Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/19/1984 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C i ty of Orange - Orange, California March 19, 1984 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Master STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and Toba Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve the minutes of February 22, 1984, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Vasquez NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 1984 Due to the abstention of Commissioner Vasquez and lack of a quorum, it was advised by Assistant City Attorney Minshew that approval of these minutes not be made at this meeting. Chairman Hart said the approval would be delayed until the next meeting. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE WITHDRAWN Mr. Murphy said that the third item on the agenda, the freeway sign proposed by the Coco's/Reuben's restaurant people, was recommended for withdrawal from the agenda by staff because the applicant was considering an alternative to the sign. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS r~ U SITE PLAN - SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Review of plans for proposed commercial development for the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue, pursuant to agreement with the landowner, Louis Kennedy (Zone Change 991). Mr. Murphy said the staff has a presentation to make based on the continuance from the last meeting. ' Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Two Bert Yamasaki, Planning and Development Services Director, using site maps, pointed out that the site plan basically has two unresolved issues as far as the staff is concerned: 1) the adequacy of the traffic circulation onto the site from both Tustin S~.ee~~and Meats Avenue, with the real key being Meats Avenue (about. which the engin- eering staff would make a presentation at a later date); and 2) if an irrevocable offer fora reciprocal access along the north and east property lines is still at odds with the applicant. The other issues are more esthetic in nature. Mr. Yamasaki said the application consists of a tentative parcel map which will follow the preliminary approval of the development by the City. The tentative parcel map includes the area behind the savings and loan and bank buildings and incorporates the portion to the east. as part of the Lamplighter`s site so that this lot line is erased. The parcels then created will be the California Federal building and the former Imperial Bank building. Then the shops to the very east and along the service road along Meats are on another lot and there is aflag-shaped lot that takes the smaller commercial building closer to the Tustin Street frontage, and the final parcel is the restaurant piece. The applicant was asked to submit a map sbr~wing the new lot lines. Mr. Yamasaki stressed that the key issue is that of parking and access to the parcel, not only in the present but also in the future when conditions along Tustin Street might change, such as limiting parking along the curbs, raised medians, consolidation of driveways, etc., which were talked about during the redevelopment hearings and may come into effect and change the character of Tustin Street. So it is the shorter- and longer-term servicing of this parcel from the street, as well as the servicing of other parcels if the Mobile Nome Park changes or there is a redevelopment of the existing com- mercial property to the north. Consequently is very firm, not only in the irrevocable offer for the reciprocal access but also the questions of access and the location of the Meats entrance. Mr. Yamasaki said the staff addressed the irregular shape of the land divisions, .understanding that the developer wishes to isolate access and the parking count matched to the square footage of the buildings while still offering frontage on a dedicated road so that no condi- ® tional use permit is required. What concerns the staff is the further cutting down of a significant parcel not only into smaller pieces but into irregularly shaped pieces, so .that if reparcelization might occur it would complicate any attempt to try to reparcel it again. Also, at the time the report was written, the staff understood that the appli- cant was willing to dedicate ten or twelve feet along both Tustin and Meats frontages additionally as proposed in the redevelopment plan in order to ease the left- and right-turn movements at the major inter- sections, and that the applicant was suggesting that the agency participate in the improvements at the new right of way lines. But Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Three it is now his understanding that the dedication is also now being questioned by the applicant. Mr. Yamasaki said the developer has indicated a reciprocal easement, access and parking for all of the parcels being created and the staff finds no fault in that. However, the staff finds that the plot plan proposed by the applicant shows a convergence of almost all pedestrian and vehicular traffic to this focus, which might be a purposeful attempt to highlight or centralize the activity, but the safety services are very concerned that the area be kept open for emergency responses and the staff is suggesting that a minimum driveway would be required of the developer so that double-park conditions will not be encouraged, in order to allow emergency services to make service call's when they are needed, Mr. Yamasaki said the irrevocable offer is being questioned by the developer and it was discussed with him last week that perhaps the irrevocable offer could be based upon some stated purpose in the event that the use adjacent is not a competing user of their required parking, such as a theatre which would possibly encroach upon their parking, and if that would occur then perhaps they would not be required to make the dedication of the irrevocable offer at that time. He suggested that this might be a compromise that the Planning Commission might want to discuss with the applicant. Mr. Yamasaki said that when staff looked at the plot plan they saw the creation of little pockets of parking and the main road abutting a crosswise major driveway, and the convergence of all the activity at one intersection, and although staff cannot see it as a hazard because people will be backed out onto Tustin, they observe this as a possible on-site problem that the applicant will have to deal with in the future. This is pointed out only as a mechanical analysis, not necessarily requiring any action on the part of the developer by the City. He said another thing mentioned to the developer was the enhancement of the major intersections to this particular site and perhaps elsewhere, such as across the street where the mall upgrade might occur--some sort of statement that says you've arrived at a special place, this is the project area, this is one of the parcels within the project area and you've arrived. He said it was his understanding, however:, that the parking count is very much on "they can't lose spaces" so if the Commission and the City were to make that suggestion