Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1991 PC MinutesC' ,:) -,7x, , -6 . ;l .;il + y Clerk MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 1991 MONDAY - 7:00 P.M.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary;John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning;Jack McGee, Director of Community Development;Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney;Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18. 1991 AND DECEMBER 2.1991 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy,to approve the Minutes of November 18, 1991 and December 2, 1991 as recorded.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1139-91, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1919- 91,NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1387-91 - HYRAIL PARTNERS, LTD.A request for a zoning classification of R-O ( Recreation-Open Space District), and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a mini-warehouse and self-storage facility with a 2-story manager's residential unit. Subject property is an abandoned railroad right-of-way measuring 50 feet wide,extending approximately 1mile between Tustin and Glassell Streets,containing 5.413 acres and located parallel to Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 NOTE:Negative Declaration 1387-91 has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project.This item was continued from the November 4, 1991 meeting.)Jim Donovan, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. In addition to the unique size and shape of the property, the site is characterized by limited access from extremely narrow frontage along Tustin and Cambridge Streets. Site access is also restricted by existing development and land use including the Marlborough Flood Control Channel at the southern edge of the property and nursery operations on land beneath the high tension power lines adjacent to the north. The proposal does not replace any existing use on the Edison Company's property. Residential tracts that contain homes on Trenton and Chestnut Streets are separated by a distance of 350 feet including the 30 foot strip that is deeded to the local Flood Control District, the applicant's property, which is 50 feet wide, and the 270 foot corridor belonging to the Edison Company. The project site represents approximately 1/7th of the land contained between the back fence of the properties located in those residential tracts.The applicant requests that the unzoned property be classified as recreation-open space, a request that is consistent with the General Plan's designation of O-S (open space). The Orange Municipal Code was amended in 1984 to allow a self- storage facility to be considered by conditional use permit under any zoning classification, excluding single family and duplex-residential, office-professional, and commercial-professional districts. The applicant's proposal includes an office within the resident manager's unit, 11 storage buildings and 52 parking stalls for recreation vehicles and trailers. A small parking facility is located outside the manager's unit at the eastern end of the project site where access is taken directly from Tustin Street. A one-way traffic circulation pattern is provided on the site plan. The applicant is required by a lease agreement to accommodate the existing railroad operation of this location where a one-way gated exit is proposed to the public street. On site traffic is therefore directed in continuous travel from east to west, except where a two way driveway is provided between the office parking lot and Tustin Street, a distance of 50 feet. There are 36 conditions of approval recommended for this project. Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 where the location of a driveway on Cambridge is described as situated on the west side of the street and condition 11 where the corresponding reference is to the east. The driveway is actually located on the east side of the street. Condition 15 should read, . A reservation of property shall be established for the future realignment of electric overhead power lines, subject to review and approval by the Directors of Public Works and Community Development, and Southern California Edison Company." Commissioner Master did not notice any operating hours in the staff report. Mr. Donovan said the applicant would respond to the hours of operation. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Michael Selby, Vice President of Rail Pacific, represented Hyrail Partners, Ltd., 990 Highland Drive #300, Solano Beach, said they took a great deal of time to look at this parcel and try to look at something that would have the least impact on the neighborhood as it relates to the constraints of the property being 50 feet wide. They decided on the mini-storages because it had the least amount of impact. He knows one of the letters of protest mentions the neat profit to the railroad; however, except for the office and manager' s unit, those are single story buildings. Because the railroad owns the land, they're able to build a single story facility rather than a two or three story facility. They kept the units to one story because they wanted to be sensitive to the neighbors. They consider themselves to be good neighbors; they are involved in the communities with Chamber of Commerce and other activities. They just donated their truck for a Toys For Tots campaign in San Diego. He complimented staff on a well done staff report.Hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday - Saturday. Sunday's hours are 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Office hours are 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Bruce Jordan, Architect, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, discussed the particular nature of the land use category. They feel it is very compatible for the area. It is a very tough site to develop. It's encumbered by easements, it's 50 feet wide, and it's very long. It does present itself very well to a mini-storage facility. One of things they can offer to the neighborhoods is a better security aspect for the area. The site will have controlled access; will not be accessible before it opens in the mornings; and will not be accessible after 7:00 p.m. The controlled access is