames or the banners to the extent that he is proposing?Mr. Patrick indicated there were other cities struggling with this same situation. There are a lot of people watching the City of Orange. He thought the committee's proposal was reasonable. He disagreed the business community has been unaware of no enforcement of signs and banners for the past three years. Without any enforcement, with a few exceptions, Orange is anice looking community.Commissioner Romero stated every business in the surrounding cities have experienced the same reality with regards to attracting more business. He called Tustin, Anaheim, Placentia, Yorba Linda,Santa Ana and they atl do not allow A-frames. And, only very short periods of time for banners.Santa Ana, for the past three years, has not enforced their A-frames. He talked about an article that appeared Friday, October 13, 1995 out of Laguna Hills -- the vote of the Council 4- 1 with regards to not allowing more lenient signage. It had a good point; a sign of the times asking residents to call in to a number and leave their thoughts. He was interested to find out whatkindsofcommentswerevoicedbytheresidents. He would like to see a clean city. When hedrivesthroughYorbaLinda,Anaheim, Placentia, it looks real nice. What types of enforcementisthecommitteerecommendingbecausethatisoneoftheproblemsofmanycitiestomakethisacost neutral result? Is his comment about "fair and reasonable" directed to the business owners or fair and reasonable to the residents of the City? Who should the City direct more attention to? He still thinks two banners is excessive.Chairman Bosch appreciated the hard workof the committee; it's a thankless job because of the many different opinions that are being expressed. He believed the CommissionneedstopaycarefulattentiontosomeoftheitemsMr. Patrick raised that are not currently included in the ordinance,recognizing that the proposal brought to the Commission is not astaffrecommendationtoadoptwholeheartedly, but to take public input and add that to the mix and hope they Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 recommendation to the City Council before too long. The continuing concerns are with the bannersandhowtheywillbeattachedandwheretheywillgorelativetopublicsafety, infringement of therightsofadjacentpropertyownersorvisibilityintothestores. He shares the concern of how toaddresstrailersandvehiclesthataredamagingtheCity. He was concerned that it was difficult to getpastthepropertymanagerstotheintentoftheleaseratherThanhavingthepropertymanagersdealwithit. He presumed the banners in the Target Center all meet the intent of the leases of thetenants. Mr. Patrick thought that's where the issue ought to be addressed -- between the tenant and the land lord. Most leases do address that. It seems to him if there is a problem, it ought to be between them. There's no reason why the City should get involved in that loop.Chairman Bosch believed the City should get involved when the impact affects the public.Mr. Wisely spoke to the reason why more people were not present at the hearing. He finds a real hopelessnessinthebusinesscommunitywhenitcomestoaddressingtheCitywithregardstobannersandsigns. It'sone tough City to get along with. If a campaign were launched to bring peopleintoahearing, it would be easy to do. But, he didn't think that was necessary.Commissioner Smith didn't agree with his comments about the City turning it's back on the merchants. If that had been the case, the ordinance would not have been reversed three years ago. It was very timely and sensitive of the Ciiy to not adhere to the ordinance the past three years.However, when there is a hot issue, there are many people in the audience who come and talk aboutit. It surprised her if there are 7,000 businesses in Orange and this is something people are wanting, why were only two people here?Chairman Bosch believed in representative government. The Planning Commissioners are appointedrepresentativeswhomakesrecommendationstotheCityCouncil, who are elected representatives. The Planning Commission weighs everything that comes before them and the publicinputisvital.Commissioner Pruett encouraged the gentlemen to fill up the Chamber with business people. The purposeofthepublichearingisnotonlyfortheCommissiontohearandunderstandtheproblemsthatarebeingincurred, but it also gives the Commission the opportunity to share with the public whattheirproblemisintryingtodeveloparegulationthateveryonecanlivewithanditbeinthebestinterestofthecommunity. This problem is a difficult one; the issue of putting banners and A-framesinthepublicright-oT-way -- are the taxpayers of Orange ready to buy into the liability that willbeincurredifsomeonetripsoverthesignandsuestheCity? It's not because the City is downonbusinessorbeingtough; whatthey're trying to do is protect the interest of the overall community. He has a problem with the way the ordinance is proposed by the Chamber. They've got to resolvetheproblemsandissues, but it can't be done in a vacuum.Marilyn Krist has a business in the 600 block of West Chapman Avenue. She said Mr. Patrickhasbeenthespokesmanforanumberofbusinessesintheareathatareconcerned. There are a lotofbusinesspeoplewhoareinterestedinreachinganamicablesituationwiththesignsandbanners.Also, they are planning on attending the Council Meeting; you will see more strength innumbers.That is a very lightly traveled area of Chapman Avenue. The very thing that makes OrangesoattractivewiththeOldTownePlazaistheverythingmotoristswouldliketoavoidwhentheyaretravelingonChapmanAvenue. She has an A-frame sign in front of her business andplansonkeepingitunlesssheistoldnotto. It is well out of the pedestrians' way. But they areimportantandbusinesses need them.Commissioner Pruett was disappointed in one comment Ms. Krist made. ThebusinesscommunitysheisapartofisgoingtobeattheCityCouncilmeetinginlargenumbertoaddressthisissue. The Planning Commission is trying to develop a recommendation to take to the City Council andhefindsitdishearteningthathecannotputtogetherarecommendationwithinputfromthe Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 the issue were continued to another hearing, would the business community be interested inattending? Mr. Patrick apologized; they did not have a mindset to draw a crowd to the Planning CommissionmeetingascomparedtotheCityCouncil; not because they view the Commission as beingsecondaryoroflesserimportance. He has viewed the Planning Commission as a more intimategroupthathasqualificationstoworkonspecifickindsofproblemssuchassigns, land use, trafficconsiderations. He wasnR too concerned about having a large crowd just to show numbers. He waspresentandspeakingforagreatnumberofpeople. He would be more than happy to have a largecrowdatthecontinuedhearing. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith had a number of questions for staff. She took her own survey of fivebusinessesintown. She got her own information outside of this hearing. And, she got manydifferentopinionsonsomeofthesubjectsthey've talked about. How does one get anencroachmentpermitforpublicright-of-way encroachment? Is it expensive? Does it takealongtime? Are they ever granted?Mr. Godlewski explained encroachment permits on public right-of-way is somethingthatisissuedbytheEngineeringDepartmentbytheDirectorofPublicWorks. Theyare not expensive; it's not much more than an administrative fee attached to them. Thay take varying amountsoftimetoobtainbecauseitdependsonthenatureoftheencroachmentandhowmuchencroachmentthereisandhowmuchresearchisinvolved. The Engineering Department hasissuedanumberofencroachmentpermits -- tables and chairs in the Old Towne area, three that havebeenissuedinrecentyearsTorencroachmentontothepublicright-oi-way. Felix has an encroachment permit,there's another little shop on the other side of the PlazathatrecentlyobtainedanencroachmentpermitTorsimilartablesandchairs, but on a smaller scale. It depends onthequestion, the nature of the use and it depends on how much space is available to make surethereisadequate space for the intended use.Commissioner Smith would also like to know if the proposed recommended90daypermitwillbeconsecutive? What was the intent of that particular section?Mr. Godlewski stated the way it is proposed an owner could have a banner upfor90daysandcomeintheverynextdayandfollowupwithanotherbanner or use the same banner.Commissioner Smith asked if anyone has penciled out how much it will costtostaffasystemthatgrantspermits, monitors permits and enforces the violations? Haveanycostsforpermitsbeenlookedatinlightofthatinformation? How do we know whether or not the Citycanaffordtodoapermitprogram? Will it be cost effective to the City?Mr. Godlewski responded in regards to the ordinance amendment, no ithasnot. It would be addressed in the fee resolution and at such time as an ordinance is broughtforwardandlookslikeitisgoingtobeapproved, then staff would spend the time it would take toseehowitwouldbeenforced. The original direction of the Planning Commission was tomakethisacosteffectiveprogram; not a profit generating program. Staff can make this cost effective. The question is, will it be affordable to the businesses? Staff has not evaluated thequestion. The 90-day permit process gives people a chance to change their signs forChristmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, summer sales and that sort of thing.Commissioner Romerosaid it goes without saying it's going tobeadifficultdecisionmakingprocess.In which viewpoint do we put more emphasis on -- residents or businesses? Businesses obviously bring Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 Commissioner Pruett wants to continue this hearing because he would like input from someadditionalpeopleinthebusinesscommunity. He wasn't looking for numbers but for content as tohowtheproblemcanbesolved. The committee's proposal and staffs proposal are miles apart andhedidnRbelievetheChamber's proposal was going to get them to where they want to go. He wouldappreciatestaftlookingattheothercitiestoseewhattheyhavedone. Has there been any negativefalloutfromtheirordinancesintermsoftheireconomicstatusandsalestaxrevenues? Chairman Bosch acknowledged signage is difficult. It's important to address window signage andlookatitinthetotalequationaswellaspermanentsignswhenlookingatbanners. Mr. Patrick'scommitteehascomeupwithagoodideatothinkaboutregardingnotplacingtemporarybannersinlinewithpermanentbuildingsignageonafacadeunlessitisthereasaplaceholderforpermanentsignagethatisonorder. The City does not want to be the paint or color police, but needs to beconcernedwithwhatthevisualeffectisofthemassingofallthesignage. Banners or windowsignagewithoutregardtothecodeallowanceshavebeenutilizedmerelytocreateafacadetodisguisefullheightdisplayofmerchandiseorstorage, which is fine for the merchants inside exceptthatitreducestheadvertisingavailabilityoftheproductthroughthewindowandcreatesadangerintermsofearthquakesandseismiccodecomplianceforpeoplepassingbyonthesidewalksoutside.They also have police input that strongly recommends with good reason that there be visibility intoenterprisessothatpolicepatrolscanlookinsideatnightorduringoffhoursandseethateverythingisokay. Therefore, that's another reason why there is control on certain types oT locations ofsignage. He thought it was unfair to address any single part of the discussion with regard to bannersonbuildingswithoutlookingattheotherportionsofsignagethatareonthebuildingaswell. And toprovidethebusinesscommunitywithagoodsetoftoolstheycanutilizeinareasonableandfairmanner. It's very difficult to say no; it's easier to say yes than to say no. The Commission must getatsomethingthatisnotacompromise, but is a good consensus for the whole community. AspecificintentwithregardtoA-frames: He indicated originally he was feeling good aboutA-frames