it would require some sort of adjustment of the square footage because they would probably lose parking stalls, although there is a possibility of picking them up if the intersection were to be moved further to the east. Mr. Yamasaki said the adequacy of landscaping, the treatment of screening, the appearance :of walls, the breaking up of long flat surfaces, etc., are probably a matter for the Design Review Board and could be taken up at a later date. He said the developer's Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Four representative has indicated that his architects are present and might want to spend some time with the Commission relative to design issues so that some sort of cost might be fixed or estimated as to what the City expects regarding esthetic upgrading. He said the staff also raises the question of some sort of comprehensive sign program because not only is it a large site, and not only is it competing with the large amount of signs and uses along what is the most active street in the City of Orange, but also far-removed buildings such as the Easterly Building will require some sort of sign out front, an announcement that they are back there; although it can be seen through some of the view corridors, it still needs some sort of sign on the frontage to point out its location. Mr. Yamasaki. said that the other things the staff feels are critical are the treatment of the signs and the storage and presentation areas for not only the auto center but also the garden and patio shops along the northerly wall of the building. He said the mechanical things such as security ordinances and fire and safety requirements will all be taken care of in the plant check stages but he is bringing it up because there are certain functions that probably don`t have to involve either the Planning Commission or the City Council. He stressed that one of the most critical concerns of the staff. is the treatment of the mobile home park as long as it remains there, and the activity that will take place along the eastern property line relative to compressor noises, hours of operation, security lighting, any openings that might create a disturbance for the residents of the mobile home park, etc. The staff feels that is a very important consideration because of the type of housing in the mobile home park--less insulation, closer to the property line, etc.-- and the applicant should be made aware of their concern regarding these items. Mr. Yamasaki said he understands the applicant is only requesting structural approval of the plot plan and has agreed to come back later for the esthetic approval, so staff suggests that it be sent to the Design Review Board and them come back to the Planning Commission and City Council just as an intent-to-rezone application might be treated and they will also be processing the tentative parcel map. At approximately 7:45 p.m., during the presentation by Mr. Yamasaki, Mr. Master arrived at the meeting. Robin Lieter, Assistant City Manager, addressed the Commission and said that she met with Mr. Yamasaki and City Councilman Jess Perez earlier in the day and discussed, since this is the first project in the redevelopment area, what the City's standards are going to be in the area, what statements they want to make, and is this going to be done as a coordinated effort. She said one of their concerns Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Five in sending it to the Design Review Board is what standard they want to see throughout the project area--do they want a unified scene. On that-basis they listed about seven design features,. such as what. kind of streetscape; what are they looking for .from those blocks.; what types of uses are they looking for in lighting, signs, parking standards, etc.; what kind of buildings are they looking for; what kind of buildings do they want in what will be a multi-million dollar investment across the street as well as other adjacent areas; what about focal entry points--do they want some sort of a statement that says this is a different type of area than what has been seen in the past on Tustin Avenue, including landscaping and other design issues, etc. Ms. Lieter said that one of the things Counc~man~. Perez will suggest to the City Council is to look at design and devel- opment standards, either internally or by hiring a consultant. He feels that since this is the first project brought to the Planning Commission he wants to share his concerns before the Commission starts its deliberations. Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer, addressed the Planning Commission regarding traffic and traffic circulation both on Tustin Street and at and around the intersection of Tustin and Meats. He said the engin- eering traffic staff has analyzed what it feels can be accomplished on Meats Avenue. He said the applicant has made a substantial effort to locate the driveways in the proper location, counting the ones across from the mall, and that he has done access-wise on Tustin about the best that can be expected of him. Mr. Dennis said the problem to be worked out is on Meats Avenue. He said it is a two-fold problem, both in respect to the initial service of the proposed project and also a very strong relationship of the access on Meats in the face of the possible full redevelopment of the area northerly of Meats, coupled with certain restrictions that the. engineering staff has, namely the possibility of a future ramp con- nection to Meats. He said there are certain physical restrictions on Meats easterly of Tustin, the most prominent of which is the actual overcrossing of the freeway, which is limited to 40 feet in width and could accommodate a faster lane in each direction than its present service is providing. The traffic engineering staff feels that the ultimate solution--service to the total area--could best be achieved by the redevelopment of another intersection easterly of Tustin, similar in concept to the one shown to the immediate right on the map. However, there are certain problems in developing this type of an intersection at this time, namely the limitation afforded by the bridge and secondly (secondly only because the study has not yet been completed) the possibility of some pretty severe site restrictions for westbound traffic on Meats into the intersection. Mr. Dennis said that a compromise that would serve at least in the interim would be basically the relocation of the existing Meats frontage road to a distance approximately 90 feet to the east. This Planning Commission Minutes March 19,.1984 Page Six would give ample storage for left-turning vehicles entering the site, the relocation of this intersection would be served via a pocket that could be provided in this area, and the integrity of the Meats/Tustin intersection could be maintained by adequate pocketing for through eastbound traffic to southbound on Tustin. This particular relocation would involving moving the Meats frontage road from its present location to a point approximately one or two aisles up on Meats to anticipate what the engineering staff feels the demand will be, i.e., approximately 