Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/16/1988 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r City of Orange May 16, 1988 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. _, PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Administrator of Current Planning John Godlewski, Senior Planner & Commission Secretary; Ron Thompson, Director of Community Development; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 2, 1988 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of May 2, 1988 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott .- NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1660-88 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-127 - HANOVER REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES: Commissioner Hart excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide approximately 13.4 acres and a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the following: 1. Development of the site as an integrated commercial complex, consisting of office uses and accessory commercial services uses. 2. Building heights exceeding those generally permitted in the M-1 zone. 3. Creation of parcels without direct frontage on a public !` street. Subject property is located at the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Eckhoff Street, addressed 2019-2211 Orangewood Avenue and 604-648 Eckhoff Street. ® Note: Environmental Impact Report 1206 has been prepared for this project. ,, c C ~J L-` Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 2 Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The existing site is developed with approximately 200,000 square feet of one-story office and industrial uses. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing site in a phased development bringing up new construction of five office towers. They will range in height from six to twelve stories and include three 7-level parking structures along the north property line. Two of those levels will be below ground and five above ground for a total of about 880,000 square feet of new space. It is the applicant's Intention that each building will be located on its own parcel. The site plan has two primary entrances: the main entrance is off of Orangewood and another entrance off of Eckhoff Street. A part of the proposal is a twelve foot dedication to allow for another travel lane to allow the traffic access to the freeway. In order to facilitate the development, the applicant is filing a tentative parcel map to subdivide the property and a conditional use permit to allow development of the site as an integrated commercial complex. The recent construction in the industrial zones would support the applicant for an office-type development. The proposed development, however, is not consistent with what the current staff recommendations have been formulated for the General Plan and the Redevelopment Project Area Plan. In those plans staff suggests that a floor area ratio of 1.0 would be consistent for the area of Eckhoff and Orangewood. The proposal suggests a ratio of 1 1/2. Another issue on the conditional use permit is height. In the industrial zone, a maximum height of 45 feet is allowed or a height equal to the setback from the public street. Four of the buildings on the site will exceed that height limit as imposed in the M-1 zone. Traffic has been addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. A number of mitigation measures have been included to bring the traffic flows and traffic level to an acceptable level. The final phase being considered is the tentative parcel map. In reviewing the tentative parcel map the ultimate goal of the applicant is to have each building end up on its own parcel. Currently, however, there is a number of parcels existing on the site, which creates a problem in going from what is on the site now to what they are proposing. Staff is suggesting that perhaps the proposed tentative map should be viewed more as a ultimate goal and something that would be used in the Commission's deliberations for the other conditional use permit (i.e., consideration of lots without frontage on a public street). Staff suggests the parcel map be reviewed as a concept plan. It is suggested the tentative parcel map not be approved because staff has particular problems with lot lines shown over existing structures. To approve it, may violate certain conditions of the Subdivision Map Act. ,~ 0 L Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 3 Commissioner Greek asked the City Engineer if the map meets their normal standards; if not, why accept it? Mr. Johnson said the problem with the map is because of the various property line reconfigurations and the phasing of it. It may not fully adequately satisfy the needs of the development. From the standpoint of detail, it probably satisfies the concern, but the phasing of the development is very critical and the map may violate part of the setback requirements. The phasing is the major problem that made the map not pertinent at this time. The public hearing was opened. n u ^~ Dennis Abramson, 9300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500, Beverly Hills, introduced the consultants who have been working on the project. Mr. Abramson is the general partner of Hanover Real Estate Associates. His company is an American partnership with three corporate offiices in Orange County and Los Angeles. They own outright over 450,000 square feet of industrial and commercial property on some 30 or 40 acres, part of which forms this application, in the immediate area of the stadium. He briefly explained .his other projects in the United States. They have owned the industrial property since 1983 and the office portion on Eckhoff and Orangewood since 1986. Both of the properties have been improved