because of looking at needs in Old Towne and he's had time to walk, drive and explorethatfurtherandfoundhehaschangedhismindwithregardtoOldTowne. Old Towne hassomeextraordinarythingshappentoitintermsofencroachment. There are no setbacks in the OldTownehistoricbusinessarea. But awnings are allowed. And those awnings are allowed to have signsontheawningthatyoucanseefromthecar. And, businesses are allowed to hang signsbeneaththemthatthepedestrianscansee. This is much more effective than the A-frames, which would be blocked by the on-street parking. On-street vs. no on-street parkinghasamajorimpactonA-frame signs and this opens the question of whereshouldtheybeallowed. He concurred with Commissioner Prueri's concerns about liability. The issuesarepublicsafetyandvisibilityforA-frame signs or any other encroachments within the right-oi-way. There is no benefit to the public at large for A-frames in the right-of-way throughout the remainder of the City. It's a potential unsupportable liability. We havetolookatthiswithfairness, reasonableness and practicality for other types of signage thatadvertisespecialevents, sales, holidays, etc., as well as going into business or changing businessthattemporarysignsaremeanttoaddress. The next concern he had was temporary vs. permanent signage. It's a difficult subject, but needs to be addressed again in terms of is it fairly representinginthecurrentordinancewhatneedstobedonetoinformthecommunity,protect thecommunity's aesthetics and still provide businessmen with what they need. He shares the concern about the sizeofabannerrelativetoaparticularstorefront. Something that is strictly one square foot perlinealfootoffrontageclearlydoesn't provide anything worthwhile fora 15 foot wide or 20 toot wide business. On theotherhand, if you have a business that is 300 feet wide, the resulting bannerisincredibleandamajorimpositiononthecommunity. Perhaps a couple of thresholds should be considered: A minimum size that makes sense in terms of visibility and economyfrommerchantswithoutblockingtheviewintotheirstorefrontorpedestrianviewandcausingproblems. It may even be a threshold thatifyou're below it, you don't have to get a permit.There also needs to be amaximumsizeregardlessofthesizeofthebusiness. Letter size, how far away the letters can be seen from, theimpactofcolors, the size fonts the letters are put on with, and other symbols -- these all shouldbetakenintoconsiderationbythesigncompanieswhoselltothebusinessmen. He didn't seeOrange's sign ordinance being any stricter than other cities. If people are leaving town because ofarestrictivesignordinance, it's because of poor communication in the partnership between businesses and Planning Commission Minutes October i6, 1995 to find something less restrictive, particularly in the last three years when the ordinance has not been enforced. The City must look for control of things that are enforceable -- not the most minor size of signs, but things that have an impact on neighboring businesses and on the community. He would appreciate a look into the concept of thresholds, both from the cost of enforcement and the cost to the merchants' point of view, from the viability of the sign as an identifying device for the merchants,and then a maximum limit for the same reasons, the other way around where they become a hazard to the community, detrimental to the aesthetics of the community, etc. He was still open with regard to thinking about one or two banners within the total same sign area. He'snot proposing temporary signage. They need to look at the number and location of signs with regard to specific ordinances.He' sagainst signs being on the roofs or being suspended above the roof for any enterprise. He agrees with the staff recommendations and the additions that don't allow attachment of banners to movable objects -- vehicles, power poles, trees, whether on public right-oi-way or private property. It should be something that works with the building itself. He had concern on the approvals of owners. It's atwo-edge sword. He didn9 think the City should be in the business of policing private contracts for lease of space between tenants and property owners. At the same time, he believed the City had a responsibility to all the business community as well as the citizens to assure there is some visual order for anything that can be seen from the public right-of-way or for major vehicle and pedestrian movement ona site. That's part of the specific plan approved for a site that allows things like reduction in parking or setbacks, or greater building coverage. He believed they must be very concerned about the multiple businesses on a single sitewith banners. He's worried about the proliferation of window signage, banners and on-site A-frame signs, which would be fine it they are set back from vehicular sight lines. He would like comments back from the business community to see how they feel about competing for the same viewpoint from their customers arriving on the site.How can it be made fair for the business community and still not be injurious to the public at large?He was against 365 days a year, no matter what the conditionof the sign is. That's a permanent sign. Permanent sign ordinances have evolved because there is no other way to police maintenance of signs with less permanent materials. Even the permanent sign materials are given to the weather elements or vandalism. If 365 days a year is a consideration, then banners must be incorporated into the overall permanent signage ordinance of the City and combine the two together.He sees the purpose for temporary signs as being seasonal for special things that are happening.He supported a continuance as suggested to provide staff and the community at large to have time to digest the Commission's concerns and comments. Thisis an important issue. It's long-range and needs careful thought without the heat of the