8800 trips per day to the shopping center, with 10% of the traffic on Meats, 5% on Meats to the left and the balance using Tustin, with the majority coming from the southbound direction. However, the staff is somewhat at odds with the developer because it feels that the protected left-turn movement at the Meats/Tustin intersection would also be a pretty good alternative for people util- izing the site via the protected left-turn move and into the site via the relatively lightly-traveled Meats Avenue access as opposed to the very heavily-traveled- Tustin Street access. They feel that this situation will tend to increase with the redevelopment of the mall and the gradual but nevertheless sure increase of traffic on Tustin, certainly from Taft north to Lincoln. The particular configuration does allow some rather strange things on the left side of the street, Mr. Dennis said, and "without going into detail, trust us in the sense that it could be implemented." He said that the map shows a 100-foot right-of-way street from the intersection westerly which will afford two through-lanes and north to the westbound right-turn lanes, initially a through eastbound road transitioning from an 84-foot roadway to a 64-foot roadway, i.e., two lanes to one lane to .one lane. Chairman Hart asked if he understood correctly that there would be a left-turn pocket and a right-turn pocket opposing each other essentially in the middle of the block. Mr. Dennis responded that this is called a full-level left-turn lane, similar to an installation on LaVeta at the Garden Grove freeway and Batavia. He said the pockets are not opposed, they are parallel-- starting from Tustin there is a left-turn lane on Meats to serve this parcel, the project area, and going westbound, there is a pocket immediately adjacent to serve Tustin per se. He said anything that occurs in the sense of a relocation on the north side of Meats obviously has to concurrently occur on the south side of Meats because of the proximity of the frontage roads. (Commissioner Vasquez asked a question which did not register into the microphone nor was able to be recorded by the secretary because he was facing the maps behind the Commission, with his back to both the micro- phone and the secretary, and spoke in a low voice to Mr. Dennis.) Mr. Dennis answered Mr. Vasquez' question in the negative and said that with the relocation, in the opinion of the staff, the residual of the frontage road could be given to the property owner; concurrently, Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Seven although he would have to maintain a driveway access to this site, there is a right-of-way trade-off for this parcel that goes up to it. The staff doesn't feel it is denying anybody access and very possibly they are increasing the overall circulation and improving it. Mr. Johnson said the first attempt of the Engineering Department was to try to establish a concept which would take care of both the interim and ultimate situations. He said one of the very important things in the ultimate condition is that they believe the mobile home park and other areas to the north are going to develop and the very limited access to the mobile home park just about precludes it from having an additional major entrance on Meats Avenue. He said their ultimate goal in the direction of future development anticipated to take place is to presently establish cooperation between the current developmen t and the mobile home park so that driveway could be shared in an ulti- mate condition. Consequently they want to come up with something that can be used in the interim but ultimately must be resolved because the alternatives will not be satisfactory. Commissioner Master said it seems there are so many contradictory issues and things yet to be established, and questioned whether or not is isn't premature to try and make a decision at this point. Chairman Hart said it is his understanding that it is the concept the developer is really looking for now, with the final nuts and bolts worked out by the City staff and the applicant. Bert Y.amasaki said it is their understanding that the developers would like to have concept approval at this meeting. He said that if the Commission feels strongly about some of the issues that were raised, they should perhaps be transmitted to the City Council which intends to look at this proposal the following evening at its meeting. He said the Planning Commission should make a recommendation either to 1);use an interim scheme, or 2) require the ultimate development, or 3) don't do anything at all, and that-would be all the Engineering Staff would need to work out the details with the developer if he agrees to the conditional approval. He said all the engineering staff is asking is that the Commission evaluate the issues raisdd in the staff report and the presentation made by the applicant and then transmit its feelings after it hears the two sides and send its recommendation to the City Council for .the next evening. Todd Ridgeway, representing Santa Anita Development Corporation, the applicant on the site plan, addressed the Commission, after posting a site plan map on the wall behind the Commission. He said he also had a conceptual parcel map with him and asked if that would also be discussed at the meeting. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Murphy if the Commission would be hearing the parcel map at this meeting and Mr. Murphy responded no but the staff felt that since the plan submitted by Santa Anita Development Corporation did not contain any parcels, Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Eight there should be something at the meeting indicating their location. Chairman Hart said he believed the parcel map would be another issue and requested that Mr. Ridgeway discuss the plot plan first, with the possibility of discussing the parcel map afterward. Mr. Ridgeway stressed that Santa Anita Development Corporation is at the meeting to obtain a conceptual site plan approval. He said he felt that some issues need more definition and if it can be obtained from the Commission at this meeting, then Target as the major retailer and Santa Anita Development Corporation as the developer, have other concerns that may make the development restrictions unacceptable, so there are some issues that must be addressed. He said the first one is the irrevocable offer by the developer regarding the adjacent parcels. He said Santa Anita Development Corporation will not control that. He said the portion that exists behind the two bank buildings will ultimately be a separate parcel belonging to Target. The access points on which the City is requesting the irrevocable offer will be on either Target's or Western Federal's parcels, so he cannot address that. He can say that Western Federal has objected to it and Target has representatives at the meeting in different capacities who will later address it themselves. He said he had commented in a meeting he had with the City Manager and the Community Redevelopment Agency that if indeed that were to happen, he as the developer would want to put a