considerably. They are presently undertaking changes of ownership in many of the properties. Gary Bastien, 290 Paularino, Costa Mesa, architect for the project, outlined the project design and discussed the architectural aspects for the project and the phasing. An aerial photo was submitted to the Commission for their review showing the super imposed model into the photo. The phasing will occur over an 8 to 10 year period. Phase 1 consists of a 12 story building and the parking structure to serve it on the northwest quadrant of the site. Future buildings and parking structures will be added as the office space demand permits. In discussing the vehicular traffic pattern on site, it is provided from Eckhoff as the main access point. It will be controlled by a traffic signal. The main theme on the layout and design of the site is to make it a people-oriented park like setting. He also explained the building form designs. They look at this site as an excellent corporate location. Phillip Schwartze, Vice-President with PBR, 18012 Skypark Circle, Irvine, prepared the Environmental Impact Report and additionally prepared a fiscal document for their review. They addressed all of the issues in the E.I.R. but he wanted to talk about the two major issues: traffic and Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 4 aesthetics. Per the traffic study analysis, by implementing an array of measures traffic can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. They recognize aesthetics as a key issue. The project will alter the scale of urban development considerably at the site as pointed out by the study. Mitigation will include extensive landscaping and site design/review by the City. Air quality impacts are fairly small. Terry Austin, Austin-Faust Associates, 1450 North Tustin, Santa Ana, was responsible for preparing the traffic analysis. They utilized the City's traffic data base for their study. Two time frames were used: short range; then a longer time frame. The project has impacts on both time frames; hence, there is an array of mitigation measures. The project will be dedicating additional right-of-way along Orangewood and Eckhoff. The purpose is to get an additional lane for freeway traffic. Other intersection improvements are also noted. They see adequate capacity for the project, both in the short range and in the long range. One concern was addressed regarding the potential for through traffic on Eckhoff Street. They have indicated in their analysis that there will be some use of Eckhoff, particularly for trips to and from the neighborhood. The staff report recommended that a neighborhood preservation study be carried out. Their firm is familiar with the study. They are aimed at trying to understand the potential for through traffic in a residential neighborhood and looking at the type of strategies that can be implemented to reduce that through traffic. They involve working with the people of the neighborhood. As far as the project is concerned, it does not need Eckhoff Street for it's capacity. There is adequate capacity on Orangewood. Commissioner Master asked about traffic congestion today, as well as in the future for the proposed project. Mr. Austin stated the mitigation measures will increase the capacity along that section of Orangewood by about 50X with the additional lanes and changes to the intersection. They anticipate that will be slightly more than the increase of the traffic of the time. Commissioner Bosch referred to Exhibit 6 in the E.I.R. and asked if that was due to the access to the parking structure rather than distribution northward onto Collins. Mr. Austin does not believe that is related to the parking structure. The main access point to the project is on Eckhoff. But the traffic going to and from the project must go through the intersection of Orangewood and Eckhoff. 1\ G O Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 5 Commissioner Bosch said the diagram showed 8258 on Eckhoff, north of Orangewood. He was trying to determine where that is distributed. Mr. Austin misunderstood and stated the major entrance point is on Eckhoff and that is why there is a volume of traffic on Eckhoff, north of Orangewood. Commissioner Bosch asked feasibility of extending under the presumption th of the traffic problems. undertaken? Mr. Austin responded no. part of the General Plan about the study to determine the Eckhoff northward to Katella, at it would assist in solving some Has any preliminary analysis been City staff is looking at this as study. Commissioner Bosch said the report concludes with mitigation measures which are to decrease the level of traffic impacts to an insignificant amount, yet the neighborhood preservation study has not been undertaken so how can a conclusion be reached? Mr. Austin stated the assumption would be that they would achieve the objectives of that study; namely, to mitigate any through traffic impacts on that neighborhood. Mr. Abramson concluded by addressing a couple of issues. They understand and recognize their role and responsibility as developers in the community. The area under consideration has always been defined as an industrial and commercial area. The two 3-story office buildings on the south side of Orangewood were erected some five years ago, which abut the immediate residential area. It acts a buffer and land use transition. Their buildings will be located on the site to the north to not impact the residential area. He personally attempted to meet with the homeowners on weekends to discuss the project with them. Those speaking in opposition: Lois Barke, 2022 Spruce, referred to the staff report. She appreciates Commission Bosch pointing out the studies have not been done yet on which they are basing mitigation measures. Building heights