done by a computer system. Hyrail Partners operates over one million square feet of storage and since 1988 has never had a burglary in any of their facilities because of the security system. The participant is coached on how the system is used and it precludes any tampering or loitering on the site. They will also make use of an on- site resident manager. The manager will police the site, patrol the drive aisles with golf carts and will be able to call for police protection if needed. The site does have a buffer -- the Flood Control Channel. He handed out a site section that shows the 54 foot buffer from the residential area, prefaced by the Flood Control Channel, the landscaped area and fencing. The highest point on the single story buildings is 10 feet, with the exception of the manager's unit. It is literally screened out from view. If you were to stand in a resident's back yard, the line of site goes up and over the storage buildings. The landscape buffer also precludes a view into the storage facility. The mini-storage facility is categorized by storage of household goods (60%); business-related goods ( 40%). One benefit of the project is the fact that it's the lowest land use generator of traffic. It has extremely low trip generations. A facility of this size could expect 40 to 50 entries per day. To ensure the units are used only for storage, they do not put any incadescent lighting in them. They use only fluorescent lighting. All hose bibs have the handles removed. Only the managers can use them when needed.They're planning to put in motion detectors at the R.V. location, to be monitored 24 hours a day. They are required to provide a photometric study of the lighting for the site to ensure there is no off site glare to the residential neighborhoods. They will provide a minimum of one foot candle lighting. They feel they will be a quiet neighbor with very little Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Commissioner Master asked how they plan to control the R.V. owner who has his own generator from doing repair work? Mr. Jordan explained three different ways of control. The manager will preclude that from happening. The manager team will consist of a husband and wife and they will be available the entire time of operation. Their job will be to police the storage area. If a person is on the site longer than normal, the computer system will trigger an alarm to notify the manager. The lease documents are very specific. All occupants are given a sheet of rules and regulations along with the lease agreement. Those speaking in opposition Chris Caines, 1410 E. Chestnut Avenue Melinda Moore, 1638 N. Cambridge Leroy Harris, 1339 E. Concord Avenue Donna Lynn, 1462 Shaffer Mary Ann Taylor, 327 E. Chestnut Avenue Jim McNamara, 811 E. Trenton Avenue James Yadon, 1032 E. Chestnut Avenue Bruce Baslee, 1125 E. Trenton Avenue Tom Weltzee, 541 E. Trenton Avenue Michael Van Raalte, 1330 E. Trenton Avenue Mrs. Weltzee, 541 E. Trenton Avenue Gary Lohr, 601 East Trenton Avenue Tipton Huffman, 401 E. Trenton Avenue David Gernak, 1136 E. Trenton Avenue Dick Geary, 1148 E. Van Owen Robert Delaney, 1220 E. Trenton Avenue Kathy Bodeau, 801 E. Trenton Avenue Louie Vodda, 411 E. Trenton Avenue Their concerns are summarized as follows: Such a commercial development would be a detriment to the residential area. It will infringe on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Issues include the height of the fence, storing of flammables, rats, transients, auctions taking place at the facility, increased traffic, lighting problems, noise pollution, the overhead power lines and the possibility of underground power lines, the pipelines below the 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 surface with high pressure gas, green belt area, decreased property values. Recreational vehicles were referred to as "rust buckets". One resident shared stories from his own experience with mini- storage units which included finding explosives, hazardous waste, a lion being stored in one unit, and even human ashes. The residents felt a security system would not prevent break ins. The project will be an eyesore and will be incompatible with the R-1 area. The residents were upset the developer already advertised in the phone book for this mini-storage facility without having prior approval. A signed petition opposing the project was submitted to the City.Chairman Bosch noted they have received letters from Samuel Thickland and Cynthia Lyons Thickland on East Trenton; Dale and Janice Lewis on North Center in opposition.Mr. Johnson responded to the audience's question regarding the Flood Control Channel being covered. The flood channel was turned over to the County Flood Control District some years ago. He was not aware of a proposal to cover the channel.Rebuttal Mr. Jordan stated they were not proposing to have the facility open until 10 p.m. on Sunday. Hours of operation on Sunday is from 10 to 5. The ad was placed in the phone book at the owner's risk; they realize they took a gamble, but needed to get the ad in by a certain date. He felt there was a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this land use. The nature of this use will afford additional site security.There will be people living there 24 hours; it will be gated access with alarm systems. People don't pay $60 a month to store "rust buckets", nor do the managers allow it. It's not practical. The uses are to be regulated by their lease agreement and the management.Storage of flammables will be very limited. They felt the noise issue was unfounded. Buildings will be built of one hour construction and the garage doors are on nylon rollers with a teflon bearing. They have won a number of awards for their facilities; they are not ugly, blighted projects. It can be designed in a way to be compatible with residential neighborhoods and they are very sensitive to that. The self storage use generates less traffic than if the property were approved for R-1 use. He did not believe Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 storage use will have any impact on property values. This has been proven many times not to be the case, if adequate safe guards are taken such as aesthetics, landscaping and security. On occasion, there is an auction procedure which is done very quickly. People bid on an unopened storage unit; it's removed and very few people show up. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch asked if the applicant had reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval? (Yes.) Commissioner Cathcart commented the General Plan designates this land as open space. He realizes the code doesn't say you can't develop this use in this location, but it doesn't say you can either. Open space can be defined as lack of hard scape, lack of buildings. Anytime you remove that resource of open space, then there is another set of problems to deal with. It is also important to build habitats for animals and human beings. He would like to see the area remain as open space. He would hate to see a resource taken away without knowing what is going to happen in the future. Commissioner Murphy felt there were three basic points: 1) recreation-open space zoning; 2) Crime Prevention report Attachment A); and 3) the issue of public safety. There are serious concerns about whether a secure environment can be constructed.The other concern are the rules and criteria set forth for the conditional use permit -- will this use create any special problems for the area in which it is located? Commissioner Scott questioned whether this is really the proper use? Commissioner Master said this land on the General Plan is classified as open space; it is unzoned. The zoning is not consistent with the General Plan, which should be looked at. He thought the use is most inappropriate. But he did mention if in the future the power lines are put underground, there could be two story homes built on this property. 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Chairman Bosch shared all concerns. In reviewing the environmental study form, the testimony becomes part of the environmental documentation. Many of the questions should be answered yes rather than no. He noted on Paragraph 2, the proposal would result in increased air emissions, potentially the creation of objectionable odors and potentially alter the air movement, moisture and temperature climate within the site area. Relative to the continuity of open space for biological resources this could lead to deterioration of the environment in that regard (Paragraph 4 of report). This use is also an inducement of urban growth and definitely would generate substantial additional vehicular movement in Item 10. He suggested to staff that these items be taken into account relative to further review of the environmental impacts. It's clearly not an appropriate use for the site. The zoning is appropriate - recreation open space. Traffic is a major concern.Cambridge is a very busy street and it always will be. A thorough search with the City assisting the owner of the property to find a use compatible with the true definition of that zoning other than a self storage, industrial or commercial use is needed.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy,to not accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board and find Negative Declaration 1387-91 to be inadequate because it would have a significant impact on the environment and wild life resources. It is found to be inadequate to the proposed conditional use; but not to the zoning. AYES: US: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1139-91 to update the zoning classification to recreation open space to the area which is currently unzoned. AYES: t-DES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to deny Conditional Use Permit 1919-91. Staff is directed to report back to the Commission with a summary report relative to the comments addressed. AYES:I' US:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained this item would be referred to the City Council for a final determination that will be scheduled by the City Clerk.Notices will be mailed to all of those who received notices for the Planning Commission hearing.IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 14549 AND 14593, ZONE CHANGE 1142-91, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1932-91,ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 91- 26 SOUTHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Request for approval of Tentative Tract Map 14549 to allow subdivision of 25.6 acres into 105 single family parcels; Tentative Tract Map 14593 to subdivide 71.3 acres into 11 lots, of which 4 lots are for a phased development of condominium units and 7 lots are for park or utility purposes; Zone Change 1142-91 to revise the Development Plan text and map for the South ridge Planned Community Area, and to prezone approximately 3 acres to PC Planned Community) District; Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 to allow development of 36 acres with approximately 539 condominium units; and Administrative Adjustment Permit 91-26 to allow the creation of lots around cul-de- sacs, with lot widths less than the minimum required.t-DTE:The environmental impacts of this project have previously been analyzed by certified Environmental Impact Report #854. This Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Cathcart excused themselves from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest under the California Fair Political Practices Act. Vice-Chairman Scott chaired the meeting.A staff report was not presented as there was no opposition. Staff said a follow up addendum to the staff report was sent to the Commission. One of the issues that has been raised is there appears to be a certain overlap between two planned community areas. There is approximately 12 acres that are shown in this tract map, the southerly condominium tract map, that are encompassed by the Serrano Heights Specific Plan. Some resolution is needed on that issue. Staff has received a letter from Frank Elfend, representing the Woodcrest Development Company, regarding the issue.Mr. Godlewski commented the property concerned in the overlap is under Edison's easement and it is going to be maintained as permanent open space. The question is an administrative one u who is going to be maintaining it? Staff does not want to count this area twice (count it as open space in one plan and count it as open space in another) because it has already been counted as open space in the Serrano Specific