limitation on the adjoining uses if that irrevocable offer were ever made, not unlike what they might have in their reciprocal easements agreement. They would not want the other parcels to be either a theatre or some intense office use, something that would not be beneficial for the shopping center. From the developer's point of view that would be acceptable but the developer doesn't control the other parcels. Mr. Ridgeway said that a parcel map is an integral part of the devel- opment as far as Santa Anita is concerned as the developer and Target is concerned as the major tenant. He said that in southern California parcelization is used either for financing or leasing or separation of ultimate developments. He said that the parcels that have been proposed are self-sufficient in the sense of parking, i.e., that there will be adequate parking provided for each parcel for each building. In refer- ence to Ms. Lieter's comments about the standards for the project area, he said he has not seen or had benefitting of reading Councilman Perez' letter and doesn't know what those standards are, but certainly they should give more definition to the area, which they all need, because they are concerned that if the standards are left too vague there will will be a problem in controlling the overall cost of the development. Mr. Ridgeway said the last matter of present concern is an important one--the Meats Avenue ingress/egress. He said that Santa Anita does not agree with Bernie Dennis in that the City perceives that they need a left-hand turn lane into the shopping center off of Meats to accommodate the traffic coming from the north. He said Mr. Dennis explained that there would be 10% of the overall traffic coming to Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Nine r the shopping center off of Meats and into that 10% he has factored that traffic which is coming from the north. Mr. Ridgeway said he felt that that should be discounted but didn't know to what degree. He said it is their experience from designing and constructing shopping centers that people will use the closest access point visible to them, and therefore_he feels that people coming from the north southbound on Tustin will use one of the two full-service left-hand turn lanes off of Tustin rather than going to the intersection of Tustin and Meats, and this will certainly mitigate the effect that the Traffic Engineer anticipates for Meats. Mr. Ridgeway said the overall development would be an integrated 122-acre center which incorporates the existing Western Federal building, the now vacant Imperial Bank Building, and it is his understanding that Western Federal is attempting to market that building as an office or for professional use, and want to control the use of that building to protect their own financial institution. The major tenant is Target which is new to California in the last couple of years. Target is a quality, upgraded, discount department store which he feels will revitalize the entire commercial Tustin/Meats area. He said-the developer will spend about $15,000,000 at this corner and the projected retail sales from Target alone, not including other uses, would be about $25,000,000. He said there is an underlying agreement between Western Federal, Target and Santa Anita to integrate the center, and he pointed out on his map how the quality of the center will be improved by their proposed landscaping. Commissioner Mason asked Mr. Ridgeway what he meant by "compatible" when he referred to the irrevocable piece going around their property, end„what he would consider to be ipcompatible. Mr. Ridgeway responded that that would include another discount store other restaurants or financial institutions, and a theatre, the latter of which would definitely encroach upon Target's parking area. Darrell Kramer of Target Stores addressed the Commission on who and what Target is. He said that Target Stores is the largest operating company of the Dayton-Hudson Corporation, and both Target and Dayton- Hudson have earned the respect and admiration of most major retailers in the United States because of their committment to quality and good citizenship. He said Target's high-volume, low-margin formula places it squarely in the discount store segment of the retail industry, and Target is most often described within the industry as an upscaled discount store, a label that reflects its high-quality merchandise and clean, attractive stores ,as well as the discerning customers it attracts .who see it as an alternative to a number of retail formats including department stores, mass merchandising chairs, specialty tores, catalog stores and other traditional discounters. -Above all, Target is a total value store, the best place to buy high-quality merchandise at prices and surroundings that make shopping a pleasant experience. He went on to describe the type of merchandise that is stocked by Target Stores. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Ten Mr. Kramer went on at length to explain Target's high Standards of development philosophy to ensure that each new store is developed to fit and blend into the community, saying that Target typically goes beyond the requirements of the City on landscaping, screening, parking, maintenance and all other aspects of the project which are visual in nature. He said the Dayton-Hudson Corporation is one ofi~only a handful of companies in the United States that backs up its commitments to the communities in which it does business by contributing 5% of its~~pre-tax profits to community improvement projects. He said Target encourages its employees to become involved in the communities and they require their managers to do so, and they do this because they believe in it. The Target good citizenship equation is commitment both to their check- book and their people. Mr. Kramer thanked the Commission for the opportunity to inform it about Target and said he felt most of the issues can be resolved, namely access off of Meats and parking and traffic circulation. He added one minor concern regarding the access to their properties from the north and east and that is in addition to being concerned about the uses (their desire for no theatres and non-retail), they feel it should be recognized that what they are being asked to provide is a road to adjacent properties, and roads wear out and therefore Target would be placed in a position of maintaining access to adjacent properties. Consequently he feels there should be a mitigating condition placed upon this that in the future whoever would develop those properties would have to share in the maintenance of the roads. He said that while they are asking for concept approval, they would like to have the City, except for the access on Meats and some minor things, also give site plan approval. He said they can deal with some of the architectural items and can come back with a proposal that will be satisfactory; in fact, they .can get started on some of those items at this meeting, but one of the critical things in this project is cost since this is a very expensive piece of land and any one item could throw it over the fence for them. There- fore they would like to have as many answered questions or as few unknowns as possible before they leave Orange. They are perfectly willing to return to Orange before the end of the month to meet with the Design Review Board or the City Council again or to do anything they might have to do with the staff to resolve and at least minimize the unknowns to the greatest degree that they can, because they have to close on the property at the end of the month. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Kramer what is the size of the Target store at Harbor and Chapman. Mr. Kramer responded that he doesn't know for sure, probably 100,000 square feet, which is the standard size for their stores. He said the one proposed for Orange is a little larger because of the extended front end. Commissioner Vasquez asked if Mr. Kramer was hoping to get an approval Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Eleven of the site plan at this .meeting and Mr. Kramer responded that it was. Chairman Hart said that Mr. Kramer had made reference to costs and deadlines and therefore he wished to inform Mr. Kramer that the Planning Commission is not involved in those things, it is up to them to decide only the planning aspect and the advisability of a project being allowed to continue in that respect, and since this is the first project in which the Commission is involved in the redevelopment area., it is very conscious of not making any mistakes. He said his main concern is for the architectural treatment of the Target Store, pointing out that he and other members of the Commission aren't happy with some of the illustrations and also some of the existing Target stores. Mr. Kramer requested that Raquel Rudquist, one of the architectural staff of Target Stores, be allowed to show her concept for the store planned for Orange. Ms. Rudquist addressed the Commission, showed her plans, and said they intend to have the building compatible with other buildings in the area. She discussed the proposed metal canopy for the entry area, keeping the precast concrete material on the build- ing, keeping the center brown band which is the Target image, intro- ducing glazed brick and the in the entry area, keeping the light color for subtlety, adding trees and other landscaping, providing a barrier to screen noise from the loading dock, etc., and answered questions from the Commission. regarding particular aspects of the proposed building and its construction materials. Mr. :Yamasaki pointed out that the object of this meeting is for the Planning Commission to evaluate the staff report, evaluate the materials and presentation made by Target, and make a report and recommendations to the City Council for its meeting the following afternoon. He said that Target Stores had reaffirmed its position at this meeting, i.e., that they need some kind of preliminary approval as to the site plan and would like some sort of perimeter placed upon potential costs to them in terms of what might be expected of them as to landscaping, architectural accoutrements, entry design, enhancements, etc., so if the engineering staff could be informed as to the Commissions` wishes, it will transmit them to the City Council for its meeting. Commissioner Vasquez addressed Mr. Dennis and said in the course of evaluating this project and trying to get a grasp on how the Commission is evaluating, he is wondering how the engineering staff is calculating or measuring the volume of traffic that will be using Tustin Street. Mr. Dennis responded that basically what they do is take the traffic development and through some established generation rates both published and used pretty widely by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and as a multiple of the square footage come up with what they feel is a very good approximation of the total generated traffic on a daily basis for certain types of development, and this particular Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Twelve development was figured using the average of a number of studies done by ITE. What they will do is accumulate the traffic that occurs in the function of the redevelopment within the project area, .not only of Target but also of the mall, and advise the Commission and the Council as these traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the particular streets in the study area. One of the objectives in the redevelopment area was that some rather specialized treatment be given to certain key intersections in the area and the Meats/Tustin intersection was one of those. As the intersections typically indicate the flow of traffic on the streets involved, by enhancing the intersections per see, they can improve the circulations on the two, three or four. streets involved. They figure that with the redevelopment of the area and the total development of the four corners at Meats and Tustin, they will end up with new travel lanes in each direction, dual left- turn lanes, right-turn lanes and bus space. Once they explained their problem to Mr. Ridgeway and to Target, they indicated their willingness to make the additional dedication. Commissioner Vasquez asked if Mr. Dennis was indicating that based on the development that is proposed, the area had not. reached the thresh- hold that will required the major modifications that are planned. Mr. Dennis responded that they anticipate that these major modifications will occur as a function of development: for example they know that these improvements can be implemented on this, the northeast corner, they are certain that they can be achieved on the northwest corner, and they have other developments proposed within the redevelopment agency which can be done gradually or if need be can all be done simultaneously. However, at this point in time they are not actively purchasing rights-of-way to make improvements but will do it in most cases as a function of redevelopment. Chairman Hart said that in regard to Mr. Dennis' statement about requiring dedication, he believes that Mr. Yamasaki made some refer- ence to a disagreement on dedication of right-of-way on this particular corner. Mr. Dennis said he believed he could clarify that: the concern was less with the dedication but more as to who would fund the improvement costs associated with the redevelopment of these rights-of-way. Thomas A. Bonneville of Target Stores Real Estate Department addressed the Commission and said that Target has said it will dedicate land if it is needed for these uses but they are asking that the City or Redevelopment Agency pay for the improvements. Chairman Hart asked what is the policy of the City on this since the developer is normally required to pay for the improvements. Ms. Lieter responded that this is the first request the City has had Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Thirteen to make outside improvements and said there are difficulties on the east side because the power poles would have to be relocated. She said a-memo has been sent to the City Council asking them to set a policy because the improvements done on this property would set a