addressed in the staff report ` are a discrepancy with the E.I.R. and insists they be changed in the E.I.R. The review period of the E.I.R. should begin as of today for 30 days. All statements made at the meeting should be made a part of the E.I.R. On Page 5, #18, the proposed tentative parcel map indicates a re-subdivision of the entire property into eight parcels, each of which will contain a single structure upon protect Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 6 U 0 ,7 build out. Are the parking structures individual parcels with a parcel map? She is confused about the number of buildings, the individual parcels and parcel maps; it does not seem feasible. The Planning Commission is being asked to not only consider the appropriateness of the use, but also the intensity of that use. Why should the residents share in the cost of this development? Walnut was never discussed regarding traffic. She was very upset with the traffic situation in the area. Six hundred names were submitted on a petition and another copy was submitted at the meeting opposing this project. They are extremely concerned about the disruption to their neighborhood. They feel any high rise development on the east side.of the Orange Freeway is unwarranted. There are three issues they are opposed to: (1) widening of Walnut; (2) extension of Eckhoff; and (3) proposed development. She asked if this project would automatically go to the City Council? Mr. Godlewski stated the conditional use permit would not go to the City Council unless appealed. If action is taken on the tentative parcel map, that would go to Council. Mrs. Berke asked the people in opposition to the project to stand and be recognized for the record. Ann Oliver, 1745 West Beverly Drive, stated they get a little bit emotional when their neighborhood is being threatened. She asked how tall in feet is a twelve toot building? Mr. Godlewski responded that Buildings A and B would be 185 feet tall. Ms. Oliver said she could see the Burke building at three feet and would definitely see the 185 foot buildings. She takes exception to the maintenance and landscaping of the site. She is concerned with the added air pollution; the project will also add wear and tear to the freeways and streets. She also addressed the issue of noise. She was afraid the City would tall into the same trap as other cities of over building office complexes. Another fear was setting a precedence for the entire Northwest Redevelopment Project. Julio Armandez, 318 Eckhoff, was the first person to buy a home on Eckhoff. He is concerned for his home and neighborhood. Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, does not live in the area, but has lived in the City for 30 years. She lives in a very congested area, which is the bypass to Tustin/Katella. Why is a huge plan being proposed by a developer on this ,~ Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 7 side of the freeway when the Koll development is not finished? She submitted her letter for the record and read it to the audience. Marlene Bird, 1837 Beverly Drive, said this new gateway is in her back yard. She has two small children that she worries about. There is a lot of traffic already, much less to add 10,000 more cars. Several items have not been addressed and she is not comfortable with the proposed project. Fire hazards have not been discussed or additional police support. More tax dollars are going to be spent to provide these services. Dee Lorantz, 337 North Ash, said her home is her only investment. The one story structures are okay in the area, but to tear down existing buildings to construct high rise development is not tolerated. The traffic problem is hard to accept. Betty Owen, 458 N. Stevens, formerly of 216 N. Eckhoff, has been in the neighborhood for 16 years. The marriage and merging of their two families made it necessary for them to move from Eckhoff to Stevens. Traffic and noise are a concern. She cannot explain the difference in the level of noise over the past eight years. With the addition of five high rises, noise and traffic will increase tremendously and it will be unbearable for everyone. Richard Hall, 1926 West Orangewood, is the owner of the office complex on the southeast corner of Orangewood and Eckhoff. it was referred to by the developer as one of the buffers between his proposed project and the residential area to the south. He was one of the first developers in the area to build an office complex. There were certain requirements that needed to be met, which they complied with. It seems inconceivable that a project like this could be considered in this particular area. The project does have an adverse affect and opposes it. There is already a traffic problem; he has lost three major tenants because of the traffic and noise. John Blackerd, 2205 West Beverly Drive, is a 16 year resident of Orange. There were orange groves when he moved to this address and he assumed the area would be developed. He thinks they have been painted a rosy picture of the proposed development, but it is full of inaccuracies. The traffic is not acceptable now so how can it be acceptable later? The traffic would be at a level of insignificance; that is absurd. William Charles, 213 North Flower, 38 year resident of the area. He is not looking forward to the new addition. He spoke on the traffic problems and the level of noise. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 8 Ann Oliver, 1845 West Beverly Drive, forgot to mention the added expenses the complex will cost. She said that after a city has a certain number of buildings, four stories tall, there is a requirement that the City must own their own helicopter. It is a fire law, but she could not remember the specific code. Who will pay for the added expenses? Melanie Diedrick, 205 North Flower, asked if the soil could hold the high rise buildings as it is right next to the river. She referred to the 1969 flood. Two stories are being proposed to be built underground -- what about the ground water? She touched on the traffic problems in the area. She presented the articles on the busiest freeways to the Commission. Herb Barke, 2022 Spruce, moved to the area in 1963. At that time there were orange groves from Sycamore to Orangewood. Spoke about the industrial zoning, homes in the area, the buffer of office-professional buildings and the height limitation of 4 stories. He addressed the traffic congestion. Resident, 328 North Eckhoff, spoke about the traffic and noise problems. Surface streets are being used when the freeway is congested. Dee Lorentz, 337 North Ash, added one more comment. If 600 signatures are not enough to discourage this protect, they would be happy to submit more names. Charles Kress, 1948 Spruce, talked about getting around the soil issue by the developer driving pile ons down through the water table. Ken Warden, 1142 Acacia, stated you cannot find homes in the area now. Where will the new people live who will be working in the office buildings? Frank Boyd, 1905 West Beverly Drive, moved to the area last November. He does not want his family exposed to traffic, noise or air pollution. Alternatives have not been discussed. Why not build town homes where people could live? Dennis McFarland, 2219 West Beverly, lust purchased his home. The property is being developed on river bottom land. He spoke about the pile ons and how the water table pushes some buildings out of the ground. Does the E.I.R. address this issue? Spoke about water mains and sewers; how much will the residents taxes increase for this demand? Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 9 c L~ Mr. Schwartze responded to the technical questions relating to building heights and response to C.E.~.A. The building heights, as shown, vs. the number of stories that are shown, was consistent throughout the environmental process. All the square footage and the impacts associated with it, was consistent through that period. The public review period (45 days) was opened, but the document is not finaled. They will respond to all questions raised up until final approval. With regards to the parcel map, the map is trying to respond to the existing project vs. the new project. He believes there is a way it can be worked out so that it can all be in the project. Each of the building structures has to have frontage on a public street and they will draw a map that responds to that. In response to neighborhood preservation, as indicated in the executive summary of the E.I.R., it speaks to that study and all parts included in a normal neighborhood preservation study. When the information is presented to them, they look at it and present a full list of mitigation programs that would make that traffic go back to a situation which was equal to when started, if not improving the situation. There was some confusion as to traffic of volume on a daily basis vs. the peak hour traffic, which is normal. They look at all projects within the reasonable vicinity that might build and are a part of the study. The fiscal impact issue was drawn under a normal fiscal impact process. Revenues and costs are provided. He explained the fees involved. With regard to soil compaction and the water table, the area has been thoroughly studied for soil compaction and water table. There are no current problems. Infrastructure costs were addressed. This protect will not impact property taxes subject to Proposition 13. Mr. Austin spoke about the issue of increased traffic. Most of the traffic report shows the different levels of traffic. Concern is with congestion at peak hours. They try to reduce it to a fairly simple formula to calculate the traffic analysis. The level of service depends on the number of lanes at an intersection and how those lanes are configured. Commission and Mr. Austin discussed traffic situations and alternatives. Commissioner Greek felt a simple exhibit would be helpful to understand the mass volume of traffic. Traffic detours also need to be addressed either by the developer or City staff. He requested a report from the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Greek also requested an explanation about the discrepancy in the E.I.R. as pointed out by Mrs. Barke. c 0 Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 10 Mr. Schwartze said the number of stories changed subsequent to the E.I.R. production. The height stayed the same and the total square footage stayed the same. The document is still consistent internally. Commissioner Greek said the one map is not consistent (to which Mr. Schwartze agreed). Commissioner Bosch wanted someone to describe the phasing of the project over a period of time. There will be a shortage of required parking during the construction of Phase 2. In Phase 3 there is some inconsistency with surface parking. Mr. Schwartze believes as they refine the phasing plan and as the issue on the parcel map comes up, they want to make sure each one is done as they go along so nothing will be out of phase. Mr. Schwartze thought it would be appropriate to carry over the tentative parcel map from tonight's meeting. Mr. Abramson is aware of the area being over built; it is basically the pattern of development in the United States. The project will be phased in over the next ten to fifteen years and will benefit the City of Orange. Commissioner Scott asked about the other developments his firm is involved with? Mr. Abramson spoke with Mrs. Barke several times and told her which buildings they had developed. He briefly described the various projects: San Rafael; Manhattan, New York; Washington D.C.; and Anaheim. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch had a couple of concerns as to the neighborhood preservation program. Significant impacts that the project may cause in the neighborhood is the problem. He is concerned about the. traffic study being proposed to look for the link on Eckhoff because of the impact on the neighborhood if Eckhoff were extended. Also, traffic impacts on Walnut east of Main. He concurs with Commissioner Greek's direction to staff to come back to the Commission with an analysis and proposal to help mitigate existing traffic problems caused by the 57 Freeway. In regard to the intensity of development proposed for the site, he had concerns with the height. The site line studies are somewhat misleading in where they are projected from and the residential neighborhood. Aesthetic measures must be taken to reduce those major potential impacts. He Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 -Page 11 thinks the basic concept of transitioning the use from the ® industrial area to the north, which is rapidly changing given the higher property values and the lesser desirability of locating heavy industry in the area, that a continuation of the commercial/office, professional/office buffer to the north is appropriate. Commissioner Greek requested the owners of the property in the area to research the protect thoroughly. Most of the answers to their questions are covered in the documents and conditions of approval. He is still requesting a written comment from the Traffic Engineer regarding the traffic study. Commissioner Master agreed with Commissioners Bosch and Greek. The turning point is the intensity and impacts being generated by the people. He commented on the fiscal impact analysis and asked it it had been reviewed by staff? Mr. Godleweski responded that staff has not reviewed the analysis in detail. Commissioner Greek personally feels the accessibility of the site to the freeway does provide a special circumstance and would like staff to discuss this. Maybe there is a reason for the greater FAR ratio. All Commissioners agreed a study and evaluation is needed on the issue of FAR ratios. Mitigation measures need to be addressed. A short report was requested of staff on the proposed developments on the west side. What is the height limitation in the City of Anaheim and is Orange consistent with them? Mr. Thompson thought Anaheim had four buildings on Orangewood ranging up to an excess of 30 stories, including parking structures. Commissioner Greek asked if the applicant wished to withdraw the tentative map or continue it to another meeting? Mr. Abramson said they have found a solution, which would be adequate for the City and them, and asked to continue the tentative map to June 20, 1988. 0 Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 12 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission, at the request of the developer, who submitted tentative map 88-127 dated April 18, 1988 and tentative map 88-127, revised May 11, 1988, be continued to June 20, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1660-88 to June 20, 1988 in order to answer all questions that were asked; also continuing the E.I.R. to June 20, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1675-138 - HOWARD F. THOMPSON. ASSOCIATES, INC.: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a two-story 42,260 square foot office building in the M-2 zone on a 2.14 acre portion of a 6.7 acre parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Taft Avenue and Batavia Street. Note: Negative Declaration 1220 has been prepared for this protect. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Dan Savant, administrator of the trust that owns the property and also the developer, 11374 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley. They purchased the property in 1984 and have built two buildings on it, which are currently leased to United Western Medical Corporation. They are now finishing the development on that corner and would like to build the proposed protect. The public hearing was closed. ~~ Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 13 G Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1220. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1675-88. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1095-88 - JEFF ROSENBERY: Proposed pre-zone change of 2.26 acres of unincorporated land from the County of Orange E4-1(SR) (FP2) one acre lots (Sign Restrictions) (Flood Plain) to City of Orange R-1-E (One Acre Estate Residential District) on property located on the south side of Amapola Avenue, 600 feet east of Orange Park Boulevard, addressed 20212 Amapola Avenue. Note: Negative Declaration 1219 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Bob Bell, 728 East Kateila, spoke for Jeff Rosenbery. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1219. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED l__J 0 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Pre-Zone Change 1095-88. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ~. • Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 14 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT 1671-88 ~ VARIANCE 1834-88 - SCOTT ~ SANDRA MC REYNOLDS: Proposal to develop a two story second unit in the R-2-6 tRCD) Residential Duplex Residential Combining District on property located at the southwest corner of LaVeta Avenue and Grand Street. Note: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Scott McReynolds, 504 South Grand, thought the staff report explained in pretty clear detail of what they were desiring to do with their property. Commissioner Greek would like to hear why the variance should be granted. Mr. McReynolds stated the way the property is situated on Grand and LaVeta, and because of the fact that they do not have access from LaVeta. The variance is with respect to the fourth unenclosed parking space that is required. They are adding an additional garage to accommodate the three enclosed spaces as required. The fourth space creates a hardship with respect to the property. The other properties in the area have access off the street. The garage will be put between the existing house and added onto the garage. Commissioner Bosch asked if it were to create not only the fourth uncovered space; it is a variance not only because it is in the setback, but also because of the tandem parking condition. Mr. McReynolds responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bosch, in reviewing the floor plan, noticed the master suite and the sitting room are layed out also for the bathroom access so they could easily be converted to a third bedroom in the future. What additional impacts would be imposed on the property and how would that affect the neighbors? Mr. McReynolds tried to explain his project and the layout of the garage. They would be using the bottom story of the unit for the living area and then upstairs, above the Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 15 existing garage there is a master suite that the former owner built. The back of the property, to utilize it _ properly, you end up with a large bedroom and sitting area. Initially they considered the possibility of making it a three bedroom unit, but they only need two bedrooms. His folks are moving into the unit. They do not have plans to convert to a three bedroom. Commissioner Hart was concerned the unit might be converted to two units. Mr. Godlewski stated staff has prepared deed restrictions in the past and could prepare one for this property that limits it to two units. If that should occur, it would be in violation of the restrictions recorded on the deed. Commissioner Hart said it was required for a variance to show a hardship. The hardship being shown is the one the applicant is creating him self. Mr. McReynolds has worked with City staff to locate the unit on his property. He explained his hardship regarding a the garage. His alternat they have come up with a ives were also explained. He felt compromise that would be acceptable as another alt ernative cannot be found. The Commission explained the problems with the variance and what could happen in the future with another owner. A tandem parking situation is not functional. The car will end up parking out on the street. Mr. McReynolds asked for suggestions on alternative plans. Commissioner Bosch stated there were alternatives available. The proposed potential widening of LeVeta does impact property values. But the applicant will still have the same access problems off of LaVeta anyway. There are two problems with the variance: parking in the open space in the setback; and the tandem parking. He does not know how to resolve the tandem parking problem. The problem is the existing garage. Mr. McReynolds and his wife came up with the idea of a circular drive in front of the house. Chairman Scott announced the Commission has worked out a solution for the applicants. Commissioner Greek does not feel comfortable with solving the problem. He has problems with the dimensions of the garage and sees no reason for a hardship. Planning Commiss-ion Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 16 Commissioner Hart presented the solution to the applicant that was worked out by Commissioner Master and Mr. Godlewski. Commissioner Hart came up with even another alternative for them to consider. Commissioner Bosch asked Mr. McReynolds to consider some modification of the unit dwelling size to help reduce the bulk by moving it further from the property line. Betty Owen, 458 North Stevens, owns the property immediately south adjacent to the McReynold's property, 520 and 522 South Grand. The damage has already been done. When the existing garage was constructed by the former owners, it cut off the only view the front house had from a kitchen window facing north. That is the only part of the property affected by any construction the applicants would undertake. The impact of vision and aesthetics will not be affected. Mr. McReynolds asked if they could have an opportunity to come back with a modified version? Commissioner Bosch noted they are proposing to take access to the second unit through the five foot side yard along that property line. That has always been a concern of his relating to security and lighting. He would like them to look at that also. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1671-88 and Variance 1834 to the meeting of June 6, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1676-88 - SCHEER BRADEN ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF RED ONION RESTAURANTS, iNC. Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow dancing in one of two proposed restaurants that will front on State College Boulevard, and the on-site sale of alcoholic beverages in both proposed restaurants on site, on property located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, addressed 450 North State College Boulevard. Note: Negative Declaration 1221 has been prepared for this project. • Planning Commission Minutes ~., May 16, 1888 - Page 17 A staff report was not presented. Commissioner Master questioned the square footage of the dance area; it was stated in the staff report as 3,300 square feet. The public hearing was opened. Stan Braden, Scheer Braden Architects, 17941 Fitch, Irvine, could answer Commissioner's questions if they had any. The dance floor is approximately 500 square feet. The club area is over 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Bosch thought the plan showed the service yard for the