Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1996 PC Minutesj' tf1), 9, J. 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City 01 Orange November 18, 1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager 01 Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attomey,Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant Cny Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 11/4/96 2. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1930-91 - ROBERT A. SMITH The applicant is requesting a one-year extension 01 a conditional use permit approved in 1992, which expires November 16, 1996. The conditional use permit authorized construction 01 a 17,400 sq. It.automotive service and repair center which would include an existing Mobile Service Station located at 1935 East Chapman Avenue (adjacent to the southbound off-ramp 01 the 55 Freeway). Recommendation: Approve one (1) year extension 01 Conditional Use Permit 1930- 91.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smnh, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 3. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-96 - CITY OF ORANGE Scheduling olluture study session to continue review 01 the City's Site Plan Review process.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions 01 the Calilomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.Mr. Jones explained this was the one year review 01 the Zoning Ordinance which was adopted last September, 1995. Staff brought this back at the last meeting and it was continued until thismeeting.Since the November 4 hearing, it has been brought to stall's attention that there are non-land use issues that must be evaluated belore moving ahead with this item. Staff's recommendation is that it be withdrawn at this time.The public hearing was opened and then closed; there were no public comments.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to withdraw Ordinance Amendment 4-96 - the City's Site Plan Review process. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1996 IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2166-96 - MANOHAR LAL A proposal to allow the sale of beer and wine within an existing restaurant. The site is located at 220 East Katella. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) par State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, A full staff report was waived; there was no opposition to this project The public hearing was opened, Aoolicant Mike Alvarez, 360 South Glassell, spoke on behalf of the restaurant owner who is looking to open an Indian cuisine restaurant He made a few comments about the staff report: On Page 2, the top paragraph mentions the subject property is non-conforming with respect to parking, This is true, but there have been several restaurants at this site and it is noted in the report that several have been approved, This restaurant will not be opan during the breakfast hours; it is only looking to be open for lunch and dinner. On Page 3, #2, again the key phrase is that it is not likely to cause a deterioration of bordering land uses, It is a restaurant site and will be used again as a restaurant Item #3 -- they have had several meetings with the Police Department The current owner has three other restaurants and they were reviewed by the Police Department They were found to be a good, corporate citizen, On Page 4, under Condition #2 -- applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, They requested this not be put in the application because the site is completely built out The parking lot has been vacant for over a year and the landscaping has died, The management company was looking for a new tenant to come in before making the improvements, This past week they have been re-planting the parcel. He shared some pictures with the Commission showing the new growth and landscaping, Those soeakina in favor Louise McCain, leasing agent for the property, spoke in favor of the new tenant They are trying to keep the property in tip top shape, She would be happy to address any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Romero said the photos showed one small area in front of the restaurant and one further down the street He asked if that was the only landscaped area around the building? Ms. McCain replied they had two planters on the property, Everything is planted and the weeds have been removed, The only place they have not finalized is along side the building; the building materials need to be removed before they plant in that area, They plan to plant Red Apple ground cover in the planter areas because trees and shrubs already exist Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, asked who owned the property? Sgt Barry Weinstein, Orange Police Department, stated the Police Department has investigated the applicant's other businesses and have determined they are businesses that are good for the community, They have no opposition to the alcohol application and have listed 12 conditions of approval. The only thing they wish to add to Condition #13 is that one year after the sale of alcoholic beverages begin and every year thereafter they will evaluate the business for excessive calls/problems, Mr, Jones was not certain who the property owner was and asked if the applicant could clarify the ownership. Mr. Alvarez stated the name of the property owner was Orange Second, a Nevada Limited LiabilityCompany, Mr. Jones confirmed the property owner's name; it was listed under the Landowner's Affidavit on the CUP application at the back of the staff report. 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1996 Commissioner Carlton had concerns about the landscaping, She understood it could not be completed until all other repairs were made, She asked if the owner would be responsible for the landscaping under a lease or would the tenant be maintaining the landscaping? She has seen many properties that have not been kept up to par. Mr. Alvarez responded the tenant would be responsible for the property's landscaping, Ms, McCain also affirmed the property management company would be making inspections on a regular basis for maintenance~andscaping upkeep, The pUblic hearing was closed, Commissioner Romero did not have a problem with the request except he would personally like to see the City's Landscape Coordinator approve the landscape standards in the parking lot, including screening and front landscape planting, He requested Condition #2 be left in, Commissioner Carlton agreed, Chairman Bosch had a concern on the wording of Condition #2 and referred to staff, He found a difference between review of a detailed landscape plan to be sure the landscaping materials and methods meet standards vs, meeting minimum landscape standards, which he interpreted as being per the ordinance, which the applicant couldn't do on this site without losing additional parking spaces, given the age of the building and its pre-existing nature,Mr. Jones said the Chairman's point was well made, He suspected the verbiage was probably somewhat boiler plate. The Chairman was correct based upon the fact the parking has been there for some time and that it was an older site, A restaurant has been at the site for more than 30 years (off and on) and the parking lot could not be modified to meet the minimum standards,The Commission's intent is to get the assurance that the landscaping that is provided meets the City' s standards in terms of materials and installation, but not cause the applicant to retro-actively redesign the parcel. They want to be sure the property is maintained in a proper fashion,It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review,Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2166-96, with all the conditions listed in the staff report, modifying Condition #2 by deleting the second sentence; and modifying Condition #13 by adding "every year thereafter" to the end of the sentence, This CUP is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. 