precedent. Commissioner Vasquez asked if the plan includes or if there has been a discussion on underground utilities, and Ms. Lieter said there has been no discussion on that so far. Commissioner Mason asked whose approval is needed to move the entry on Meats. Mr. Ridgeway said he reviewed that issue with Mr. Dennis and tried to explain why their opinion was different from his. He said Mr. Dennis was focusing his attention on the traffic coming southbound on Tustin and it is the developer's opinion that that traffic will turn into the center off of Tustin and .not go to Meats. He said they would like to cooperate and work with the traffic engineer as best they can but they feel the relocation of that driveway on Meats causes them on-site concerns and it's a focus of attention that has been given too much attention; therefore, what they are asking the Commission and the Traffic Engineer to do is reassess the traffic that will continue to Meats rather than turning into the shopping center off of Tustin. He said that secondly on the request from the CRA for participation or payment for the off-sites, all off-sites, that decision was made after careful consideration because of the very high costs for this development. They are being asked to dedicate land that is very expensive and also to dedicate it would cost some compromises in their site design. He said he understand from conversations with the redevel- opment agency that there has been a movement in the City fora major overhaul of the street patterns from Lincoln to Katella and that those would be funded by tax increment dollars from that land which is redeveloped, and he submits that there is a substantial tax increment for what they estimate to be about a $15,000,000 investment on the corner and they ask that this be taken into consideration. Mr. Johnson said he wished to mention something that probably should have been explored earlier as to the questions of additional dedica- tion being an encumbrance and a hardship and that is that there are some trade-offs here that should be recognized and that's the fact that if that access road were moved to the east side of the property then the frontage road would be excess property and at least a portion of it could be abandoned to somewhat cushion the so-called hardship for providing additional right-of-way. He said he didn't know if Mr. Dennis explored that with developer or not. Mr. Dennis said he had not had any conversation about that. Mr. Ridgeway said he doesn't know what direction the City is going Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Fourteen to take but Santa Anita really doesn't want that moved,. and secondly, if it is moved and there is excess land, it would be inefficient parking because it is behind the restaurant building and behind their pad and it's a long way from the front door of Target, so it doesn't do much for them and although it might allow them to pump up the square footage it would be a very minor amount, Even so, if it were somewhere else it might be a benefit but right now the benefit is far outweighed by the overall expense and inconvenience to the on-site considerations. Mr. Dennis said that they based their use of Meats primarily on certain experiences they had immediately across the street. He said that those who are familiar with the mall would recognize that fact that although the mall has access points along Tustin, including a signalized entry, Meats Avenue to the west is very heavily used; for example, there is over a 5,000 car a day traffic volume differential between Meats east of Tustin and Meats west of Canal. That traffic, although there are accesses from Tustin, has a variety of reasons to use Meats. They don't feel that Target will be much different and maintain that the people who become familiar with a particular area will take the. means that affords them the least resistance and if Tustin appears too cm~owded they wi11 use Meats. In discussing this access with Mr. Ridgeway', he indicated that Target has a particular emphasis on the front of its building, i.e., the large Target symbol and the concentration of activity on the corner. He said it would seem reasonable that this entry could be modified to make the Meats entry also a similar focal point to that one that one that weuld be propsed on Tustin, and they don't feel-that the easterly move of the driveway would preclude this from happening, and that in fact this might be enhancing rather than limiting the exposure. Commissioner Mason said she concurred with this and that in fact, when she comes to Sears from the south she does use Meats herself and she certainly finds that very acceptable, plus the fact that she likes the idea of having another access off of Tustin Street: because she feels that Tustin is becoming overburdened and I'd like to see that if a development does go in there we have addressed that issue off of Meats. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Ridgeway what his concept is in terms of the balance of the development, specifically tenants and the west front. Mr. Ridgeway responded that he wished he knew, but he did say that there are about five major restaurants that are making deals for major corners and they are all high end restaurants, although some people's idea of high end is not the same as others. However he knows it will be some type of major dinner house with quite a bit of activity. He also commented on Commissioner Mason's remark regarding her use of Meats when coming from the south, pointing out that the concern is not with people coming from the south, who can easily turn right into the site but with the traffic from the north that will have to make a left turn. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Fifteen Mr. Ridgeway also commented that in terms of dedications on the north- east and northwest sides, obviously where they are developing and there can be a dedication, apparently the City is working with the Newman Britton group and that can be accomplished. On the southwest corner there is a Mobile station and he said he is under the impres- sion that that will close shortly and perhaps the City will have an opportunity for three of the four corners. Chairman Hart said the Commission is being called upon to approve in concept or approve in concept with strong suggestions as to what it would like to see. He said he has Councilman Perez.' letter and it is not specific.; he wrote in generalities and they are all pertinent but not specific. If the Commission would like to be specific it can at this time. He said he is not real thrilled with the architecture. Commissioner Vasquez said he thinks the project in and of itself raises a real serious question and .that is overall the idea of redev- elopment was conceived and embraced--for lack of any other way to describe it, there needs to be a definition of what kinds of pieces that should fall into this puzzle of redevelopment which other commun- ities have obviously experienced and it does create a hardship with those who are landowners along the corridor, and he feels that defin- itely an overshadowing concern is what the