restaurant is proposed to be installed at the southeast corner immediately adjacent to State College and the main entrance to the complex and asked if that was correct. Mr. Braden replied in the affirmative. The Koll Company has provided a turn out for that purpose and it is their intent as they designed the building to provide a service yard that would be approximately eight feet high. The doors will be facing at an angle away from State College. That is the only corner they can receive service from. Commissioner Bosch is concerned with congestion that might occur relative to the club entry immediately adjacent to a major traffic access point into the complex. He asked what kind of mitigation will be used. Mr. Braden stated there is a turn out further to the west which is where the valet point will be. They are trying to work with two restaurants and there is to be a combined valet in front of the office building during the busy hours. It is important they have the two entries; one for the restaurant and one for the club. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch was seriously concerned about the service yard location. Although with the Southwest Redevelopment Standards in the general area, we are trying ® to enhance setbacks from the street that the project overall has some precedence because of earlier approvals, but the service yard location with the drives immediately on top of people entering the complex is of concern. He understands delivery hours may be limited, but he also sees how that works with restaurants and the potential impacts it will cause. There should have been some further study to indicate a way to get the service yard further removed. Aesthetically speaking, it is also a concern trucks pulling out and blocking the drive. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 18 "' Commissioner Hart has not seen a trash enclosure that is attractive. He shares the concern about the location of the trash enclosures on the corner. Some of the concerns the Commissioners had were not in their jurisdiction, but a red flag should be brought to the Design Review Board's attention when it is reviewed by them. Commissioner Bosch believed the service yard location was in the Planning Commission's domain because of the traffic access. He thinks it is a reasonable use for the site except for the service yard. Mr. Braden wanted to clarify that the building is being custom designed for the site. It ends up to be triangular as they develop the building. The building is shrinking and will probably be 12,000 square feet. If the other pad on Orangewood were larger, he preferred the way the service was handled there. The way the site was planned, it was intended to take service off of what is really an entry corner to the project. The Koll Company is also concerned about their entry drive. Mr. McGee said the Commission approved a precise plan for the overall development. It includes a service area for the Hilton Suites, as well as this restaurant site off of this access roadway. Commissioner Greek does not like the location of the trash enclosure and feels the dancing is not necessarily an asset for the facility. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 1676-88 without prejudice. AYES: Commissioners Greek NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott MOTION DIED Commissioner Hart disagrees with the plan and suggested they negotiate the project and delay action for a couple of weeks. Mr. Braden is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They share the concerns expressed. The point of service was dictated. They are trying to make the building smaller to push the kitchen back so they can handle the service yard better. Their client is entering into a lease, but if he can't have certain schematic problems handled in the plan, it might preclude him taking that site. They are willing to work out a solution, but it may involve more than factors he directly controls. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 19 Mr. Braden prefers a continuance and is willing to restudy their plan. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1676-88 to June 6, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1677-88 - CHEVRON, USA: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to replace an existing service station with a mini-market and gas station and add a self service car wash on property located on the south side of Katelia Avenue, just west of the Costa Mesa/5b Freeway, addressed 1940 E. Katelia Avenue. Note: Negative Declaration 1222 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Godlewski pointed out that in the discussion in the staff report there was a paragraph concerning the Environmental Review Board's review of this application and listing their concern over the on-site circulation and a condition was recommended that the applicant delete the driveway closest to the freeway because of its circulation problem. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. Plans indicate a circulation problem with a driveway that exits onto the on ramp to the Costa Mesa Freeway, creating a conflict getting cars off the property. Staff was concerned with the circulation on site and recommended the driveway be deleted in order to resolve that. It was further recommended that perhaps the applicant should re-think the site plan in terms of on site circulation in order to resolve all conflicts. Commissioner Bosch presumed it was required to have two way drives on this use. Should this have been accompanied by a variance request? The plan does not appear to conform to the development standards. Mr. Godlewski could not address the variance issue at the moment. The public hearing was opened. Dave Reeves, Property Manager for Chevron in Southern California, 1300 Beach Boulevard, La Habra, said the station was given a use permit in 1965. They acquired it Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 20 in the 70's. It has been operating for 23 years as a full service, automotive repair service station with two pump blocks in front of the station. The car wash is a roll over car wash operated by the customer. This is a small station -- 950 square feet. Their intent is to be able to serve eight cars at one time. They have met several times with the Traffic Engineer, met twice with the Redevelopment Agency whose primary concern is addressing the signs. They are required and are willing to remove the freeway sign as a condition. Their consultant was in attendance to address some concerns of traffic issues. The on site circulation is not a mator concern of theirs. They have some capability of reducing the distance slightly between the pump blocks on either side of the building. They are currently 23 or 24 feet clear. Direction of traffic is from north to south, then exiting either right or left. Commissioner Master asked about the car wash operation and Mr. Reeves explained it to him. Commissioner Hart said entry into the car wash appears to be in opposite direction to the way traffic would be flowing. Mr. Reeves responded the traffic will come off of Katella headed southbound. At some point, they will turn northbound. The traffic will be going from south to north through the car wash. Commissioner Hart stated then the intent of the traffic for the gas will be from north to south, to which Mr. Reeves said was correct by default. They discussed the back up of cars at the islands and the car wash. Marketing for self-serve gas was explained. Mark Murphy, 2750 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite I, Santa Ana, architect for the protect. They presented the proposed plan to staff for Environmental Review Board. it was reviewed two months ago. Comments were received and another review by E.R.B. was held a month ago. The comments back from that meeting included a comment about the easterly drive way. it was from the Traffic and Police Departments concerns about citations given at that location, and whether there could be a mitigating issue it i l ng os solved by conditions on the driveway by either c or redirecting it to an entry only driveway. Anything done to the driveways would not help the traffic on the street. There were a couple of site plan changes regarding parking spaces, sign location and elimination of the freeway sign. Upon review of the staff report, concerns were expressed, but conditions were not brought forward. • Planning Commission Minutes ~, May 16, 1988 - Page 21 Commissioner Bosch asked if other alternatives have been explored in order to maintain the circulation required for the turning radius of the fuel truck and give the City the minimum width for a two way drive. Three points appear to be constricted. Has an adjustment been considered? Mr. Murphy discussed their alternatives and reasons why another plan would not work. Those speaking in opposition: Bill Leming, 2808 East Collins, feels the project is too large; the car wash is not needed. There is too much traffic coming off that site. Traffic will be backed up to Pier 1. Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, was opposed to the project. There is a major traffic problem now. It is a dangerous intersection. There has been considerable changes in traffic over the last 23 years. Mr. Reeves clarified they are going from four pumps to eight changing their mode of operation. This will be a different service to the community than a full service car wash. It's no charge; free with fill up. They are not trying to address the traffic coming west on Katella, but trying to address the traffic going east on Katella and swinging onto the freeway. They are only talking about some 600 square feet of merchandising space for food and to meet the codes. He wanted to show their thought process for the project and used exhibits to describe it. They were willing to continue the project and come back with another plan and revised configuration to address the Commission's concerns. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek felt there was too much development for the site and the usage may not be proper for this property because of the requirement that exiting traffic must enter the freeway. That is a serious problem. It is not a good design. He would like to deny the project without prejudice for them to submit an entirely new plan. Commissioner Hart would like to see the plan worked out rather than to deny it. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1677-88 to July 6, 1988, with the applicant's consent to revise the plot plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1988 - Page 22 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1674-88 - CITY OF ORANGE: Commissioner Greek excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a pre-school and the move-on of a structure in the R-3 zone on a 9.5 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Lemon Street between Mayfair Avenue and Walnut Avenue (Killefer Park). Note: This protect is exempt from Environmental Review. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Rich Kollen, Recreation Manager, requested the move-on of the old Sunwest Bank modular unit, 5,200 square feet, for a pre-school at Killefer Park. o`' The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1674-88 subtect to the conditions in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting on June 6, 1988; and schedule a study session on June 13, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of studying the proposed Crawford Hills Development Company proposal. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. /sid v