moment to arrive at something that works for everybody.Commissioner Smith said the document Mr. Patrick submitted to the Commission was excellent; she was sorry they only received it at tonight's meeting. She did not have adequate time to review all the aspects of it and favored a continuance to digest the points further and put it together with the staff report. The item that calls for no outside merchandise being displayed -- she believed that was part of the permanent sign ordinance.Mr. Godlewski responded currently a person can get a special promotion permit, but that is on private property. That does not include public property.Commissioner Smith misses the display of fresh flowers in Orange. Other cities seem to have a special ambiance with the display of fresh flowers. Orange does not allow that, but it would be a nice touch it it were allowed. She agreed one sign per business is not enough, but she also thought two A-frames wouldn't be appropriate. If there is a threshold for signs, she thought somewhere in that equation should be whether or not a person has one or more signs. If someone had two signs,there should be a limit to the size of each of those signs. If there is only one sign, maybe that sign could be a little bit larger. She personally liked the A-frames. They are sort of old fashioned and speak of a by-gone era where there was only foot traffic. However, it is a problem for people in wheelchairs and children who can't see over the signs. That is related to whether there is on-street or off-street parking. She disagreed that Old Towne is the only district that would have a different use. Katella is very different from Tustin; is very different from East Chapman; is very different from West Chapman. That has to do with the width of Planning Commisslon Minutes October 16, 1985 the sidewalks have a parkway on eRher side of them. The signs should be with the agreement andapprovalofthepropertyowner. That's not too much to ask. It's not right to have a legal sign that isnotpermittedonaparticularproperly. She agrees with the ordinance Chet there should bepermissionofthepropertymanagementcompany; that's good business. She also Ilked Mr. Patrick'sdocumentsadditionsofPaga4, Items 2 and 6 that banners and signs aren't to t>9 aheched topowerpoles, nor should They ba in the same horizontal line as the business sign. Sha can't decideonthetimeperiodsforthesigns, whether it would be 90 or 120 days, whether it would beconaeCUtlvepermits. The business people she has talked to would Ilke them to be consecutivepermits. She thought it would be feasible to sit out one permit period a year, but be able to hangthesignstheotherquartersoftheyear. She was very concerned how the Clty would monitor thisandhowmuchllIsgoingtocost, end whether it would be affordable to the businessmen. The priceschedulesheworkedoutwasa90daypermftmightopal525, which Is about 27 cents a day. And e120daypermitmightcost535, whleh Is 25 cents a day. That would be attordeble to lha hem a She would alike to sae that at m ntetedeSThe teal two pagestof the sign program, t7 tg8sand8of8, should still be included In the ordinance. Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Godlewski to canvas a couple of the owners and get a reaction fromthemintermsofwhettheirfeelingsandthoughtsere. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue OrdinanceAmendment1-95 - Slgn Regulations to their regular meeting of January 15, 1996. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, SmithNOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED tN RE: NEW H RIN ,R 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2124-95. VARIANCE 1999-95 - ALBERTSONS, INC hee ©colnstruction of a'newhsupermarket. tRequested 9s a assn eato eldlownfo a twlalve~poltheAesolrequeedristapconldlgtlonal~userperlmltdtoarellowtbacksale ofraQcohollcrbevereges~wehmthe reconstructed Albertsons Supermarket, antl to allow the Installation of a recycling center. The siteislocatedat3325EestChapmanAvenue (NEC of Chapman Avenue and Prospect Street).MOTE: Negative Declaration 1478.84 has been prepared to evaluate theenvironmentalimpactsofthis project.There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened.I n Tom Courtney, Courtney Architects. 656 Santa Rosa Street +y3A, Sen Luis Obispo, IrnrodueedthoserepresentingthisItem, who were available to answer questions. They concur with the conditionsofChepmanaendProspectkenddryingtotupgradethehparkinggareatwithyl0% etndscapleng~aThemarksitself, to be competitive with other markets in the area, was undersized. Truck loadingservicefacililleswareinadequateandunsafe. They Inltlally performed a photographic study analysistoanalyzehowbesttheycouldmakeapositivecontributiontothecommunity. I[ required asubstantialCostt0maketheneededimprovementsbecauseitrequiresthedemolitionoftheexistingbuildingandabout6,(700 square 16et of retail shops. They teal the arehltectural character as reviewed bytheDesignReviewBoardIsfavorabletothestatementsastarasarchitecturaleompatlbllltyto Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 adjoining shopping center, the tree species end landscaping. He focused on four items o1 theconditionsofapproval: The parking variance; the wheel slope, the acoustical study, and the lees.They are dedicating about 12 1/2 feet along Chepmen end about 10 lest along Prospect. They are also providing 10 to 14 112 feet of landscaping along the right•ot-ways. All this reducesthe~9mount of parking. But then again to balance it out and meet the 10% requirement for landscaping, Iheyfeltitwasdonequitewell. There is approximately8.000 square teat of oflice apace Ihet closeset5:00p.m. and are dosed on weekends, at a time when people start to go grocery shopping. He referred to condition 4 on wheel stops. He passed out Scheme A end Schema 8 for the ro adjacent to the lends epelastrlp a ong Protlapectt wftich eeavescone aiBng eorow of perk n®arThe