Plan. Open space is not an issue in this particular plan. The Commission could require the applicant to amend his Planned Community text to show it is not a part of the development and if there is any maintenance agreements to be done, they can resolve those with the property owner.The public hearing was opened. Applicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, agent for Southridge, said staff has covered the application quite well. He quickly reviewed the exhibits on the wall with the Commission. They have been working with surrounding owners to acquire additional acreage between the old alignment of Loma and the the new alignment of Loma, added to the PC in acreage only. They are not asking for any additional units over the original 1,000. They are also working with everyone to come up with a plan that fits into the area better. They've changed Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 from the multi-family duplex on the north side of Via Escola to all single family detached, and the condominium attached product would be south of Via Escola, between the existing development and the new alignment of Loma. They've added a park site which was not in the original proposal and this is to compensate in part for the park site that was lost some time ago. With this project they have the opportunity to provide six various products to the community, in addition to the existing Belmont. Their project is broken into 4 phases. Staff's concern was the large slopes and if each of them were a separate tract, each homeowner's association would have the responsibility to maintain an open space lot and they might do it differently than the next one. They propose to establish a lighting - landscape district to maintain the landscaping on the easement areas/slopes. The overlap area was an oversight on the applicant's part and he apologized. The mapping and zoning process started many years ago. For the last few years everyone has been looking at the maps knowing they were adding area to the project site for development realizing that Woodcrest had the open space. Mr. Elfend suggested there be a condition removing the area from South ridge's PC and remain in theirs. Mr. Mickelson agreed with that suggestion; that can be done. They selected Architects Orange, the local award winning architectural firm that specializes in attached housing to do the condominium project. Colored elevations were available for review. It's more of a traditional architecture with heavy statements, heavy wood accents, a nice roof with clay tile, subdued colors and texture. They have met with the parks staff and have got a concept park layout; they will be negotiating with staff regarding park fees or building and putting the park together. They've read the conditions of approval and agree with them, but ask for one change on Condition 36. The last statement says, "A and B Streets shall not include decorative enhancements (i.e., brick colored stamped concrete)." Staff is concerned about the maintenance and costly upkeep. He asked to amend that condition to say, .subject to approval of the Director of Public Works." They believe they can set aside funds in the maintenance district so they could take on the added responsibility of repairing that more expensive, decorative concrete. 11 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Commissioner Scott asked if the lighting and landscape district would be for the entire project? Mr. Mickelson responded yes. The entire project will be assessed as one district. Public Inout Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, did not oppose the project, but had questions. On the south side, they've moved their boundary considerably closer to Anaheim. It was his understanding they worked out an agreement to keep it as far away from Anaheim as they could. He wanted to know why. He's curious about the density and wanted someone to explain the proposed density. He doesn't like the 5,000 square foot lots. Ms. Wolff said there was a density range proposed. Although the General Plan calls for a maximum of 15 units per acre, she pointed out on the exhibit one area had just above 22 units per acre, another area had around 9 units per acre -- it averages out to 14.9 acres per unit. To look at it as a whole, it does comply with the General Plan.The individual components, however, may not.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Master referred to Page 9, Paragraph 2 regarding the two foot wide landscaped parkway. He thought staff had problems with the 2 foot width of these parkways.Ms. Wolff said the 2 foot parkway, if it would be abutted on either side by pavement, curb, bend or sidewalk, would be less than adequate. It's not adequate area to permit planting. However, in this case, the 2 foot is on the outside of the sidewalk, abutting the front yard. It's a continuation of the front yard to the sidewalk. You don't end up with a 2 foot planting strip.Commissioner Master shared Mr. Bennyhoff's comments relating to the 5,000 square foot lots. They now exist in other developments,but they were approved because of amenities in the overall plan.He' s concerned about setting a precedent with 5,000 square foot 12 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 lots. He had concerns in 1984-85 and has more of a concern now about the stacked density along the border of the Southern California Edison right-of-way and the electro magnetic exposure of the power lines.Commissioner Murphy asked if they had an ability to manage the density as it is being built in the condo or town home sections of development by way that the weighted average of the development stays at under 15 units per acre? Is there a way to condition the project such that some of the lesser density units are built at the same time as the higher density units based on the fact that we're evaluating this project on a weighted average when in fact it could transpire in such a way, based on economic times, that the dense part of the project was built and the rest of it left open.Ms. Wolff answered if the Commission would like to list that as a condition, discussing project phasing and that phasing shall occur so that density does not exceed the 15 units per acre, that would be an acceptable condition. Project phasing is