Commission really considers to be redevelopment and what conception it thinks should go into that redevelopment corridor to make it a redevelopment project. He said that on .the surface it would be easy to argue and say that (and he pointed out that he was using this as an illustration and certainly no criticism of Target or any other businesses on Tustin and they may not appreciate the comparison and he apologized if it's a bother) we have K-Mart just four or five blocks south on the same side of the street and although he grants that this appears to be much more attractive than the front of K-Mart, nevertheless the whole concept and the whole idea of having another store of that size and that magnitude just a few blocks from another corporate citizen of the community that has been there for a long time, whether that really fits into the overall picture of the master plan of what redevelopment is all about, and he would raise that as a concern and it doesn't specif- ically or necessarily apply to the Target Stores .but I think it's a concern that needs to be at least put on the record because the Commission will continue to experience the uncertainty of well does it really meet the spirit of redevelopment, is this what is intended. He said he thinks another concern that he would like to indicate is that of traffic and he feels that in spite of reports and the Institute formulas that are used, personal experience tells him to believe that this will obviously add and he thinks that the adjustments and modifi- cations that are going to be made to Tustin Street should be given at least a little higher priority as~it begins to unfold. He said feels also that underground utilities are something that should be a part of all discussions on projects that .have been committed to redevelopment because that's a big issue that a lot of communities Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Sixteen have faced when they've gotten. into redevelopment and this certainly is a strategic corner, so that ought to be a part of the overall examination for redevelopment of that area. Without getting specific, he things there are some communities that are going to undertake some major underground projects and there are funds available under certain conditions to do that, so he feels that should be a consideration. Commissioner Master said he has problems with the development because he thinks it is a fragmented development. He also questions as to whether or not this fits into redevelopment and said it is unfortunate both for. the developer and the Commission that there is no standard for redevelopment by which to measure. He said that Councilman Perez is .concerned about standards but nothing in the redevelopment .action establishes any standards. He said he is uncomfortable with the over- all plan and can't accept the concept. He said it is rather fragmented, not quite a checkerboard, but with the problems of traffic ingress and egress, dedication rights, proximity to another parcel behind it that may be developed for some commercial purpose, etc., and to say that the Design Board will take care of things, getting together with. staff with take care of dedication rights, Council will make decisions, etc., olicy that is to be made by this first development there's so much p that I don't feel comfortable with it. Commissioner Vasquez said he feels that if these problems are not addressed the Commission will be at this point time-and time again because .not knowing the intent or the spirit of the redevelopment project makes it very difficult to make a decision regarding. a site plan or a conceptual idea. Chairman Hart said he feels this situation places the developer in a no-win situation because the Commission wants him to conform to some standards but it doesn't have any standards to which he can conform. Commissioner Mason said she agrees with these remarks but feels it is unfair to the developer. Chairman Hart asked Ms. Lieter if she is aware of any long-range planning that will be going on regarding the types of developments that the City expects to be in this corridor. Ms. Lieter said the City has spoken to the Council regarding setting some standards but no formal action to do so has been taken. Chairman Hart said he wonders if it would be proper to refer this to the City Council and request that it tell the Commission what it wants. .Commissioner Master suggested that whatever motion is made at this meeting regarding this project should be followed by another motion regarding the setting of standards for future projects. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Seventeen Mr. Minshew suggested that the Commission send the City Council a list of its concerns regarding standards. Chairman Hart said that Councilman Perez listbd in his letter the standards that he would like to see taken care of, but they are in generalities not specifics. Commissioner Mason pointed out that Ms. Lieter mentioned hiring a consultant to get the criteria for redevelopment and consequently she is wondering what happens if the Commission approves this project and then it doesn't meet the standards suggested by the consultant. She asked if the City was definitely planning to hire a consultant. Ms. Lieter said that at least some of the Councilmen are in favor of setting some development standards. However, the present problem is that this developer wishes to go forward and cannot wait until some future date when standards may or may not be set, which leaves the developer in a sort of limbo. Commissioner Vasquez said he is beginning to gravitate to the position that this matter be sent to the City Council with the qualifying state- ment that in view of the .absence of any criteria with specific guide- lines, the Commission is not in a position to make a recommendation. In other words, the Commission cannot either approve or disapprove but can refer this to the City Council accompanied by a no-position. state- ment to the effect that in the absence of standards and criteria it was not able to arrive at a decision. In fact, Commissioner Vasquez feels it is out of the Commission's purview at this time to arrive at a decision. Mr. :Yamasaki, said he was hoping that at a minimum the Commission might be able to give the Council some hint as to the validity of the issues that were raised by Target and the staff report. He feels that if that could be done, then perhaps the Commission might make a no recommendation comment to the City Council about this development; i.e., is the issue of traffic and access valid, is the issue of a highlighted entry important to the Commission, perhaps the Commission might take items which are in the staff report or those which the applicant has raised--at least there would then be something to transmit to the City Council from the stand- point of the areas of concern. Chairman Hart said he really believes that the issue of traffic is a problem that should be resolved by the Traffic Engineer and he feels the Commission will take Mr. Dennis' word as to the traffic situation. So, if the traffic problem is discounted as an issue, is the issue then only the problem of the Target Store itself? Commissioner Vasquez said he feels uncomfortable saying that he cannot support this project because that is not the kind of store he wants on that corner, but on the other hand he does feel somewhat lost because he doesn't know how it is all supposed to fit together. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Eighteen Chairman Hart said he personally doesn't find the Target Store per se a problem. He likes the ideas of $25,000,000 a year in sales on which the City will receive some income because the redevelopment has to pay its way. However, I feel pressured because we have to make a decision right now and I don't feel I have enough information to do so. We're still in the mechanics of redevelopment and no one has any standards for us and we don't know what is expected. He said he thinks the Commission needs. some direction. Commissioner Master said he feels the Commission shouldn't be picking the type of development because without some guidance as to how this fits in as part of the overall scheme for redevelopment, the Commission is going to be setting a precedent now, and then the next one that comes up will say "I want one just like it" and then the Commission will say "look what we've created." He said he thinks the idea of passing this issue to the Council is very valid. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, that 1) the Commission go on record as indicating that the concerns indicated in the staff report are legitimate, appropriate issues that need to be clearly addressed, 2) the Commission cannot take a position for or against the conceptual plan based on the lack of criteria and knowledge of development standards, and 3) the Commission incorporate the comments previously mentioned, i.e., traffic, underground utilities, and devel- oping a set of development standards or criteria in order to offer more specific direction. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master, Vasquez. NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart asked if it would be possible for some of these issues to be answered by the City Council and sent back to the Planning Commission, and if they are would it be possible for the Commission to schedule another meeting this `month. Discussion followed on the possibility of another meeting during March, possibly tentatively setting a meeting for the evening of March 26. Chairman Hart said he was trying to accommodate the applicant if possible but after dicussion he realize this was not practical and it would probably be better to wait for direction from the City Council. Commissioner Vasquez addressed the applicant and said that as the maker of the motion it was not his intention to imply a rejection of the concept of the plan but rather that in order to act responsibly and provide the applicant with some guidelines it was necessary for the Commission to receive more specific directions. Mr. Bonneville said that they understand what the motion is about and what the concerns are and they are perfectly willing to meet again this month if there is a way to do it because they are very concerned as to whether this project will be go or no go. He added that although Planning Commission. Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Nineteen there isn't a yardstick for redevelopment right now because it is too early to have one, but it should be remembered that this is a Planning Commission and there is an existing yardstick of the City Planning Code, and he feels that the development does in fact meet all the requirements of the City Planning Code. Therefore, he feels that the Commission does have a standard and if this development were to be measured by that standard the Commission would find that it met-all the requirements and these requirements were used in the developer's planning of this project. Chairman Hart said he had no doubt that the project met the development standards under which the City is now. operating, but the Commission feels that there will be higher standards adopted for the redevelopment district and it doesn't know what those standards might be. Mr. Bonne- ville said he realized that and he hoped the Commission would act favorably toward this project because Target wants to do business in Orange. At this point, approximately 9:30 p.m., Commissioner Mason left. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Memo from staff on recent State legislation allowing large family day care homes in single-family residential areas. Mr. McGee addressed the Commission by giving a summary of the staff report. He said that prior to now there have been small family day care homes allowed, the intent being to provide sufficient baby-sitting during the daytime with the advent of so many families with both parents working. The State legislation is expanding that beyond the six children in a facility to twelve children in a facility and establishing some additional standards. The State legislation gives a City or County three options as far as a course they can follow: 1) they can adopt an ordinance or just say "yes you can do it" in specific zones, 2) they can establish some specific criteria and list the certain areas that can be considered, and have it allowed only in those zones and with that specific criteria, or 3) they can require a kind of a conditional use permit procedure to be used with the same kind of criteria to be reviewed. In the staff's review of this, the conclusion it has come up with is that the conditional use permit procedure really isn't going to provide any great assistance in improving the situation of these kinds of uses. The staff is recommending the second option, that some very basic criteria be set that the day care homes would have to meet in order to locate in specific area, and adopt that in an ordinance format, so that either they meet it or they don't meet it. The standards recommended by the staff is that the day care homes would relate to the spacing of facili- ties (a new facility could not be located closer than 300 feet to an already existing one), and~~to the hours of operation, noise levels and Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1984 Page Twenty parking restrictions set by the City. Chairman Hart asked if these day care homes would be allowed in R-1 single-family residential areas and was told they would. Chairman Hart asked if this was without City approval and Mr. McGee replied that the day care homes were licensed by the County not by the City, but that the City can set some standards for their operation and staff is asking for direction from the Commission as to these standards so it can proceed .with some sort of ordinance amendment. Commissioner Master moved, Commissioner Vasquez seconded, that it be recommended to the City Council that there be an ordinance amendment regarding large family day care homes in single family residential areas setting forth standards for the operation of these homes as recommended in the staff report. C AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, April 2, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.