1\ will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the areas in which it is located, The relationship to its effect on the community for the area in which it is located was taken into consideration.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruelt, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 5, APPEAL NO. 435 - CHEVRON U,SA An appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny Variance 2024-96, a request to construct a 70'tall freeway oriented sign, The property is located at 1940 East Katella Avenue, adjacent to the southbound on-ramp to the 55 Freeway,NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA) per State CEOA Guidelines Section 15311,There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1996 Aoolicant Andrea Rscus, 2050 South Santa Cruz, Anaheim, spoke on behalf of Robert Rscus & Associates, who represented the Chevron Corporation, Chevron is requesting a 70 foot high pole sign, They currently have one sign at the site that addresses the street and it allows for use of motorists that are passing by to come into the station, They request a freeway sign to address the freeway business as they would like to pull some of that business off the freeway to add revenue to their station. Due to the lowered elevation of the site, it constitutes justification for a 70 foot high pole sign. They have done a sign flagging at different heights, They started at 35 feet high trying to get a low sign -- a sign that would be favorable to the City, Due to the number of trees and the extensive amount of landscaping along the freeway, a 35 foot high pole sign would not be seen, A 70 foot high sign is the most desirable location,Chairman Bosch explained since they were asking for a variance, specific findings were required to be made to demonstrate the requirements for the variance are met. He read the required findings that must be met for this variance request. The applicant has addressed the topographical differential between the site and the adjacent freeway, However, he was concerned that they haven't reflected how the application of the Zoning Ordinance or specifically, denial of the height being requested denies them a privilege or right enjoyed by others in the vicinity, or that the limitation is inconsistent with that on other properties. Ms, Rscus said their request for the 70 foot high pole sign is consistent with the other signs in the same location, Currently across the street is an Arco sign that is approximately 30 to 35 feet high. Located behind their property is a Howard Johnson's sign that is approximately 50 to 55 feet hi!iJh, There is also a Shiki Restaurant sign and billboard sign, By asking for an additional freeway sign at thiS location will not impact the community, It will give them additional freeway oriented business,Commissioner Smith noted the report said there was some negotiation with Howard Johnson's, but that was not feasible, She understood that was a suggestion by the Zoning Administrator to combine the signs. What was going on with that because that would give them some height and also minimize the number of signs,Ms, Rscus said Chevron has spoken with the property owner of Howard Johnson's and currently there has not been an agreement reached regarding payment of the signs and leasing. They were also informed that due to the freeway widening at that location, there would be a 30 foot high sound wall that would be constructed along the freeway, A sign of that size would give them little or no visibility from the freeway, Commissioner Smith asked if that information was available at the ZA hearing? (Ms. Rscus replied no, it was just recently learned,) Commissioner Smith wanted to know if that could be construed as a hardship forthevariancerequest? (Possibly.)Commissioner Pruett asked it they have seen final plans on the treeway widening and sound wall? (No,)Did they know if final plans have been developed? (No, they spoke with a representative of Cal Trans,who informed them a wall would be constructed within the next year or two,)Robert Rscus, 2050 South Santa Cruz, Anaheim, said they have been in close contact with Cal Trans regarding the freeway widening and sound wall, although they have not finalized the height of the wall.They have also worked with Howard Johnson's to try sharing a sign with them. But, they are not receptive to sharing a sign, Arco and some of the other gasoline retailers have a very distinct advantage ofbeinggrandfatheredinwiththeirsigns, They are looking to the freeway traffic to bring in additional revenue. Chairman Bosch explained the Commission looked only at the land use issues of projects, He asked how long Chevron has been at this location? (The station has been in operation for about 22 years,)Chevron was asking for a second sign, in addition to the sign allowed by ordinance. (The sign that is in place now addresses the street, weights and measures required by law, and prices,)Chairman Bosch said they could not grant a variance that constitutes a special privilege -- the second sign issue becomesakeyconcern, What other gas station locations in the same zone and freeway proximity 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1996 in Orange have two free-standing signs of the scale they were requesting? (Mr. Fiscus could not think of another station that is either new or redeveloping that is in the City of Orange and is freeway oriented,)Commissioner Smith said in reading the notes from the Zoning Administrator's hearing, it said the ZA was trying to negotiate with them as to a height But, they' stuck with the 70 foot height. When the ZA offered to negotiate a height lower than 70 feet, what If the Commission says no? Then, what will Chevron do for a sign? Is there a Plan B?Mr. Fiscus said they have a Plan B. They saw from the flagging that 63 feet seemed to be the minimum height they could have for that sign to be visible from the freeway, They would be amiable to go down to 60 feet Their station at Santiago and the 55 Freeway has a freeway sign of 35 feet But that s~e was elevated and is visible from the freeway. There is no sense in putting up a 35 foot high sign. No one would be able to see it The public hearing was dosed,Commissioner Carlton noted on the first