request Is to put wheel stops, cwtthey're concerned about Ilablltty ae to where the wheel scopewouldahazard. ySchemue A Is whatthey~otiginally submittedtoThat i9 8 sout onhwhere Iheyado nothavedthewhealetopaandthereisstillthe10feeto1landscapingalongProspect, whldt wasnY therebefore.They would like to have the wheel stops ellminatetl completely if they have to go with Scheme8.You will still have landscaping at the entry way which is about 36 leaf on Scheme B, from the faceptthecurbback. Condition 21 Is the acoustic study. They would like to address that and havethereportupdatedthatdealswiththeloadingdock (addendum to the study on file). The last Itemhastodowithfees (Item E. Page 11). They would like Ihat to be based on the incremental differenceInthesquarefootageofthe project.Chairman Bosch Interjected This was a Clty ordinance for these fees. The Planning Commissiondidnothavecontroloverft. Those, which the City does have control over, ere based on a lomtulathatkembodiedIntheordinance, end can be discussed with theCity's Planning and Public Works staff.Chairman Bosch addressed the variance for parking. Ha spoke to the curve of businessprojectedforthesiteintermsofuse. In addition to that, a feeling for the foot traffic or publicconveyancetrafficthatwillcometothesitealsowillassisttheCommiesloninidaniiiyingwhyItmightbeappropriatetohavelessparkingwithregardtoseniorcitizens' housing nearby, majormulti-family housing and the Ilke. They were also Concerned about encroachment onto the other tenants -- that tl may drive them out, while the market would still succeed. They need to be sure there i9 agood balance.Scott Thayer, real estate manager for Albertsons, addressed some o1 the conceme. They feltthisstoreienotgoingtobeanydiflerentthenthenewoneatChapmanandJamboree. The bulk of the Most ofsthe buslnesseseln theecenler, afathoseuhowss havesalreaidyliclosatd for Itte day. You're looking at 70% as being the bulk of the business. The site Is unique because It has aresidentialneighborhooddoseby. They fel! there is going to be a lot of foot traffic to the store as wall. They do studies on their bcaflons and (heir investment is between 7 end 6 million dollars. The studies are not taken lightly. They have not done a study, except for economics, on sales volume, but theylookettheamountofparkingIntheshoppingcenter. When they feel there IS not adequate parking, they will not go onto the Bile because It hurts Ihek business as was. The center is unique because ithassecondstoryotlicesoverretail, which typkally does not work well. And, over 50•i° of it isvacant.Chairman Bosch said the parking ordinance applies to the overall shopping center end giventhemixtureofureaortoenIndividualuse, the applicant is proposing a 44,500 square Toot store. Whe!square footage of the afore is storage, delivery, box break down, etc., employee/stall supportloungespacevs. active retell space?Mr. Thayer said 7556 to 80% fs store; 25°/. to 30Ye Is back room. Mr. Courtney affirmed thatwascorrect. There is about 8,000.10,000 square feet dedicated to storage and other uses.Mr. Thayer referred to liquor signs in the conditions. He didn't think tt was the intent of the Cltytoserletotdhu~ from putting up a sign that says "liquor'. 11's not advertising a brand, but theavailability W Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 Ms. Gander stated a sign eaying "liquor" would be fine. The condition is prohibit(ng specialadvertisementof6packsofbeerandthingsofthatnature. Mr. Thayer sold it was his understanding that Nem 21 mainly addresses the loading dock area and tobringthatreportuptodate. Chairman Bosch Bald they were spaeilfcally concerned about the potential impact, it not mitigated, ofthebodingoperationsontheadjacentresidences. Mr. Courtney seltl the Police DepaAment early on spoke to them about the rear parking. There were41spacesettherearoftheprojectandtheyreducedThatto20spaces. All 21 spaces ware movedtothefrontoftheshoppingcanter. Commisalomer Romero said reducing the parking from 41 to 20 was a nice direction to go In, but theproblemstillremainsforemployeesparkingbacktherewithregartlstowhatthepolicehaveIdentified. Are there any eommenis on how to encourage employee parking In the back? Mr. Thayer said there was minimal parking in the back. Currently some of the tenants do park backthere. Once new development occurs, they felt there was enough perking for the existing tenants toparkbackthere. They always try to encourage their employees to issue the parking in the front forthepatrons. Commissioner Smith said peA of the request was for the off sale of alcohol and to reinstate the ABClicense. Why shoultl that be grantad9 Mr. Thayer said it was a typical operation for a supermarket end they would like to be competitivewiththesurroundingmarkets. Chairman Bosch said the Design Review Board had concerns relative to the 20 toot wide sidewalkareawithoptionsforseveraldifferenttreatmentsofpalmTreesendotherenhancedpavingatthefromofthe61ore. He would like to hear (heir reasons for their decision. Lisa Pat[ereon, landscape architect, said it was diecussetl at the Design Review Board meeting ofputtingIntreewellsonlywithafewtreesalongthefrontageortheycouldhaveaplantingarea.They thought the planting eras with low shrubs end a taw trees wouitl be a better solution. TheywereConcernedaboutshoppingCartsdamagingthelandscape. Commissioner Smith wanted to know where the shopping carts would go In the parking lot. ThewheelstopswouldstopthecartsIronrollingallovertheparkinglot_ Mr. Courtney pointed ou- on fhe map the areas for shopping carts. Mr. Thayer sold box boys will beretrievingthecartefromtheparkinglotendcartstorageareas. Chairmen Bosch said they might consider a caA storage area adjacent to the recycling center. Theshort, tubular cart storage area directly In irons of the main entrance, next to the handicap van stall --perhapsIfthatwerelocatedfurthertothewestItmightbenefitthelot. They discussed other locationsonsiteforcartstorage. The City o1 Ornnge is in the process of discussing and developing anordinancewithregardtooil-site retrieval of shopping Carta. He was Interested In Incorporating aworkingrelationshipimotheprojecttoassistindevelopingastandardthatbenefitstheCityandatthesametimebenefitsthebusiness. Shopping carts are causing a problem throughout the City.They would like to see some type of proposal of how something can be Incorporated Into the projectfor5managementplanonretrievingcarts. Mr. Thayer saltl they subscribed to a service that collected (hose carts and brought them beck to thestore. They were willing to stipulate to a condition that would require them to provide Cart retrieval bystallfromthestoreortosubscribetoaservice. 11 Plarming Commission Minutes The public hearing was opened. PuWie Input October 16, 1995 Martha Tango, 3332 East Maple, wanted to know if they were going to build the building further beckthantheexistingone. Chairman Bosch replied yes, they intend to build It further, if approved. The public hearing was dosed. Mr. Courtney explained the wall wag 28 Ieet high along the rear. They reached a conclusion theywouldextendthesplitface, scored, blocked, along the rear elevation and incorporate ulnas Avery 20feetoncanter. That will assist In minimizing the gralfitl problems because the ulnas will grown to eheightof7feat. The visual Impact ie important antl was a concern to the DRB end that was thesolution. The building is 30 fAAI from the rear propery IInA end that 30 feet is actually an easementforaccessacrossthereartoallowbothcenterstohavAaccessandservice. The old building'sdistancetothebackwallwas67feet. Ms. Gander explained the minimum setback requirement per the Zoning Ordinance on rear properlylinesiszerofeetforcommercialproperties. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett Bald In Terms of the conditional use permit, he agreed this was a necessity andeonvenlAnceforpeoplewhoshopatmarketstobeabletopurdrasealcohol. He complimentedAibertsonsonthedesignfromthestandpointofhowtodealwiththebacksideofthestore, sollAninghupwiththevines. The gra1111i has to be deal) with In a timely manner; It's Important end critical tothisaswell. It's going to be vary Important That Alberteons be a good neighbor to the commundy.He didn't have a problem with the changes proposed on the wheel stops on Scheme A. Thechangeesproposedunderitem21isTineandthestipulationtoitem22, adtling the cart collectionserviceIsagoodproposal. He didn't think the parking variance was going to be a problem, baseduponthefactthattheuseofthelacifilyintermsofatticsuseendthewaypeoplewillbeshoppingbywalkingtothestorewillnotpresentaproblem. 1t looks like a good proJed. Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Pruetl's comments and suggested adding aconditionthatacartretrievalareabeInstalledneartherecyclingcenterandexchangingthewestedyhandicapparkingspacewiththeIn-IInA cart storage area, south o1 1hA entry way so cart retrievalfromthewesterlypartofthesiteIsmorereadilyavailable. ShA hAld her opinion as to wheel stops.Commissioner Romsro also agreed with Commissioner Prueri and would tike to hear tram the CilyaresponsespecificallywiththeparkingregardingSchemeAvs. Scheme B. He was gratefultoAlbertsonsforimprovingthearea; it's a big expense they are undertaking and he hopes allgoes well.Mr. Johnson thought Schema A vs. Scheme B was the issue of storage of cars that are comingintoandoutoftheshe. Ifyou've got a back up on sit A, It's better than having the back up In thestreet.There should be at IAast a two car storage on site so the cars can turn around and go Into thatfirstaisle. The ISSUA of the wheal stops is an issuA whereby people cut across thA parking lot to gAt fnoroutenditdoesresukinaccidents. Wheel slops eliminates those types of accidents. Scheme Aisonestorage; Scheme B is two storages from the standpoint of major aisles coming In andout.Scheme A maximizes [he parking a little better. Planning Commission Minutes October te, 1995 The Commission discussed the issues of Scheme A vs. Scheme B -- Irafllc directions, signs, aisles and stacking. There is less of a risk with Scheme B, even without wheel stops.Chairman Bosch slated they could eliminate condition 4 and that would do the job. He wee concerned about the height and bulk o1 the building relative to the adjacent residences. Despite hl6 concern, they had a background building with good malarial that will last a long time and not require maintenance. There is a decem setback and there will be further study and mitigation measures on noise control that will be demonstrated by condition 21. And, Ihey are restoring a use to a neighborhood. That's Important, particularly with the multi-family residential and senior citizen houeing nearby that has counted on the presence of a market. The CUP for an ABC license Is a reasonable use vs. a liquor afore or 7-11, where vary often the purchases ere for immediate consumption. The other issue Is parking. Me asked eo many questions to look for other mitigating measures in addition to those named that would help raduoe the potential parking need on site.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1478-95 1lnding the project, ee proposed, will not have a eignilicanl adverse eflect on the environment or wildlife resources.