Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-1992 PC Minutescc. ~.a. j Ci~rK MINUTES `°° Planning Commission January 6, 1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00p.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, Gity Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Retarding Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16. 1991 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue the Minutes of December 16, 1991 as the Commission did not have adequate time to review them.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1939-91 - HANSHAW A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction and operation of an automatic car wash facility in the C-1 {Limited Business} District. Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Main Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1395-89 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the December 2, 1991 meeting.} Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 A letter was received from the applicant requesting a continuance to January 20, 1992; however, staff recommended a continuance to February 3, 1992 as they have not yet received the revised plans. No one who was present in the audience opposed this project. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1939-91 to February 3, 1992.AYES: Commissioners Basch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1938-91 - ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION A request for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a school for adolescents age 12-17 years, in the M- 1 (Light Manufacturing)district. Subject property is located on the southeast earner of Glassell Street and Emerson Avenue, addressed 2165 North Glassell Street.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.Chairman Bosch excused himself from the hearing in that his company leases space from the Leverton Company, the parent land owners underlying the application. Under the California Fair Political Practices Act, there would be a conflict of interest. Vice-Chairman Scott chaired the hearing.There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened.licant Joe Pistoia, Principal of Glassell Community School, 2165 North Glassell Street, said their school was set up by the Orange County Department of Education to aid the surrounding school districts. They Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 are habitual truants, some are placed on informal probation, those that are on formal probation, and generally the students have had trouble attending other schools. They work closely with the Orange Unified School District. The teacher ratio is 15 students to each teacher -- it'sa small setting and they will not go over 90 students at the site. There are 6-7 class rooms that they are in the process of completing. Commissioner Murphy noted in the November 15 letter sent to Mr. Gala the applicant was in the process of complying with fire code regulations. He asked if the applicant had completed those activities? Mr. Pistoia said they were not completed. A person at the County office has contracted the people for the panic bars, fire exit signs and fire extinguishers. They've held fire drills, but nat all of the requirements have been completed. Commissioner Murphy asked if all of these students are from the City of Orange? How are they selected? Mr. Pistoia said their school hours are from 8:20 a.m. to 1:05 p.m. Ninety- five percent of the students are from the City of Orange. They do have a few that come down from Placentia Unified School District, and there are one or two students from the west side of Anaheim attending this school. Commissioner Scott questioned the 45 minute classes and 6 classes per day, but the school day is 8:20 to 1:05. He assumes there is a break between classes and comes up with a 6 hour day rather than 5 hours. Is the day extended beyond 1:05? Mr. Pistoia explained they have a 15 minute break from 10:45 to 11:00 and they have one minute inbetween classes because the facility is so close together. It's a very controlled atmosphere; a tight structure. There are 34 students enrolled at the present time. Commissioner Scott noticed in one of the letters the students are not allowed to drive to school. Mr. Pistoia stated this was correct. They don't have the facilities. They encourage bicycle riding, public transportation, and parents do drop them off and pick them up. 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 Commissioner Scott asked how long have they been operating at this location? Mr. Pistoia said about 3 months. They opened the latter part of September. Commissioner Murphy wondered if there have been any problems with the Tool and Die shop next door regarding noise. Mr. Pistoia said no. The people have been real cooperative. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart was somewhat disappointed this C.U.P. request was received after the fact. The Commission and applicant discussed the conditions of approval, to which Mr. Pistoia stated there would not be a problem adhering to a 90 day time frame on Conditions 1 and 2. tt was noted this project was categorically exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1938-91 with the listed conditions 1-13,amending Conditions 1 and 2, stipulating to 90 days rather than 6 months;and adding Condition 14 that the appropriate TSIP fees be paid.AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting.IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1944-91, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT PERMIT 91-28 - ON THE GO ESPRESSO A request for a conditional use permit to allow a drive-thru espresso stand locatedwithin the retail center's parking lot, Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 adjustment to allow a minor adjustment in the drive aisle width requirement. Subject property is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue between Hewes Street and Hamlin Street, addressed 4600- 4650 East Chapman Avenue.MOTE: 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 Barbara Gander, Assistant Planner. The applicant is proposing to construct building and site improvements to enable the operation of a drive-thru espresso stand within the parking area of the Orange Hills Retail Center. The retail center currently contains three buildings, a small drive-thru photo booth located within the parking area and two primary retail structures oriented in a L-shaped configuration which connects with the retail center on the adjacent property to the west. The drive-thru espresso stand would be located within the northern portion of the parking area, set back approximately 55 feet from Chapman Avenue, and across the drive aisle and north of the existing drive-thru photo booth. The proposed site improvements