generally market driven,but can be added to the conditions if the Commission desires.Commissioner Murphy also shares some concern about R-1-5;however, he had to weigh that in comparison with the alternatives which are currently available for the builders to build and that is a much smaller lot in the form of duplexes.Commissioner Scott was also concerned about the magnetic field. A lot of information is coming forth on this subject. Even though there is no concrete evidence on whether it has an effect or not, it's kind of difficult to say do not build there.Commissioner Master said the term most often used and needs to be applied is called prudent avoidance, which means get away from it as much as you can. Use the density and open space appropriately --shift development further away from the transmission lines.Commissioner Scott asked the applicant for his comments on a proposed condition of a limit of units to 15 per acre through the Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Mr. Mickelson responded first to the EMF issue. They have approvals for multi-family zoning along the south boundary right up to the Edison easement now. They're not changing that (that's already approved). On the north side of Via Escola they have current zoning for multi-family as well, but that's being changed to single family.They checked with the County EMA because they wanted to know what they're doing County-wide. All they have is the full disclosure requirement -- there's no conclusionary evidence. The most northerly tower in line shown on the plan is one that doesn' t exist yet and may never. If it does, it's a 60KV and the technology is there to place that underground. In addition, the lighter green triangle shown on the map where they have the highest density product will be open space and the power lines will be shifted southerly from the bank of towers. In terms of the suggested condition limiting the units to 15 per acre during phasing, he doesn't think that is practical. He appreciates the approach and the idea has merit. The problem is that the project will be driven to some degree by the market and it may be that the single family detached will be the first phase and the condos will follow. They worked with staff very closely and they purposely put one single conditional use permit on the entire condominium project. So any change to either end of that project at any time means the entire C.U.P. has to come back to the Commission for review. He hopes that's enough safe guard to assure they will not exceed 15 units to the acre. The 5,000 square foot lots can be justified because they have a planned community. If they were coming in with a vacant 50 acres asking for 5,000 square foot lots, it would be looked at differently. They currently have an area that is zoned R-3 that they want to change to R-1-5 single family detached. If built in the current zone, it would have a much higher density and it's still tied into the overall project; they're still limited to their 1,000 units which they cannot exceed.Commissioner Murphy noted the project has previously been approved under EIR #854.Ms. Wolff noted there is one condition that is recommended regarding the text of the planned community (Page 25) Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1142- 91,including condition 1 (Page 25 of the staff report). AYES:f'.K) ES: ABSENT:Commissioners Murphy, Scott Commissioner Master Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff noted Tentative Tract Map 14593 is the condominium project. Based on the information discussed with the potential overlap and the possibility of adding a condition to take that portion out of this plan to revise the blue borders of the tract map, if the Commission recommends approval, she suggested adding a condition to Tract 14593 that would be identical to condition 9 as written on Page 26. This is a condition that affects the R-1-5 tract, but it has to do with the fuel modification plan if fuel modification is required on property outside the boundaries of the tract (which would be the case if the Edison easement is no longer a part of this property).This condition would become #64. Add to the last sentence, "Any substantial modification to the tentative tract map or site olan, as approved, to accommodate the approved fuel modification plan shall require Planning Commission approval, and may be subject to additional conditions or modifications of conditions."Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Maps 14549 and 14593, adding Condition 64 as previously stated, adding Condition 65 that the blue boundary be revised to reflect the plan as currently proposed prior to City Council approval, and amending condition 36 that A and B Streets shall not include decorative enhancements (i.e. brick, colored stamped concrete) unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Murphy, Scott Commissioner Master Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 with the noted conditions. AYES:tIK) ES: ABSENT:Commissioners Murphy, Scott Commissioner Master Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to approve Administrative Adjustment 91- 26.AYES: tIK) ES:ABSENT:Commissioners Murphy, Scott Commissioner Master Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master explained his no votes because he is concerned about the electro magnetic fields.Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Cathcart returned to the meeting.IN RE: NEW HEARING VARIANCE 1920-91 - McDONALD' S CORPORATION A request to allow the expansion of an existing fast food restaurant without increasing the number of parking spaces on the property.Subject property is located at 1839 West Chapman Avenue.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301.The staff report was presented by Ms. Wolff. This property is located on the north side of Chapman Avenue; it's between Feldner and Eckhoff Streets. The property is less than one acre in size and the restaurant itself is approximately 2,500 square feet. One drive up window exists on the property at this time. This application is a request to add 345 square feet of floor area to the building. The additional area will be used primarily for handicap Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 approximately 220 square feet) and 125 square feet is to be used for a second drive up window, which would be a cashier's window only and a storage room. The variance application is a request for a waiver of a.M.C. parking standards. In 1988 the City's parking code was revised and the parking requirement for fast food restaurants was substantially increased. The requirement increased from 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet to 18 spaces per 1,000 square feet. While the restaurant had more parking than was required by code prior to 1988, it became deficient with respect to parking subsequent to that code amendment. Under the zoning ordinance the building is considered non-conforming and therefore, it may not be added to without bringing the entire site up to code. Given the site size and configuration, additional parking cannot be provided according to the applicant. Therefore, this request has been made to allow the expansion without requiring the additional parking.The public hearing was opened. Aoplicant Rhonda Hunt Delbaney, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, #800, San Diego,is the real estate representative representing McDonald' s Corporation. Mr. James Frisbee was also present. He is the franchisee and operator of the restaurant at 1839 West Chapman Avenue. They are requesting a variance to allow less than the code required number of parking. The project includes an upgrading of the restrooms to meet U.B.C. or State handicapped code requirements,and to create an extended drive-thru booth to increase the flow of traffic through the drive-thru. The customer seating area will not be increased. Item 11 of the staff report stated a C.U. P. is not required in this case because the proposed addition is relatively minor and does not significantly change the restaurant operation or alter circulation patterns. She read Item 12, Page 3 regarding the Environmental Review Board's determination. Item 7 surprised them requiring a dedication for right-of- way and improvement of that right-of-way for 10 feet. The effects of that future right-of-way on the site itself would be the elimination of the three southerly parking stalls. Although the proposed addition will not increase the existing dining room area, the City requires parking upgrades for building Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 application of the parking code would deprive the property's ability to improve existing on-site traffic circulation and to comply with State handicap code requirements. She requested clarification on Page 4, Item 4 a. -- TSIP fees. Is that associated with street widening? Ms. Wolff responded no, this was a development fee based on square footage of addition. It's not the fees regarding the dedication. Those speaking in ODDosition Lois Barke, 2022 Spruce, had a couple of questions, but was not sure if she opposed the project. The business is extremely busy. The property owner has had their employees parking on Marks Way. One of the employees was killed crossing that street. Is there enough parking spaces? How many more would have been required? Have there been any studies on how much traffic is going in and out of McDonald's at the present time? Are they eliminating any parking spaces to make the addition? She did not know if the addition was prompted by State mandate. The parking lot can be dangerous. Chairman Bosch explained the American Disabilities Act is a National law that was signed by President Bush last year. It requires upgrades of all new construction that is completed after June of next year permitted after January, and will eventually require retrofitting of all structures that are accessible to the public. Everyone will be forced to comply with this in order to remain in business. Rebuttal Mr. Frisbee stated they were not eliminating any parking spaces. They are always trying to design as many possible parking spaces as they can to meet the needs of both the employees and customers. It is busy; he would even like to see it busier. The only thing they want to change is to make those restrooms big enough to meet the handicap codes. 18 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 In conclusion, Ms. Delbaney reiterated their improvements are merely to increase the convenience of their customers. There is no anticipated increase in sales or visits due to this improvement. She again requested the deletion of Condition 3 which has to do with the dedication for the right- of-way.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Scott asked if the dedication of the right-of-way would be made and bonded for the improvements, to be made at a later date?Mr. Johnson responded the normal procedure in a mid-block improvement would be a for a bond to be posted. The most realistic method of improvement would be at some point in time when the entire width could be made for systematic improvements. The condition is somewhat flexible and staff uses some interpretation.Chairman Bosch said the street improvement is required by City ordinance; it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission to modify that condition.Commissioner Murphy agreed the traffic problem is an issue;however, in examining this particular request for a variance, it's important to note that these things are going to contribute to a better situation rather than detract. With the second window, it should help expedite traffic flow through the business and help alleviate some of the congestion. Upgrading the restrooms is needed and is well received.It was noted for the record this item was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve Variance 1920- 91 with conditions 1-6 as stated.AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 IN RE: NEW HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1398 - CITY OF ORANGE The City of Orange has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the environmental impacts of a street improvement project as follows:1. Widening of La Veta Avenue between Flower Street and Cambridge Street, as well as a portion of Glassell Street between La Veta and Culver Avenues.2. Widening of Main Street between Town and Country Road and Orangewood Avenue.3. Widening of Chapman Avenue between the Orange Freeway (SR-57) and Main Street.Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer, presented the staff report with the assistance of Frank Page, Director of Public Works; Dave Allenback,Assistant Engineer; Chuck Glass, Sr. Civil Engineer; Doug Keys,Transportation Planner; and Bob VonSchimmelman, Assistant City Engineer. He gave the background of the projects and EIR's proposed referred to in their memorandum to the Planning Commission. This represents key segments of the transportation system improvements necessary to support a series of land-use and land use density decisions that have been made, reaffirmed and adopted by the City of Orange over the past several years. These decisions and actions, including the width requirements and anticipated traffic demands on the three project streets were incorporated into the City of Orange General Plan and Circulation Element as originally adopted by the City in 1973 and amended in 1989. Exhibits were displayed during the presentation. Mr. Dennis discussed major land use approvals affecting the project streets, including the Orange/Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement Area, Northwest Redevelopment Project Area, Southwest Orange Redevelopment Project Area, and Far-East Orange Area.Sylvia Selaneous, Vice-President of P&D Technologies and Director of the Environmental Studies Branch of their firm, presented Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 summary of the types of impacts which are associated with the roadway widenings of the project and discussed the mitigation that would be applied to reduce those impacts, and discussed the nature of the impacts associated with the major alternatives to the project the no project alternative and the alternative without landscaping improvements, which were considered in the environmental document. Her highlights included socio- economic related impacts of the project; displacement of businesses;disruption effects along the right-of- way; mitigation measures associated with the property acquisition; loss of frontage property;utility modifications; residential parcels falling short of minimum lot size requirements; underground storage tank removal and contaminated soils; transportation and circulation issues; provision of sidewalks and turn around areas; adequate driveway access for emergency vehicles at St. Joseph's Hospital, CHOC complex and Fire Station 5. There will also be temporary parking areas to minimize construction related disruption to existing businesses. With or without the project, there are going to be noise increases along the roadways. Much of the area now exceeds the noise standard of the City. The levels of carbon monoxide would be substantially reduced.Another issue would be the implications of the project regarding the historical resources in the City and historical character of Old Towne. She stated the no project alternatives impacts would limit the City's ability to accommodate projected traffic volumes and to mitigate its existing and projected traffic congestion; it would worsen the potential for the intrusion of through traffic in residential neighborhoods, but would avoid those adverse socio-economic and land use implications that are associated with the widening and taking of property. The City would not be able to implement the streetscape enhancements proposed in the Redevelopment plans. She touched on each of the alternatives,noting their impacts. There are going to be significant environmental impacts associated with this project. There will be a need for a statement of overriding considerations that stems from the property takings associated with the project, as well as those short term impacts associated with the construction activity. She talked a little about the comments received on the environmental document, which focused on that segment of La Veta between Lemon and Cambridge; more specifically, between Glassell and Shaffer.Responses have been prepared and are contained in Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 provided to the Commission. They also received a letter relative to the area north of La Veta on Glassell with similar concerns. Mr. Dennis continued his presentation with the project alternatives. A number of requests have been received to develop and evaluate alternative improvement proposals. Ten alternatives were proposed and he explained each of them. Action and additions considered beneficial to the project were discussed as well as project implementation. Priorities were established based on staff's opinion or relative priority, funding and project compatibility. It was staff's recommendation for the Commission to recommend approval of the project Draft Environmental Impact Report to the City Council and incorporate additional recommendationslalternatives for the project per their written staff report. Chairman Bosch looked to Mr. Dennis for a very brief, but on- the-spot explanation of where the action before the Commission is in the overall process.Ms. Selaneous stated they have prepared the responses to comments from the written comments that have been received during the formal comment period on the document. Before the document is actually certified and accepted, there are several things that must take place: The Planning Commission hearing, and the opportunity for public comment; another hearing before the City Council and another opportunity for public comment; additionally, in association with the adoption of an environmental document and certification,there must be a mitigation monitoring plan that is prepared to ensure that all the mitigation measures that are in the environmental document are actually implemented when the projects are implemented. A formal statement of overriding considerations and findings of fact must also be adopted by the City Council in conjunction with their certification of the environmental document.Chairman Bosch stated in the past when a statement of overriding considerations have been required, the Planning Commission has also acted on them. He has not seen a draft of those considerations in the documentation before them. Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Ms. Selaneous responded a preliminary draft was given to the City Attorney last week. They have not yet received the comments on revisions to that document at this point. Chairman Bosch said it would be essential for the Commission to receive in a timely manner such a document as well. Mr. Dennis anticipated that the Commission would continue to a time certain this meeting. During that time staff would like to keep the alternatives available for review and welcome the public's comments. Then staff will return with recommendations or any additional input that may have been solicited from the residents. Certain alternatives have been recommended that are within the purview of the EIR document. If the City goes beyond that (identify or recommend an alternative that would cause a non- mitigatable situation or cause additionalimpacts). they are required to advise the Planning Commission of both those impacts and what mitigation would be required to resolve it, if any.Mr. Page said they are involved in a 7 year Capital Improvement Program which is brought forth to the Commission on an annual basis. Some of the phasing of this project is included in that document because of the planning horizon that is contained in there.Some steps have already been put in place.Chairman Bosch explained the process is not only the documents, but all the testimony received by staff, all future testimony and written comments which go into the final EIR with whatever additional alternatives and mitigation measures and recommendations come forward before anything is adopted. Whereupon there is still the process of moving ahead with specific design and implementation of any of the several projects indicated.Mr. Dennis said the notification process for the Commission meeting was by mail. There were 1,760 notices mailed to properties within 300 feet of the project or as determined by staff to be impacted by the project.Ms Wolff stated in this case they noticed all properties contiguous with the project to meet CEQA requirements. Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Chairman Bosch suggested a continuance of this hearing to a date certain, giving adequate time for review of the information presented. Commissioner Murphy suggested calling a special meeting on January 13, 1992, in between the two regularly scheduled hearings, with this item as a lone item on the Agenda. Commissioner Scott suggested to everyone they should try to contact the Public Works Department and get answers to their questions and review the exhibits before the next hearing. In addition to the mailing, that advertisements be taken out in the local newspapers. Ms. Wolff stated that was done for this meeting and they can do it again at the Commission's direction. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Environmental Impact Report 1398 to a special meeting January 13, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Prior to the meeting concerned residents should contact the Public Works Department to have their questions answered and to review the exhibits and advertisements of the continued hearing be taken out in the local newspapers. AYES: NCES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Ms. Wolff said staff has received an application regarding a processing of a conditional use permit for a billiard club on North Santiago Boulevard. The Orange Municipal Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to determine what uses are similar to those listed in the code, but which are not specifically called out. A billiard club is not specifically mentioned in the code. The Commission is being asked to make a determination as to whether to accept the application as being consistent with other conditionally permitted uses in the zone or whether to not accept the application, 24 Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 saying it is substantially different than other conditionally permitted uses. Commissioner Master said if it is to be considered as an alternative use, he did not have a problem with it. But he wants to review it if it is a specific use. It's not an approval; it's rather review of such an application for that particular zoning. Chairman Bosch thought the permitted uses include amusement devices which means coin operated machines of various types. He guessed this was a non-coin operated machine, but still conditional use permit findings are really essential to be sure the property is adequate, circulation and traffic are taken into consideration, there is no detrimental impact on the neighbors, the General Plan or Specific Plan for the area, etc., required by law. He concurs in the appropriate location within the zone there may be a location or more, not speaking to the specific one indicated. Generally speaking,it doesn't appear to be a use that should be prohibited without consideration.It was the Commission's consensus that it would be prudent to accept for consideration conditional use permits in the CTR district zone applications for billiard palors, given the state law and city ordinance requirements for demonstration and facts and findings on conditional use permits.A suggestion was received from Mr. McGee that the Planning Commission consider scheduling a workshop in the near future with two topics: 1) discuss the need for and strategy to accomplish a specific plan for development for the portion of Katella Avenue,between the Santa Ana River and Batavia Street. This relates to the joint City Council/Planning Commission study session held recently relative to high rise buildings study in the Northwest Redevelopment Area; 2) have an update on requirements and status of CEQA and impacts and actions that could benefit the Commission' s consideration of environmental impact reports in the future.The Commission set Monday, January 27, 1992 at 5:30 p.m. for a study session to discuss the above topics. Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1991 Staff made available to the Commission a draft handout for residents describing the duties of the Planning Commission, the route of proposed development projects and other actions to the Commission and the rights and privileges of City residents with reg ard to that. A letter was received from Dale Rahn thanking the Commission for their consideration and wisdom in dealing with the Old Towne issues on the last Agenda. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn the meeting at 11 :40 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Isld 26