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Movetl by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2124.95, which will allow the sale of alcoholic beverages end the Installation of a recycling center. The Commieslon recommended to the City Council that public convenience and necessity was being served by this request es It relates to State regulations governing alcoholic beverage licensing, because alcohol sales era typical 01 a supermarket such as this market and the business has the right to be eompetilive: this would be in the best interest o1 public convenience and these findings warrant the granting of a conditional use permit. And, to approve Variants 1999-95, with the followingfindings: Thal 8,000 square lest of the business Is non-retail sales, closing at 5:00 p.m., which would provide more parking to the supermarket. Seventypercent of the day's businessoccursbetween 5:00.8:00 p.m. and on weekends when It Is presumed those office spaces are closed. There is a proximity In the neighborhood of multi-tamlly housing as well as senior citizen housing, with a lot of foot traffic in the neighborhood which could tolerate the reduction o} parking spaces. The storage and delivery spaceof Aibertsons is from 8,000 to 10,000 square teat,approximating 25% of the building Itaeti that requires the parking. Tha Commieslon deleted condition 4 which referred to the wheal elope. They modified condition 21 by allowing en addendum to the present study on file with the Planning Department to be used Instead of a new acoustic study. Add condition 22 -the applicant, prior to opening for business, shall provide a store policy or contract, satisfactory to the Planning and Police Departments, for an off-silo cart retrieval service to the vicinity of the store, and add condition 23 a cart retrieval station be added in addition to that shown on the plan and Installed near the recycling center at the south portion of the parking lot.And, relocate the in-tine cart storage south, across the main drive aisle from the main entrance antl reverse that with the westerty handicap specs to provide cart storage in better proximity from the westariy portitm o1 the site.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruen, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2125-95 - JOHAN AND ALICE HANSEN The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the on-premise sale of beer and wine witMn a restaurenl. The site Is located Planning Comml661on Minutes October 18, 1995 NOTE' This pro]ecl is categorically exempt from the provisions of the Callfomla Environmental Duality Act per CEOA puidellnes Section 15301. There was no opposition and the full reading of the staff report was walvetl. The publle hearing wee opened. Johan Hansen, 5602 Brlarcrest. Lakewood. said the restaurant s{te fe at 840 The City Drive, on the corner of City Drive and Garden Grove Boulevard. Pepito's restaurant has been In business for almost 14 years In the Cny of Garden Grove. During that time they operated with a 41 permit for the entire time, without having any problems. Pepilo'e restaurant Is a full service, Last service. Mexican lood with everything being prepared fresh. They're IooKing to offer people in the Center the convenience and pleasure of coming la their restaurant to eat end enjoy a glass of beer or wine with their meal. They would be the only facility at this point In the center to offer bear end wine. They wish to relocate to Orange from Garden Grove. They would like to open at 7:00 a.m. to offer breakfast until approximately 7:00 p.rt't-, subJect to an initial change because they're not sure what the people are going to expect. They would not offer alcoholic beverages until 11:00 a.m. He talked to Dan Ryan and indicated they might Ilke to have two evenings so they could stay open Iflter to otter the residents in the neighborhood a thence to eat at their restaurant. That's not something they entertain doing right now, bui it's a possibility. Their existing restaurant in Garden Grove is 1400 square feat with en adjacent patio. Meg Ferrell, Is the properly manager or Nexus City Square and she represents the ownership of the building. They did a study over a year ago when they took over the management of the property and surveyed the tenants to Lind out what they were looking for to make deasions about staying or leaving the property. Their study showed the tenants were wanting amenities that would give them services and provide places to go and eat that were in close proximlfy to the offices. They want out and recruited Peplto's and are giving them Brent-free deal iF that is what it takes to make them successful. The traffic count at that location is not what you would normally expect to have for a restaurant use that Is going to be viable. They went to make sure that during the lunch hours end et the end of the business day the tenants can afford themselves o1 some sating alternatives. They' ve remodeled the cafe and they are looking for a potential replacement for Blimpy's it they do not elect to continue their tease. They are trying to be supportive of their tenants, both retail and otherwise,end ere prepared to subsidizePeplto's a that fS what It takes because they want Nexus City Square to remain a reefly viable oflice location in the City of Orange.The public hearing was closed.It was noted thispro]ect was celegorlcally exempt from the provisions o1 CEOA review.Movod by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2125-95, with the conditions of approval 1-9 listed in the staff report, finding that the Conditional use permit la granted on sound lend use principles end fe in response to the services required in the community. and that it will nOt create any daterioratlon to bordering land uses or scale any special problems. It is recommended to the Cily Council that publle convenience and necesshy is served by this proposal.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2126-95 - ST. NORBERT CHURCH The applicant is proposing to expand a church by adding a church meeting room in a 960 sq. it. modular building that will be located at the southeast corner of the church's parking area. The site is located at 300 East Tatt Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this item. The applicant is requesting to move a modular structure onto the church site at 300 East Taft Avenue. They are proposing to use the structure as an adult meeting room. Presently they have meetings in their church facilities, but because they can't leave the material up over night, they want to create a space so that they can permanently meet and leave their materials. The proposed structure will be placed at the southeast corner of the parking lot and it will be located approximately 34 feet from its nearest property line (easterly property line). It will be placed about 55 to 60 teat from the nearest residences, which are to the east of the structure. The applicant will be required to do some minor restriping of the parking lot as part oT the project. The impacts of moving the structure onto the site, per the Zoning Ordinance, will reduce the number of parking spaces; however, the parking lot will still exceed the total parking required for the church facility. The realignment of the drive aisles will conform to the Fire Code requirements for access. The structure can conform to the Uniform Building Code requirements and can provide the handicap access. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant Dennis Hurley, 300 East Taft Avenue, spoke on behalf of St. Norbert's Church. With the addition of this room they are not bringing new people to the site. They cannot leave materials out over night because it is a multiple use facility. They're requesting to bring in a facility that will allow them to leave their materials out. There will be no required site lighting, as the existing security lighting is adequate. They shouldn't be impacting anyone. There are no plans to move the building; it would be a permanent structure and they request an open ended permit. The contractor will be setting the modular unit on a treated wood foundation which the Building Department has already approved. The existing buildings are approximately 17 to 18 teat. The new building will be just under 10 feet. It will be smaller, made out of composite wood material and the color will be matched to blend in with their existing structures. Those speaking in oooosition Leonard Freeman, 1676 North Shaffer, introduced his mother, Emma Freeman, 1632 Shaffer Street. Her property is right behind the proposed building. They were concerned with the height of the building. His mother enjoys a nice view from the back of her property, over the parking lot where the children play next to the school buildings. A church meeting room should be located by the church. Will this impact the view they have from the back yard? He just heard the new structure is under 10 feet in height and the block wall is about 9 teat high. The wall is leaning and needs to be straightened. Rebuttal Mr. Hurley spoke to the issue of why the meeting room is located where it is -- after a great deal of discussion with the Planning staff that was the only place they could place the modular building without significantly altering the traffic pattern. They pushed the unit as tar back up to the existing building as they could with the setbacks. They were also wncerned with the children playing behind the building to where they couldn'tbe supervised. They will be Tencing off the area so the building 15 Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1995 will serve as a solid wall and will be up against a play area. The playground will remain. They would be open to putting in planter boxes and repairing the wall if it is leaning. Tho public hearing was Gosed. Commissioner Pruett said if this were approved as a permanent structure, what kind of precedent would be set, or is a precedent even being set? Mr. Jones said about six months ago the Korean Church came in with a proposed expansion using a modular structure. They put in a foundation and landscaping and dressed the building up quite a bit. It was a very open, visible area. In this circumstance, because of the large fence and trees surrounding the property, it's virtually not seen by the general public. Mr. Carnes said the Zoning Ordinance has been changed in that applicants were not required to get conditional use permits to move a structure onto the site, which use to be required in the past. It use to go to the Zoning Administrator. The applicant's request is for the expansion of a church, and by code, there are circumstances that someone could move a structure onto the site that wilt not require any special review of the Planning Commission. It would go to the Staff Review Committee for site plan review. Without the expansion of the church, they could move the structure permanently onto the site. The issue of a precedent is not a concern. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2126-95 with condition 1 and find that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound land use principles and is responsive to the services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of the bordering land uses or create any special problems in the area.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER CATHCART TO TAKE A THREE (3) MONTH LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to accept his request to take a three (3) month leave of absence and welcome him back at his earliest availability. Mr. Cathcart is the vice-chairman of the Planning Commission and his expertise and experience as a Planning Commissioner, and as a professional Landscape architect is invaluable to the Commission.The Commissioners, over the next three months, will ensure a quorum is maintained, and the potential for split votes on controversial projects will be minimized.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS October 16, 1995 Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, very much approved of the three month leave of absence for Commissioner Cathcart. He's a strong influence in the City and has done one heck of a job on the Commission. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn to the next regularlyscheduledmeetingonNovember6, 1995. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p. m. sld MOTION CARRIED 17