include the construction of a 400 square foot building with pass-thru windows on the north and south elevations, the construction of two 4 foot wide landscaped planters and the modification of an existing planter. To facilitate these improvements a portion of the parking will be restriped to standard width requirements. Also the applicant will restripe parking to provide two additional handicap spaces. The site improvements will result in the elimination of 13 parking spaces, yet the remaining 147 spaces adequately address the number ofspaces required by the parking ordinance. Staff's primary concern with the proposal focuses upon the proximity of the drive-thru stand to the drive entrance off of Chapman Avenue. On and off site circulation could potentially be affected by the stacking of more than three vehicles entering the north drive aisle. As mitigation, the applicant has proposed to reverse the traffic flow through the north drive aisle to prevent congestion within the drive entrance area.Staff has received several phone calls in opposition to the request.Callers were concerned about the potential impacts to circulation.Additionally, the property management company for Sav On, which is located on the adjacent property to the west, has informed staff that the reciprocal parking agreement between the two properties restricts any modifications to the parking Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 the property owners involved, and such an agreement has not yet been sought. The public hearing was opened. A2oticant Tom Raystraw, architect, representing the applicant, has worked closely with staff to mitigate any initial constraints seen in the project. The primary issue is circulation. One of the things that is difficult for staff to visualize is the type of use. There is no present type of facility like this in Orange. It's a cross between adrive-thru restaurant and a photo booth. The owner currently has a facility in Huntington Beach which is more restrictive in design. It's directly off of Pacific Coast Highway near Warner. It comprises a quarter of the area and does the same quantity of business. He's been in operation for 7 or 8 months and has not had any problems at that site. The anticipated peak demand at this center would be in the morning commute hours, at which time the bulk of the center opens at10:00a.m. and the demand will peak out before then. Most of the traffic on Chapman at that time of the morning is in the opposite direction. There are currently three access points to the center. The outlet is centered towards the middle outlet. In the event stacking might occur, there's an additional inlet to the center beyond that point. They' ve discussed rotating the drive-thru and having them both one direction. The owner does not have a problem with that. That's part of the reason for the administrative adjustment and changing the aisle width to 11 feet (to make sure the customers are not out in the middle of the lane where it is difficult to pass through). There are over sized drives. The standard is 25 feet and they have 32 feet. They feel the additional dimension will help to allow internal bi-pass. One of the issues staff mentioned was awater line. They've been able to verify on site with work currently going on that the water line does not appear to bea problem; it's well outside of the building's boundaries. The parking at the rear was also a concern. The center being designed some time ago does not necessarily incorporate current design strategies of having all the parking at the front where it is easily accessible. Tomitigate that, they've anticipated putting up signage to direct patrons to the rear for additional parking. They are working with the Design Review Board on the aesthetics of their proposedbuilding and don' t Planning Commission Minutes Those segg in opposition: January 6, 1992 Clifford Connors, 2913 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, attorney representing Alvin Graham of Sav On. In September, 1961 an agreement was reached between the then owners regarding the allocated uses of the contiguous parcels of land. Specifically, in that agreement was created an easement which allocated all the area which was currently outside the footprint of the buildings as parking areas and as service areas. The parking areas are used by all the tenants. It's their position that these areas are to be used only for parking. They are opposed to any other use. They believe the new building will seriously impact the other patrons to enter and egress to park. Chairman Bosch asked if they took exception to the photo booth construction which removed parking some years ago within the lot? Mr. Connors did not know. He was given this at the last moment and did not have time to research it that far back. Commissioner Cathcart asked if a restriction or rider was added to the new owner's deed regarding the agreement in 1961? Mr. Connors responded yes. Commissioner Cathcart asked if he had personally been to the site recently? Mr. Connors stated no, it had been some time since he had been there. Chairman Bosch asked if the agreement allowed for remedies or procedures by which there may be modifications to the site, including the parking, upon mutual agreement? Mr. Connors has not had time to go through the agreement to analyze any remedies that would be involved. However, he was sure his client would be willing to discuss waiver of his rights under that agreement. Chairman Bosch thought the door would be open for discussion. 7 Planning Commission Minutes Rebuttal January 6, 1992 Mr. Raystraw said they were made aware of this issue this morning via a phone call. It is their understanding when the owner bought the property in 1982, it was not part of the title report. He was unaware of any such agreement at that time. The owner of the site has not seen the document. They do not believe the additional building will be a detriment to the center. Additional traffic on site will help existing stores and on site circulation will be improved. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart asked what the legal implications would be if the Commission voted on this proposal? Mr. Herrick stated the Commission is not legally empowered to make a determination as to the binding or non-binding nature of a private contract. The Commission is in a position to vote based on their understanding of the project and the land use implications, and allow the parties to resolve their civil differences between themselves.Commissioner Scott asked if it would be better to continue this until a legal interpretation of the agreement is resolved?Mr. Herrick said the Commission could condition any action they took on evidence that the dispute has been resolved. He did not recommend that the City become involved in the resolution of that dispute in any way, or make any findings regarding the rights of the parties.Commissioner Scott was hesitant to make a determination on something that has been brought out.Commissioner Master said in the past the Commission made a condition subject to a reciprocal easement being worked out. If the parties were not able to work it out, the project died.Commissioner Cathcart questioned condition 6. Who will maintain the walls -- the applicant or owner? Ms. Wolff stated that would be for the applicant and property owner to work out among themselves. The property owner has authorized this 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 application and it was assumed he would gain some benefit from the approval of the application. Commissioner Cathcart asked if time frames should be placed on conditions 6 and 7? Chairman Bosch would like to see them done before occupancy to assure compliance. Mr. Herrick commented on property disputes -- where there is a dispute over a condition of an easement, that kind of item, if not resolved by mutual agreement in a rather short period of time, can take a long time to resolve through the courts. He didn't know if the City wanted to be in a position of some time dawn the line determining when the City is satisfied that those rights have been determined other than by court order, and if a lawsuit is instituted, the court would have the right to protect the potentially affected party by court order. He recommended that a continuance for the purpose of seeing if the parties could resolve it quickly, would be better than putting a condition that may not be able to be met for years.Chairman Bosch raised the issue about site circulation. He's concerned about the potential impacts of traffic in and out of the site. He had a problem perceiving that a passenger side window for dealing with drive-thru services is a good solution. It begs to be reversed. The proximity to the driveway is also a concern in terms of vision around it, particularly given the traffic to the existing photo booth along the way. He's not sure if there are clear sight lines to assure a bigger hazard is not being created. He had serious reservations about the proposed location on the site. He would prefer to see it placed elsewhere because of the safety issue. Commissioner Cathcart was also concerned about the circulation pattern.Has the applicant thought about turning the first drive-thru the other way so there's only one window on the driver's side, which is traditional and makes more sense? The Commission discussed their concerns about ingresslegress, circulation and drive-thru windows. They could foresee people trying to cross traffic if one lane was open and onewasn't. A different perspective might make more sense because the current plan is not that great. planning Cammissian I~tinutes January 6, 1992 Chairman Bosch asked Mr.Raystraw if they have looked at other alternatives for this use? Mr.Raystraw said they looked at quite a few and briefly discussed their reasons. They felt very strongly that the two windows are important from a business standpoint to reduce the risk of patrons bei ng turned away wh ile developing their clientele. They prefer not to have a walk up window. It looks like a catch 22. The applicant wants to show the drive up visibility; that's the key thing being marketed. At the same time, there's still the same traffic circulation problem. The applicant was asked if there was another configuration on the site that would solve the concernslproblems heard expressed and would they like to consider a continuance? Mr. Raystraw was willing to consider another alternative and stipulated to a continuance. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1944-91 and Administrative Adjustment Permit 91-28 to the meeting of February 19, 1992.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12458, MODIFICTION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1441 - SALKIN ENGINEERING CORPORATION A request to modify conditions of approval of Tentative Tract Map 12458 and Conditional Use Permit 1441 to allow reconfiguration af, and additional access to the private drive located approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of Cerro Villa Drive and EI Rito Drive. Subject property is located on the north side of Cerro Villa Drive, immediately east of EI Rito Drive, and consists of Lats 28, 29, and 30 of Tract 12458,known as Prado Woods.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 There was no opposition; therefore, a staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch was a bit concerned about the lack of an applicant being present to explain the benefits of the proposed change, or to allow the Commission to question the applicant relative to technical concerns. His inclination was to continue this item until the applicant could be present. Commissioner Murphy asked staff if they have had recent contact with the applicant? Ms. Wolff has not talked with the applicant for a couple of weeks. They were notified of the hearing date and last she heard, they were planning to attend the meeting. Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Modification to Tentative Tract Map 12458 and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 1441 to the meeting of January 20, 1992. Staff was asked to make an effort to contact Salkin Engineering or the owner tc apprise them of the continuance. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Nomination of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the coming year:Commissioner Murphy nominated Commissioner Cathcart as Chairman;Chairman Bosch seconded the nomination.Commissioner Master commended Chairman Bosch for his actions,participation and direction as Chairman. He nominated Commissioner Scott as Chairman; Commissioner Cathcart as Vice- Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1992 Commissioner Scott nominated Chairman Bosch for a second term as Chairman; Commissioner Cathcart as Vice- Chairman.Chairman Bosch appreciated the motion and support of his continuance as Chairman. He has enjoyed serving as Chairman, but declined accepting the nomination. He felt it was appropriate to rotate the Chairmanship around to allow other styles and viewpoints.Written ballots were cast: Mr. Cathcart was selected as the new Chairman.Commissioner Murphy nominated Commissioner Scott to continue as Vice-Chairman and Chairman Bosch seconded that nomination. The nomination was unanimous.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a special meeting January 13, 1992 at 7:00p.m. regarding widening of streets in the Southwest Quadrant of Orange.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MQTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p. m. sld