page of the Z.A.'s report there was some discussion with the project manager, Mr. Grove, It states the minimum acceptable height would be 55 feet Now Mr. Fiscus is saying 60 or 63 feet Does that mean to the bottom of the sign? Are they asking for 63, 60 or 55 feet?Is Mr. Grove the one who is doing the major negotiations or is somebody else involved?Chairman Bosch understood the height is to the bottom of the sign,Mr. Fiscus said they had talked about 55 feet to the bottom of the sign, They were looking at a 7 to 8 foot high sign. Mr. Grove works for his firm and does work for Chevron,Commissioner Pruett struggled with the variance request because there were a lot of unknowns that relate to the freeway. The applicant is concerned about what is happening with the freeway and the sound wall and how the sign needs to be constructed to take that into consideration, He was not sure what's going to happen with the freeway, The Commission may be approving a sign that is way above what is required to be visible from the freeway, He was not in a position where he could support the appeal and wasn't sure if he wanted to negotiate a reasonable sign height His first reaction was to deny the appeal and send it back to the Zoning Administrator to resolve the issue. There are a lot of unanswered questions that must be addressed. He asked staff to look into the freeway sound walls and contact Cal Trans for some current information, He also thought staff should be advocating to Cal Trans that they put signs on the freeway to identify what stations are available at that particular exit With that type of identification, it eliminates the issue of dual signs, If Chevron is granted a 70 foot sign, then Arco will request a 70 foot sign, Then, the other stations down the road will want higher signs,Chairman Bosch said the concern was the existing signs immediately adjacent to the site. The Howard Johnson's sign is a relatively new sign, It was a replacement of anexistin(l sign that was only a couple of feet shorter. In that case, the Commission denied the variance, but the City Council overruled it because the variance from the existing condition was relatively close and it was a maintenance type effort in terms of corporate upgrading of replacing a worn out sign. The Shiki sign is pre-existing current sign ordinance;it may be pre- four or five sign ordinances because it has been there forever. There are two problems with the variance request He agreed with Commissioner Pruett relative to the freeway. The Commission didn't know what Cal Trans will do. He didn~ feel ~ was appropriate to presume a hardship may occur in the future relative to an action that is rumored to occur to some quantity that is yet unknown, He also needed more information before he could judge there is a hardship due to the sound wall. Beyond that,he was really concerned. He would like to see the other signs mitigated, but they don~ have a way to do that Therefore, the pre-existing signs have to stay where they are, He would be willing to look at something with regard to a single sign that would fall into the range of the variances the Commission has approved where there were similar hardships caused by the freeway expansion, road widening, etc., but certainly not to a 70 foot height at this location. It would cause a clutter and sets a precedent that leads to every business along the freeway saying they have a right to a 70 foot sign, It's not limited to just gas stations -- it's every single business! It would end up being a solid row of signs, He would like to see it held until Cal Trans' plans are known, He also had a strong concern abouf setting a precedent for a second sign, The Zoning Administrator already denied the request and it should not be sent back to him.He would like to see another application that falls into the intent of the ordinance or looks to the variances that have been granted over the past several years to use as a ground work in the typical way. Use that as the basis for approaching this particular Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1996 Mr. Rscus asked for a continuance for 30 days in order to ask Cal Trans what their intent was. Chairman Bosch asked for written documentation from Cal Trans, which may assist the Commission in making their decision for this appeal. Commissioner Pruett pointed out the issue does not hin!;le just on what Cal Trans is doing, That's something Chevron needs to understand. There are Issues that need to be resolved from the standpoint of special privileges thaI may be granted, Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Appeal No, 435 for 30 days to procure more information from Cal Trans, AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 6, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1512-96 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to construct a storm drain on Palm Avenue from Orange Street west to Glassell Street, on Glassell Street from Palm Avenue north to Sycamore Avenue, and on Palm Avenue from Orange Street to Center Street. New reinforced concrete pipe storm drain will be placed with new laterals and inlets to pick up flood water. There was no opposition to this project. The public hearing was opened and closed as there were no public comments, Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1512- 96, AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 7, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1513-96 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to replace existing 6" vitrified clay pipe sewer located under Shaffer Street centerline from Walnut Avenue to Oakmont Avenue with a 12" vitrified clay pipe sewer. Excavation and pavement construction will be included with the project.There was no opposition to this project. The public hearing was opened and closed as there were no public comments,Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1513- 96, AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 8. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1514-96 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to replace existing 12" vitrified clay pipe sewer located east of Main Street centerline from Sycamore Avenue to Alvarez Avenue with a 24" vitrified clay pipe sewer. Excavation and pavement construction will be included with the project.There was no opposition to this project. The public hearing was opened and closed as there were no public Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1996 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1514- 96, AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Pruett wanted staff to look into Cal Trans from the standpoint of being able to post signs at different off ramps to identify service stations or gasoline and other facilities, It would solve some of the sign problems. Because of the sound walls being erected, it would make sense to identify the necessary services at freeway off ramps,Mr. Jones said staff would look into that issue with Cal Trans.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p, m, AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld