Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/17/1988 - Minutes PC ,~«~, City of Orange 1, Orange, California February 17, 1988 Wednesday - ?: 00 p. m. _ ~ The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Scott at 7:00 p. m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Administrator and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Senior Planner; Joan Wolff, Associate Planner; Ron Thompson, Director of Community Development; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IH RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1. 1988 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of February 1, 1988 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IH RE: ITEMS TO BE COHTIHUBD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1636 - LA VETA LTD.: A request has been received from the applicant to continue the item until July 18, 1988. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue the item to the July 18 meeting subject to the re-advertising of public notice and the applicant's payment of fees for the re-advertisement. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS Chairman Scott requested, with the Commission's approval, that Item #11 be elevated to be heard prior to Items #3 and #4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~, Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 2 Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission advance the policy statement discussion on temporary parking standards to be discussed first as it pertains directly to Items #3 and #4. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ROES: Ilone HOTIOH CARRIED Commissioner Greek excused himself from discussion on Item #11 for potential conflict of interest, but will return for participation in Items #3 and #4. IA RE: MEW BIISIPESS John Godlewski presented Item #11 -- a staff assembled after the Commission's which they discussed various standards lots. Various aspects of development temporary lots have been assembled and statement. policy statement that study session in for temporary parking standards for are included in the Commissioner Bosch wanted elaboration on #4 - Fencing - ..,some consideration shall be made for common property lines with residentially zoned parcels. Parking would be a substantially different use than residentially zoned parcels normally requiring a masonry wall for separation. Mr. Godlewski stated the code requirement for a masonry wall would remain and should take precedence. Chairman Scott questioned B. for clarification on the appeal. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the Commission's appeal, it will be forwarded to the City Council. That was affirmed. Chairman Scott would like to add to the sentence under D. 2. - Pavement Section - as well as existing soil conditions. CTo be inserted after length of time.) Those speaking in opposition: Tom Beck, 2686 Sylvan Circle, addressed security fencing. He questioned if it meant temporary parking lots would have ® six foot fences in the City? Chairman Scott responded in the affirmative (within the front yard setback. Mr. Beck wondered why on a temporary parking lot there would be a fence and not on a regular parking lot. These are not `_ Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 3 storage yards; dust open parking used around the city. To require a fence is not really necessary. Chairman Scott responded that the fencing was required around a lesser use of zoning such as residential vs. parking lots, which is standard throughout the City. If there is a commercial going against a R-3 or R-2, it requires a six foot masonry fence by code. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of these policies as amended. (This includes additions of the Planning Commission action may be appealed to the City Council; adding the existing soils condition as a consideration for pavement; and clarifying the need for a masonry wall per existing development standards onto common property lines with residentially zoned parcels.) AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott HOES: Aone ABSEAT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting. I A RE : COHT I lYUED HEAR I HGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1642-88 - CHAPMAH COLLEGE: Proposed conditional use permit to establish a temporary parking lot for Chapman College on property located north of Walnut Avenue, between Grand and Center Street in the R-1 zone. ROTE: Negative Declaration 1196 has been prepared for this prod ect . (Continued from the January 4, 1988 and February 1, 1988 Planning Commission Meetings.) John Godlewski presented the staff report. The request is for a temporary parking lot on Chapman College property. It is surrounded by privately owned residential property. There is one single family home tucked between the temporary parking lot and the existing school property. There is one other parcel that is under escrow. Other than that, the parking lot is surrounded by college owned parcels. Chapman College is requesting use of the parking lot on a temporary basis until such time as the construction on site is completed and the Chapman College Specific Plan has been adopted. In that plan, they anticipate delineating the permanent long-term development of the College and identifying permanent locations for parking. The conditions `, Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 4 that have been included in the staff report originally with the submittal to the Commission two weeks ago, staff has included a statement that modifies those somewhat to reflect what was adopted in the policy statement for construction of temporary parking lots. The only changes to the statement are #6 and #8, which reflect the policy statement and use of temporary lights and the landscape setback requirement. Commissioner Greek asked if a grading plan was required and should that be part of the standards. Gary Johnson stated the grading plan will be required in conjunction with the placing of a temporary modular classroom. The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor: Tom Beck, 2686 Sylvan Circle, representing Chapman College, would like to propose that the surface of their lot be basically the type of thing they are currently using now, which is rolled and crushed miscellaneous with an oil surface of two inches. It seems the conditions on lighting, fencing are adequate, but that one condition they would like changed. If it is permissible on the setback to have a reduced setback when it is opposite college property. Chairman Scatt addressed the pavement conditions. It is not the Commission's place to try and predict the soil conditions and the pavement requirements. That is the function of the City Engineer's Office. Mr. Johnson said the only difference he saw between this parking lot and the ones that have already been approved for temporary uses is that this was not properly zoned for that particular use. He will treat them both the same way. Commissioner Bosch addressed the second request for setbacks: It is not only the property across the street they are concerned about, but also adjacent parcels at the edge. That was what was discussed at the previous meeting before the item was continued. The intent is if you have an adjoining piece of property that is residential and is owned by a party other than Chapman College, if you enter the ® setback adjacent to that, you are diminishing the value of the residential quality of residential life on that adjacent parcel. He believes the standard and condition are appropriate with the standard applied where you own the property across the street and adjacent; then you can relax the setback. 0 ~. Planning Commission Irlinutes February 17, 1988 - Page 5 Mr. Beck stated in this particular case (talking about the Center Street frontage) what property is considered ad3acent? All four corners at Center and Walnut are within the College ownership. As you proceed northward on Center, there is no privately owned property on the street. Commissioner Bosch stated according to the drawing they have, prepared by the Facilities l~isi.nagement Department at the College, the lot immediately south of the proposed temporary lot on the west side of Center Street is not owned by Chapman College. Mr. Beck asked if that property came within the ownership of the College, the Commission would have no objection to not having the setbacks? Chairman Scott said that was the condition. If they meet the requirements of the condition, it would be satisfactory. It was l~ix-. Beck's understanding that property is now in escrow. Mr. IrIcGee said the staff would with Chapman College and deal that piece of property. If it certainly authorize, with the reduced setback. The public hearing was closed. be more than happy to work with them in the ownership of meets the criteria, they can Commission's consent, that Commissioner Bosch stated with the revised conditions dated February 17, he believes the applicant understands the impact of that. He does not have a problem with the project other than the site plan they have before them does not conform to the conditions with regard to illustrating where the setback is and the landscaping. He is concerned in issuing approval that they are able to attach a means by which the Design Review Board or staff review this to assure that the conditions are accurately applied for the intent of the Commission before a permit is issued. Irir. IYIcGee believes the staff, through the finvironmental Review Board, will take a look at the revised site plan to ensure it's consistency with the standards and conditions. Commissioner Hart added they are not approving the site plan. i Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1642-88 subject to review of the revised site plan <by staff> to assure conditions are accurately applied before a permit is issued. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED I A RE : CONT I NUBD HEARINGS CORDITIORAL USB PBRI+IIT 1643-88 - CHAPMAH COLLBGE: Proposal to locate a modular classroom unit for two years on the west side of Center Street, south of Walnut Avenue. This item was referred to the Planning Commission by the Zoning Administrator. (Continued from the January 4, 1988 and February 1, 1988 Planning Commission M,eetings.> It was Chairman Scott's understanding that the temporary parking has already been approved on this item. The approval is strictly for the modular classroom for a period of two years. Mr. McGee stated that was correct. The public hearing was opened. Tom Beck, 2686 Sylvan Circle, representing Chapman College, is pleased this item is on the Agenda and they are in favor of it. This modular unit is tied to the completion of the Learning Center for two years. Their intent is not to keep the unit there for any longer than two years. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. McGee to red flag this request for a two year maximum time period. Mr. McGee stated it would be flagged. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1643-88 with the conditions as shown on the Zoning Administrator's memorandum of December 8, 198?. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott (TOES : Hone IrIOT I OH CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS Commissioner Greek excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. `_ Planning Commission 1[eeting February 1?, 1988 - Page 7 ZONE CHAHGB 1078-88 AHD COHDITIOHAL USE PBRI4IT 1624-88 - SAFT IAGO COIIMUA I T I ES , ORANGE Request to change the zoning on the property from R-1-6 (Residential, single family>, R-3 (Residential, multiple family>, M H (1+Iobile Home> and R-O (Recreation Open Space> to M-H and R-O. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a density bonus and a reduction of development standards to facilitate the development of affordable senior citizen housing. The subject property is approximately 100 acres in size, located along the southeast side of Santiago Creek, west of Prospect Street and north of Spring Street. ROTE; Supplemental Bnvironmental Impact Report 1171 has been prepared for this project. (EIR 1171 supplements information contained in the previously certified EIR 861 and documents anticipated impacts due to the changes proposed in the project.) Irix-. Ir[cGee prefaced the presentation with a couple of comments, This is a very large project and there are many issues involved. Some of the those issues are very large; some small. Staff is proposing to establish a two-step approval process to segregate the major issues out and get those resolved before the minor issues are taken care of. Staff proposes that a conceptual approval be given to the zone change and conditional use permit. These would deal with the major issues of the zoning of the site, the alignment of Prospect Avenue, the affordable senior citizen density bonus and the reduction of a defined list of development standards. Assuming that is approved, the next step would be a second series of public hearings to review a precise site plan, street abandonments, subdivision (the details of the project) that would follow. Secondly, an issue that has been listened to by City Council the last few weeks, has been one of haul routes and fill materials, moving of dirt on the public streets. This project does have a number of pits to be filled. There is approximately 80D,000 to a million cubic yards of dirt which does need to be moved over the public streets as part of the project. At this point in time, there is not a haul route established, there is not a duration for fill materials, nor is there a time of day schedule established. Those are details which would be considered as part of that precise site plan approval. Joan Wolff presented the staff report. In 1984, the City Council approved a request made by the Conrock Corp. to rezone the subject property from S-G Csand and gravel) to R-1, R-3, 1~[-H and R-O, and amended the General Plan to allow ~. Planning Commission 1~Iinutes February 17, 1988 - Page 8 low and medium density residential development on the site. Approved plans included a total of 650 dwelling units and a 12 acre park. Additionally, approvals included a trail and one acre rest stop along Santiago Creek, in accordance with the County's l~faster Plan of Regional Parks. Circulation was provided by an alignment of Prospect Street through the subject property, extending north from Spring Street and curving eastward to connect to Bond. The conditional use permit request is for a density bonus and a reduction in development standards, for the purpose of developing affordable senior citizen housing. As part of the conditional use permit, the Commission will also be considering the conceptual site plan, which indicates a total of 727 mobile home units, and the proposed realignment of Prospect Street along the eastern property boundary The proposal is for a manufactured home development, which requires M-H zoning. Out of the 100 acre project area, approximately 52 acres are proposed to be utilized for market rate, adult only housing 1425 units) and approximately 18 acres are proposed as senior citizen housing <302 units>. The balance of the project area is comprised of Santiago Creek, roadways and potential recreation/open space areas. The applicant is requesting a 34x density bonus and a reduction of certain development standards within the senior housing area; specifically, two units per lot and reduced street widths and perimeter wall setbacks. Approximately 18 acres at the southern end of the property are being offered for dedication to the City, for use as recreation/open space areas. The site plan labels these areas as park and Y1-[CA, though the Commission should note that the City .has not made a commitment to accept these dedications, nor made a determination as to ultimate use. If the R-O zoning is approved, uses will be restricted to park, or recreation or community center type uses. Another major feature of the project is the realignment of Prospect Street along the eastern edge of the project area. The proposed alignment differs from both the existing alignment and the alignment approved in 1984. A part of Santiago Creek is within the project boundaries, along the northwestern edge, and improvements are proposed as required by the City and County. The appl bonus of The City requires requests which he Lcant is requesting that the City grant a density 34x and a waiver of certain development standards. has an adopted senior housing ordinance which that in cases such as this, where a developer a density bonus which exceeds the 25x. bonus to is entitled by state law, the developer must `. Planning Commission Minutes February 1?, 1988 - Page 9 provide a certain number of the housing units at affordable rental rates. The ordinance requires that the developer enter into a formal agreement with the City which identifies affordable units and provides assurances regarding rent levels. Although the developer has indicated to the City an intent to provide low cost senior housing, specific assurances remain to be worked out, as are many details of the site plan. A supplemental EIR was prepared for the pro3ect, to augment information contained within the EIR certified for the project approved in 1984. The supplement discusses soil and earth stability, hydrology and creek improvements, land use compatibility issues, and traffic related impacts that may be anticipated due to the proposed realignment of Prospect Street and the project generated traffic. The EIR indicates that most of the anticipated impacts can be mitigated. The City's Environmental Review Board has reviewed the project plans and has expressed concerns regarding certain aspects of the project, particularly with regard to circulation issues. Of primary concern is the fact that although the developer proposes to realign Prospect Street, he cannot provide dedication of the full required width along the entire length of the proposed alignment. Therefore, if the project is approved, the city will be responsible for any improvements to Prospect Street within the 550 foot section between Bond and E1 Carmen, shown on the site plan as being outside the pro3ect boundaries. Another point which should be mentioned is that the Circulation Element of the General Plan shows a connection between Spring Street on the east side of Santiago Creek and Valnut Avenue on the west side of the creek. A portion of the alignment needed to implement this connection is within the project boundaries, and is located along the southern edge of the senior housing area within the proposed park site. Although the site plan does not indicate a dedication for roadway purposes, one of the suggested conditions of approval calls for such a dedication. It should be noted that if additional concessions are sought during review of the precise plan, a new conditional use permit may be required. ® Commissioner Hart said the proposed alignment of Prospect seems to be of some question as opposed to another alignment which shows Prospect dead ending on the upper end. He asked if that has been resolved at the staff level? Ms. Wolff said there are still concerns about the proposed alignment, the main one being the lack of provision for ~. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 10 dedication along that certain portion of road between Bond and fil Carmen. The school district and developer are coming to an agreement regarding the portion that is on school property. Commissioner Hart asked if the 80 foot street (shown on the drawing) would allow for two lanes in each direction? Iris. Wolff stated it would. That will be an anticipated issue in con3unction with the General Plan Update. There is a certain portion of the street that is designated as a secondary, and a certain part that is designated as a commuter street, south of Bond Street. The previous approvals Cwhen the roadway went through the project area) was for an 80 foot section. That was due to the traffic volumes that were needed to pass through there. How that the alignment is on the. outer boundary, there is a wider street section. That will need to be addressed in the General Plan Update. Commissioner Bosch is aware that this is not a precise plan, but a general plan and they still have the request for development standards related to the seniors use for the interior drives in the seniors portion of the project. The traffic study does not appear to address the queing or the mayor circulation internal to the site that would result from the entrance points and have impact in addition to fire safety requirements on the width of the drive. Has staff addressed that relationship? Mr. McGee said that has been reviewed at the finvironmental Review Board. At has been reviewed at this point in relation to access points on Prospect Avenue and their relation to site distances and curbs within the street. In terms of internal circulation, staff has expressed concern over how the pro3ect would function internally, but those are issues that would need to be resolved at the time of the precise site plan approval. Commissioner Bosch asked about the knuckling at Walnut, Swidler, Del Yalle, etc. He is concerned about the queing distances, site lines, etc. Mr. McGee said that has also been reviewed by the finvironmental Review Board. Mr. Johnson said they have looked at that situation and feels ultimately the re-alignment would provide access to the asphalt batch plant. The community would like to see Walnut eliminated as a through roadway. Planning Commission Iriinutes February 1?, 1988 - Page 11 Chairman Scott explained the public hearing procedure before opening the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. ~ Richard Simonian, ?63 Rodeo Circle, President of Silvercrest Corp., which has a subsidiary called Santiago Corporation. They have a joint venture with a company called Watt Industries. That company is a builder of stick built housing. They bought subject property from Conrock about seven or eight months ago and presently own the property now. They bought it with the present zoning with the intention of developing the property with the present zoning as it exists now. During discussion with the City, it appeared that there was the possibility of providing some senior housing units and some additional benefits to the City. Their company is a manufacturer of homes and manufacturing plants. A slide presentation was shown on manufactured housing. Their company is interested in the development of low cost housing and senior housing. They are presently supplying the City of Oakland units for low cost housing, which is turning out to be very successful. The market rate houses will sell for under X100,000. They are proposing 300 senior citizen units and asking for a density bonus on those units. One of the problems staff has is the reduction of the size of the senior citizens' street area to 26 feet. The Fire Department has concern with that. There will be no parking on those streets and they are proposing to put fire sprinkler systems throughout every house in the senior citizens area. They think that even though the streets are 26 feet in width, with no parking on the street and fire sprinkler systems, they can overcome the objections the Fire Department may have. They have looked at the alignment on Prospect Avenue and think the north/south alignment is a very good solution. In analyzing the prior alignment, they could not see putting a major street through the middle of the senior citizen housing. If they did, it would destroy the entire concept. The traffic studies for the manufactured housing development, which they propose to be an all adult development, <they have the right under the Supreme Court and the legislature of the State of California> would reduce traffic flow considerably from the zoning that presently exists to the new zoning. The number of persons that would live within the boundaries under the present zone would be approximately 2600. Under the zoning they are currently proposing that would be reduced to 1450. The traffic would be diminished because of this. They are proposing within the project to have a ?,000 square foot recreational facility which would provide recreation for both the seniors and market rate housing. They also thought the prior development was dedicating to the City for park purposes of 14.3 acres; they are now at a point where they a. Planning Commission 1~Iinutes February 17, 1988 - Page 12 can offer 21.5 acres of land to the City. They have agreed with the school district to transfer some properties to each other in order to bring the alignment into reality. Commissioner Hart was somewhat familiar with the Fairhaven property that was mentioned. He asked if l~r. Simonian maintained ownership of the land? Mr. Simonian responded yes. They are proposing to have a 99 year lease. That lease will go to each consumer and there will be a minimum rent increase of 3x and a maximum rent increase of 8 1/2x. It falls within the guidelines of all rent controls. The fluctuation between the 3 and 8 1/2x will be on the Consumer Price Index. Commissioner Hart asked about the senior housing being a straight rental? Mr. Simian responded that was a straight rental based on the market rate that they can come up with at this time. Should the City participate with them in any way, those market rates will be reduced. Those speaking in favor: Sister I(ary Terese, 480 South Batavia, says the pro3ect looks like a complicated issue. She would like the Commission to keep in mind the needs of the senior citizens. She was a member of the Orange 2000 Housing Committee and that Committee came up with the information that the City can expect 10,000 senior citizens living in Orange will not be able to afford to continue doing so. The opportunity for some affordable housing for seniors is something that should be considered. Chairman Scott received a letter in favor of the project from Mike Spurgeon, who served on the Housing Task Force. He read the communication for the record. Those speaking in opposition: Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 lIorada Drive, Orange Park Acres, had two questions: The Orange Park Acres Mutual Vater Company property; that piece of property produces 70x of the water for Orange Park Acres. Mill the City try and condemn their property? lir-. Johnson stated it was not the intent to condemn the operation of the well. Any re-alignment of the road will not adversely affect the well. Only the City Council could answer the question of condemnation. Staff believes the developer should be responsible for providing this additional width of right-of-way and improvement across the front of the property. ~. Planning Commission Minutes February 1?, 1988 - Page 13 Mr. Bennyhoff's second question: private? are the streets public or Mr. Johnson responded the interior streets are private. Mr. Bennyhoff asked who will enforce these streets; streets are not being enforced now. ~ihat assurance will be given to the area residents? Mr. Johnson stated the only enforcement opportunity the City has is in the name of safety and fire lanes. They don't make it a policy of going onto private property and citing people for violations within the private streets unless it is a safety violation. Mr. McGee stated staff has attached a condition to the plan that the City will enforce the parking restrictions on a private street on proposals in the past; however, it is very difficult to enforce that condition. Mr. Minshew inserted that on any private street where there are CCBtR's, it is a requirement they put in that the City has the right, but not the duty to enforce traffic. Mr. Bennyhoff hopes the Commission will take to heart the situation the Council finds itself on the Pennhill property regarding hauling of dirt. They should know up front that they are faced with many years of hauling; this should be considered now. Chairman Scott had Mr. McGee reiterate staff's conceptual vs. precise plans regarding the haul route mentioned at the beginning of the presentation. Greg Hannam, 3?06 East Del Valle, lives in the knuckle mentioned earlier. He was concerned about the traffic in his neighborhood. If Prospect is turned into a primary street, what will happen to the curve at Prospect and Collins and what about the speed limit? Mr. Johnson responded the condition of the roadway is a problem up at the curve right now at Collins and Prospect. Staff is asking that there be conditions within this development to further improve that radius. Staff believes this problem can be mitigated. Traffic flow in that area will need to be designed and accommodated in a safe manner. Mr. Hannam also asked about the triangle piece of property Cshown on the exhibit). It does not show .any activity; dust a vacant lot. He was curious what they proposed to build. Mr. McGee stated they have asked that question of the applicant and have not received an answer yet. Zoning on that piece of property is R-1-6 single family residential. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 14 Marge Meyer, 313 East Palmyra, commends the City of Orange +' for what they are doing about senior citizen housing. However, it has come to her attention that these units are being rented out to citizens of other states, cities. Why can't it be primarily for the people of Orange? Ron Thompson addressed that question and said the senior citizen housing lists are developed with the citizens of Orange and every effort is made to ensure that the citizens of Orange have an opportunity, but you can not discriminate against other people applying or moving into the units. You can not restrict it to "Orange only" residents because of Redevelopment Laws under the State of California require that 20% of any redevelopment project area be used to increase affordable housing. Julie Ketcham, 4003 E1 Carmen, believes the proposed re-alignment of Prospect is not only a bad idea, but would also pose a threat to the safety of her and her family. She spoke about the safety hazard of turning from Prospect in any direction onto E1 Carmen. She believes the traffic on Swidler will increase dramatically. Richard Gross, 535 La l~ae Circle, added a few more comments on using Swidler Street. The proposed YMCA will add more traffic to the area. Why can't the developer leave the proposal the way it was approved in 1984? John Martinez, 3345 East Vine Avenue, does not want added traffic either. The old alignment is better in his opinion. An east/west through fare is needed. Diane Jenkins, 362 Borth Swidler, is totally opposed to the new pro3ect. She is concerned as a parent of the traffic pattern that would change on Swidler Street. There have been numerous traffic accidents in the past at Swidler and Spring. There are so many children in the area that need to be considered. Robert R. Dalquist, 3340 Bast Collins, Arroyos Santiago Community. There are ?1 units in his townhouse community, of which he is on the Association's Board and spoke on the Association's behalf. He is opposed to the pro3ect because of the increase in traffic flow. Collins is an unsafe street now. Bast Chapman and East Collins are both overloaded with traffic. Eleven years ago they were assured by Conrock that this pro3ect was going to be developed into a park. They are very disappointed in what is developing there now. He shares the concern about fire in the area. Commissioner Master commented if the already approved project were to be completed, there would be a lesser density, but the traffic situation would still exist of about the same magnitude. Planning Commission Minutes February 1?, 1988 - Page 15 Commissioner Bosch concurs with Commissioner Master. He is ~"""'~, concerned with the traffic problem Mr. Dalquist spoke of and ~+' he suggested their Association work with City staff to mitigate that problem. Chairman Scott said any developer could come in and draw building permits on this parcel as it is presently zoned, which is for 650 units. Edward Albright, 642 Horth Glenrose, also spoke about the traffic problem and the two lane intersection. Traffic will automatically flow into the neighborhoods of existing young families. He favors the 1983 proposal. Jim Dykes, 621 Glenrose, spoke about the routes he takes to and from work. The traffic is terrible in the afternoon/evening hours; traffic will not get better, but only worse. He is not against senior citizens. Are the fire codes different for mobile homes than they are for structural homes? Mr. McGee thought the manufactured structures met the IIniformed Building Code and would meet the same fire standards. Mr. lYiinshew concurred. There are certain minimum standards that must be met. There are also some requirements in the Civil Code that apply to manufactured homes. Mr. Simonian responded there is no difference; the homes are built to housing standards. Joe DeCroix, 3?24 E1 Carmen, stated they are not "no growth" radicals. Mo growth is an economic disaster for Orange County, but it is easy to see why no growth is popular when you look at this project. The pro3ect was not planned. He read the 1983 Environmental Impact Report and asked what happened to that Report. Larry Milican, 628 Horth James, asked what kind of controls the developer plans on providing to only limit the residents to 1400 and if a younger couple moved in, would this mean they would be limited to not having children in the future. The Commission understood the pro3ect to only be a senior citizens development; however, the audience understood the pro3ect to include senior citizens as well as other adults. 1-Ir. McGee said the market rate housing development was "adult only". ~'lanning Commission Minutes February 1?, 1988 - Page 16 Mr. Simonian stated an adult <per state legislature) is '' anyone 25 years of age or older. In the long-term lease a clause is inserted for young families wha have children, they have three years after the child is born in order to ~` move out of the development or the eviction process will be initiated. Karen Campbell, 3401 Bast Vine, understood the protect to be "adult only". She thought by Federal law 18 was an adult. She wondered how the protect would be subsidized. Chairman Scott stated it would be subsidized through the 20x set aside funds of the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Campbell also wanted to know what was considered affordable; most senior citizens could not afford to live in Orange County. Ms. Campbell stated the public notice contained misleading information on senior housing. Marvin Kerbell, 3340 Bast Collins Avenue, was confused about the incremental approval proposed on the protect. If the Commission approves the mat or issues including the re-zoning to mobile homes; then at a later time, find that the developer does not meet requirements, are they stuck with mobile home zoning on the property? Chairman Scott stated the Commission will use the tool of "intent to re-zone", which means the intent to re-zone is if the developer does not meet the conditions, then the re-zone is cancelled. Mr. Kerbell also asked when the protect would be going before the City Council? Mr. McGee said that whatever action is taken by the Commission will be a recommendation to the City Council. It will be up to the Council to decide whether that decision is appropriate or not. The final decision will be made by City Council. If a recommendation for some type of conceptual approval were made, it would go to the Council in that form. A public hearing would be conducted and a determination would be made. A second round of public hearings with a precise approval would also entail a public hearing for the Planning Commission and City Council. Amy Giddleson, 3340 fiast Collins, addressed the curve at Collins and Prospect; it is extremely dangerous. She has nothing against senior citizens; she is concerned about fire safety for the seniors and the width of the private streets for emergency access. How long will the development take if approved? Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 17 Chris Kelly, 3704 East Walnut, spoke on the proposed street running directly into the high school. ' Mr. McGee defined the proposed alignment of Prospect swinging around the school; the access to Swidler would be ~" off of a side street. There would be some maneuvering to get from the Prospect alignment onto Swidler. Mr. Kelly's main concern is the amount of traffic that flows through the area now. With the traffic and noise property will be devaluated. Tim Kressen, 641 Borth James, is concerned about the permanent funneling of a four lane Prospect into two lanes. What is more important: To consider the inconvenience of those within the pro3ect or the danger and difficulty of the many outside the pro3ect. To bottleneck the area is not thinking ahead. A compromise should be reached. Mary Wood, 242 North Olympia Way, spoke about the traffic problem. She will be trapped in her neighborhood if the proposed alignment is approved. Tom Shober, 2607 East Walnut, asked what the Fire Department's recommendation or input was for the project? Chairman Scott stated the Fire Department did respond regarding this gro~ect. They indicated the proposed development will have an impact on existing fire prevention suppression and emergency medical resources. Chairman Scott read the memorandum to the audience. Mr. McGee said the Fire Department has reviewed the site plan. Again, it has been reviewed in a conceptual format only; therefore, all of the details have not been formalized. The Fire Department has expressed a concern about the width of the streets in the affordable seniors area being too narrow. Bob Curtis, lives at the corner of Bond and Prospect. He referenced the original Environmental Impact Report on traffic counts being taken at Chapman and Prospect. Mr. McGee said there were other intersections as well besides Chapman and Prospect that were discussed. Mr. Johnson responded to the different traffic counts that were conducted in the area. Martha Judd, 2919 East Hamilton Avenue, wondered if they were going to get a guarantee from the developer regarding the development being sold in the future? planning Commission Minutes ~. February 17, 1988 - Page 18 Larry Milican, 628 Aorth James, spoke previously. Made reference to the analysis report on the areas studied: Chapman and Prospect, Chapman and Yorba, and Prospect and Walnut. There was no consideration taken for the intersection at Bond and Prospect. Marilyn Everett, 3421 East Yine, would like to know what the land fill is going to be, how long it will take the land to settle, and why the change from housing to mobile homes? Will sinking occur? She feels this will devaluate her home. Ken McElfries, 624 North Heatherstone, mentioned the property is in a high flood plain. Approximately 1? years ago several homes on the west side of the creek broke off and washed down through there. If mobile homes are to be placed there, they should be built like boats. Thomas Hooper, 374 North Swidler, spoke on the realignment of Prospect burdening the existing neighborhoods. He is opposed to this. He does not feel they should absorb the excess traffic that is being created because of the seniors' new homes. Alfred Bonitos, 2525 Bourbon, favors the old plan and opposes any new plans. Paul Gresbrink, 3?22 East Sycamore, is concerned about the land fill sinking in. Someone is being taken advantage of, along with the residents who already live there. Dick Judd, 2919 East Hamilton Avenue, spoke against crossing Santiago Creek. His existing neighborhood cannot hold the traffic. This has been discussed several times. The alignment of Prospect should be left as it was with Conrock. If the developer sells, it will be a new set of rules. Norma Cullen, 2?7 North Olympia Way, talked about the traffic problem and children being hit while crossing the street. She addressed the zone change and does not believe adults only/senior citizens are best for the area; she prefers to see families living there with children. She objects to a fabricated home. She does not object to the senior citizen development, but asks that one be built that they can afford. Mr. Simonian responded to the neighbors concerns. They bought the land with the present zoning. The present zoning will allow 200 mobile homes and 450 other types of residential housing. The Commission will have to make a decision whether or not the plan Silvercrest is proposing to the City is better for the residents than what was approved in 1984. They have no objection to developing the project Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 19 under the plan of 1984, but they feel this plan is better for the City and neighborhood. He feels the neighbors have not spent enough time to look at the facts, traffic and what is going on. The all-adult feature is a part of the state laws and that is in the 99 year lease, which will be recorded and goes with the land. The size of the streets in this kind of development are all over everywhere. Senate Bill 1960 allows a 26 foot street for a senior citizens development. Silvercrest plans to build R-1 residences along with this development on that triangular piece of property. Two traffic studies have been made showing that the traffic count will be considerably less with an all-adult development, than it will be with a family development. He has no ob3ection to family developments. Whatever decision is made by the Planning Commission and City Council, they are agreeable to it; they do not have a problem with that. Traffic seems to be the mayor issue. The proper alignment of Prospect can be mitigated. Silvercrest is negotiating with the Orange County Water District to provide them with sufficient dirt out of the ad3acent area whereby they will be able to haul dirt from the ad3acent area onto the site without going on the streets. Commissioner Bosch stated the ma3or issue is the Prospect alignment, particularly with regard to the bottleneck that has been mentioned. What is the prospect of widening Prospect Street in the future? As an alternative, what look was made to aligning Prospect on the west side of that property to avoid the problem and relieve the traffic in the existing neighborhood? Mr. Simonian discussed with the Water Company purchase of that access. They have not heard from the Orange Park Acres Water Company about the purchase of that frontage in order to alleviate that traffic problem. Jerry Lindquist, 2428 Horth Grand Avenue, drew up an alternative plan that shows Prospect dust passing to the west of the Orange Park Acres water site. It is an alternate that can be presented for consideration. Commissioner Bosch would like to see further evidence on other proposed alignments to see which would be better. It is obvious and necessary to provide the full width as soon as possible to avoid the traffic congestion. lrir-. Simonian still allow them to move amount of time and concerned. needs a conceptual approval in order to forward. They have spent a considerable time is of the essence as far as they are C Planning Commission Minutes February 1?, 1988 - Page 20 Commissioner Hart did not hear Silvercrest say they couldn't ,,„.., build the pro3ect with the original alignment. He heard them say they could build their R-1 stick housing and also 200 mobile home units. Mr. Simonian's alternative is that if they go with the original alignment,. that will destroy the entire southern portion of what they have proposed to do. Should they come up with another alignment that will allow the southern development to remain somewhat as it is, there would be no problem. There may be other alignments that will work, but they don't know of one. If they have a conceptual approval of what they are doing, some other alignment could be worked on. If the alignment they end up with goes right through the middle of that property, it will destroy the seniors portion; there would be no necessity to give any more than the 11 acres to the City. Commissioner Bosch had a technical question about settlement. ~ihat steps will be taken to assure there will be no settlement? Mr. Simonian had both geological and soils reports made. Full-time soils engineers will be on the fob. That fill will be put down under strict supervision of soils engineers. All compaction will be 90~ or more. If there is a settlement, it will be an error of some sort. Commissioner Master took the two layouts that were in the packet and overlayed them for the alignment of Prospect. He does not feel it will destroy the senior citizens area. It is trading off one section for another. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hart was not sure what he heard from the audience. He would like to have senior housing in the prod ect . Commissioner Master thinks the desire for senior housing is strongly felt in general by the City. The City has opportunities to offset the cost of that by way of the Redevelopment set-asides. There is an offsetting balance that could still be worked out. He has a problem with saying "approve it in concept." He feels there is room for compromise. Commissioner Bosch feels the senior citizens housing is a very important aspect of what needs to be done in the City. He does not feel manufactured housing is an issue after seeing manufactured housing in the field. The opportunity to provide the senior housing relates to the density bonuses Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 21 and other development standards and the funding through Redevelopment set-aside funds in order to bringing the rates down for seniors. It is a fairly decent site for senior citizen housing given all sites in the City have some major problems with regard to traffic, access to facilities, etc. He also feels there is a win-win situation for the proposed project and realignment issue. Mr. McGee said under the intent to re-zone procedure to give the audience an idea of exactly what that means, it has been used in other situations where the Commission and Council have approved pro3ects using the intent to re-zone. Basically, it says "we approve it, but we want to see certain things take place before final action is taken." In this kind of situation, the things the Commission is looking for are certain ways Prospect could be aligned; that would be something they would want to see in a final form before recommending final action be taken on the zone change. Any form of criteria could be established by the Commission as conditions under which the zoning could be finalized. The Commission would have more of a direct control on the zoning. You do not change the zone until you get specifically what you are looking for. Commissioner Hart would like to see an alternate plan <not elaborate) or conceptual plan to look at that meet the objections heard. Mr. Simonian requested continuance until the next meeting and they will submit three alternative locations and give the public an opportunity to review them before a final decision is made. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue the meeting to March 7, 1988 to review the three alternate plans. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott HOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting. At this time, Commissioner Hart excused himself from the meeting. IH RE: HEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1652-88 - C 8t J INVESTMENTS: ® Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2-story duplex structure in the R-2-6 (RCD) zone on property located on the east side of Center Street between Washington Avenue and Palmyra Avenue (273 South Center Street). planning Commission Minutes February 1?, 1988 - Page 22 ROTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. John Godlewski presented the staff report on this item. The request is for a two story development in the R-2-6 RCD zone, which requires a conditional use permit approval whenever there are two stories involved. The surrounding land uses include both single family and two family developments with two of the parcels developed with two stories. Included in the staff report is a listing of other conditional use permits for two story development in the general vicinity that have been approved. The development meets all of the other pertinent code requirements for this type of construction and the conditions that have been included in the staff report are recommended if approval is given. The public hearing was opened. Casey Jurado, 4?5 South Olive, felt the land use is appropriate. The structure is within the Old Towne theme to blend with existing properties. They will utilize the property better by going two-story rather than duplex. Those speaking in favor; Raymond Nease, 415 South Olive, wanted to know when they were going to get started on the project. He has no complaints with the two-story structure. Those speaking in opposition: Jay Hickman, 265 South Center, was worried about the orientation of the building on a 50 x 135 foot lot. The entire structure will be along his south property line. He asked if the plans could be reversed and built along the other side of the property. The impact would not be as great. Mr. Jurado designed the project to face Center, leaving the original driveway approach in its existing location. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek stated the Commission's concern was for the two-story unit only; not the specific layout. Design Review Board will review specific site plans. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional IIse Permit 1652-88 sub3ect to the conditions in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTIOP' CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 23 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1655-88 - BRYON HASH: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of two, two story buildings on a lot that is surrounded on three sides with single story structures on property located on the west side of Hewes Street at the intersection of Washington Street C212 and 218 South Hewes Street>. NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Bryon Nash, 1202 East Seventeenth Street, X22, Santa Ana, stated this was a quality project of a two-story design. It is located in a redevelopment area and hopefully will set a standard for a quality project. Commissioner Bosch commented that Hewes was an arterial highway and there are certain restrictions on vehicular access to it with regard to backing or turns arounds on the site. This needs to be addressed as it may affect the density that the applicant has. Mr. Johnson said in looking at the site plan he does not know if the applicant has demonstrated that those cars backing out of the garages can turn around in the driveway to enter Hewes front first. Some maneuvering is required. As long as there is twenty-five feet between the garages, which it appears there is, then the cars could be maneuvered. Mr. Nash said the parking that is required for those units Cthe extra units in the back are additional parking spots); they-are not required in order to meet the parking standards. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1655-88 subject to the conditions in the staff report and ask that particular attention be directed to the Design Review Board and the City Engineer's Department with regard to the traffic circulation issue as they review the final plans. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ® NOES: Hone ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED "Planning Commission Minutes " February 17, 1988 - Page 24 e^-. I N RE : NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1654-88 - CLEMENTE O'MATTA: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a restaurant in the M-1 zone on property located on the west side of Batavia Street between Grove Avenue and Fletcher Avenue <2326 North Batavia Street). A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Richard Forney, 4000 Birch Street, Newport Beach, stated their restaurant is intended to be a sandwich shop to serve the workers in the industrial park. The applicant has no objection to the conditions. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master asked if the Negative Declaration approved for the site needed action to be taken for the particular application. Mr. McGee said no further action was required on this site. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional IIse Permit 1654-88 with the six conditions stated by staff. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Irfaster, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1656-88 - PAUL A. AHD JULIE DITGBH: Proposed Conditional IIse Permit to build a two story structure with garages underneath and two dwelling units above behind an existing single family residence on property zoned R-3 <RCD), located on the east side of Clark Street midway between Chapman Avenue and Almond Avenue C141 South Clark Street>. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Dan Ditgen, 304 North Pine, spoke on behalf of the applicant, who was not present. The applicant intends to 'Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1988 - Page 25 renovate an existing single family structure and add a two story duplex structure to the back of the property in conjunction with the R-3 zoning of the property. Commissioner Bosch stated the purpose of the conditional use permit was to determine that it will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or cause special problems for the area and was concerned about the balconies on the second floor that appear to have ma3or visual intrusion upon the neighboring residential yards and the entrance to the two dwelling units be at the extreme rear of the groperty behind the garage next to the back fence. He feels that would be a ma3or security problem for the tenants and thought there would be a source of ma3or impacts on the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Ditgen said entry is made from the rear private patios separated from one another. Privacy walls six feet extending both sides will be constructed to not have intrusion on either side. The owner is open to redesigning his plans if the Commission approves the project. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek stated the Commission should not be looking at site plans; however, he is not happy with these particular plans. He felt the second story was spreading everything to the maximum limits and questioned if there was adequate parking for the units. Mr. McGee told the Commission the parking requirement for this pro3ect would be two spaces per unit; six provided on the site plan as there are three units. Commissioner Bosch shared Commissioner Greek's concerns. He sees a lot of detrimental aspects to the plan. He does not have a problem with the two story at this site. He wished to deny the pro3ect without pre3udice or continue the item. Commissioner Greek suggested approving the project, but instruct the Design Review Board to work on the plans. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional IIse Permit 1656-88 subject to the conditions in the staff report; and add a condition sub3ect to submittal of a new site plan answering the concerns of access points, apparent overcrowding and over massing at the rear of the site with consequential intrusion to the neighboring parcels and to the concern of the arrangement of the parking and the Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 26 apparent excessiveness of paving on the site to the detriment of landscaping with the direction that those concerns be answered in a new site plan and addressed by the Design Review Board. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1086-88 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1647-88 - DON ADKINSON: Proposal to change the zoning from R-1-6 to C-2 on a 6,000 square foot parcel located at 130 North Bitterbush Street and a proposed Conditional Use Permit to permit a restaurant drive through window on property located at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Bitterbush Street (2401 West Chapman Avenue>. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1193 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Greek was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. John Godlewski presented the staff report. This project was before the Commission a few weeks ago. It is a redesign of the previous submittal and includes a number of changes. Primarily the biggest change is that the pro3ect now is incorporating the office building to the west. It is doing this by proposing to bridge the channel and use the bridged area of the channel as the drive-thru portion of the restaurant. The effect it will have will be to create a thru-traffic situation from the office building to Bitterbush Street across the north end of the site, as well as sharing the driveway that takes access onto Chapman Avenue. The re-zoning portion of the application concerns the parking lot area to the rear or north of the restaurant site. It is currently zoned R-1 and is being used as a parking area now. The re-zoning would clear up any inconsistencies and make the entire site a C-2 zoning. The conditional use permit portion of the application is to allow the drive-thru restaurant and an administrative adjustment is also required in that the final development as proposed is placed on a narrow site requiring a two foot difference in order to allow enough room for the cars to back up from the parking area. This two foot can be made up by overhanging the ten foot landscaped setback. The concept of bridging the Orange County Flood Control Channel and sharing the common driveway access with the neighboring `Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 27 property owner has been approved in concept by both Orange County and the neighboring property owner. Nothing is guaranteed by Orange County Flood Control until such time as they have an approved project. A number of conditions have been included to mitigate the impacts on the adjacent neighborhood including a six foot masonry wall across the north property line, charcoal filtering for the exhaust hoods from the restaurant and controlled noise levels on the outdoor speaker box that would be associated with the drive-thru portion. In addition, the street on Bitterbush will be widened in order to allow both a right turn and left turn lane southbound on Bitterbush. This would increase the traffic circulation and eliminate a bottleneck that could have occurred if only one lane. Commissioner Bosch made reference to a traffic study that was made concerning sharing of the driveway on Chapman and the impact of the current signalization and phasing of that signal on Chapman. Mr. Godlewski stated the traffic study was done with a different plan. The traffic study addressed a widened Chapman driveway, which was basically widened to allow a signal at that intersection. That is no longer a part of the proposal. Commissioner Bosch said there appears to be a substantial parking load in the office building parking lot that often exceeds its capacity. Has there been any discussion with the applicant relative to the adequacy of the parking standards established when the office building was approved? Mr. Godlewski could not address Commissioner Bosch's question; that would need to be referred to the applicant. The applicant's proposal includes one more parking space than is required by Gode. Commissioner Master commented it appeared the covered flood control channel would be providing additional parking for the office building. Asked about the circulation and the cars parked in the first two spaces north with a short S curve. 1Kr. Godlewski stated there was some inconsistency with the parking and access to the drive-thru restaurant portion of the site. That has been discussed with the applicant and he said those parking spaces would be used by employees so that they would not be backing out into the traffic. The public hearing was opened, Planning Commission Irlinutes February 17, 1988 - Page 28 John Murray, Carl Karcher Enterprises, commented on the staff report. Item 14, Page 4, indicates they are widening the west side of Bitterbush by four feet, but it is only two feet. The original plan they submitted indicated the width on Bitterbush from curb to curb was 30 feet. When they went back out and measured it, they found it to be 34 feet. They have a 34 foot wide street plus two feet, which then permits them to get the left turn lane on Bitterbush, as well as the other two travel lanes. On Page 5, Item 22, orientation of the speaker box oriented to the north -- it is significant that it is to the northwest. They are trying to direct it to the channel as opposed to the property to the north. Item 23, indicates total parking provided by the two parking lots would be 80 spaces and it is actually 88. Item 25, addresses the reciprocal parking agreement that they are signing with the owner to the west of them so that those 88 parking stalls are being used under a reciprocal parking agreement. Item 26, asking for an encroachment into the parking landscaped area: what was discussed with staff is that the area north of the driveway on Bitterbush; an ad3ustment can be made in the drive-thru and that landscaped area can be moved two feet to the west so that the need can be eliminated for an overhang. Item 13, Page 9, hours of operation: As a result of a meeting with the homeowners and talking with their operations director for the area, it was agreed to reduce the operation hours from instead of 6 - 12 midnight on Sunday through Thursday, it will be from 6 - 11. On Friday and Saturday, instead of operating until 2 a. m., it was agreed to close at 12:00. After the site plan was put together they tried to contact the people on the mailing list. A meeting was held to discuss the site plan on February 8. Seven homeowners were present at the meeting. The homeowners had suggestions and they have agreed, in conjunction with the meeting, to change the location of the trash enclosure and move it away from the block wall on the channel to those two parking stalls immediately south of it. Then put parking on the north line. They agreed to extend the six foot block wall to include the residential home that fronts on Donneybrook. The homeowners expressed a concern about cars coming up Bitterbush around the block and parking on the cul de sac on Donneybrook. They agreed that if the driveway access is not required by the Fire Department, they would be willing to put a block wall in there to prevent pedestrian traffic coming in off of Donneybrook. If, it turns out it is needed, then it could still be resolved by a combination of chain link fence and landscaping. There was concern about the traffic exiting out onto Bitterbush and to th e make sure they make a right turn only. If necessary, driveway could be widened and put a concrete raised median of some type that would force traffic to make a right turn. `Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1988 - Page 29 Concern about traffic going into the drive-thru queing in and blocking traffic; they propose to make the first three stalls "employee only" to prevent traffic from backing out. The driveway has been moved down and they propose to put a hedge in that portion of landscaped area, north of the driveway access. They have increased the size of the restaurant for two reasons. They have gained eight additional seats, which was important to them. They also added kitchen space tv make it more functional. Traffic circulation on the site was looked at by their traffic engineer. The best solution for the site was to do the work on Bitterbush. Commissioner Bosch was concerned about the hedge for landscaping vs. a block wall fence to assure that headlights would not shine across to adjacent properties. Mr. Murray stated it was staff's recommendation to use the hedge. Commissioner Bosch commented that the raised median and right turn is appealing. He wanted to know if their engineer looked at the specific concept of eliminating the access to the site from Bitterbush, allowing an exit only. Mr. Murray responded the feeling was that there was an advantage of having the driveway access ingress and egress on Chapman. With the original plan, the only way people could get off the property was on Bitterbush. ~fow, they can circulate through and enter and exit off of Chapman. Commissioner Bosch touched on the grill exhaust being a ma3or impact on the neighborhood. Is there something more specific that can be looked at regarding charcoal filtration that could be maintained and assure that problems can be minimized. IrCr. Murray said this was their concern also. This can be worked out with their operations people to the satisfaction of the planning staff. Those speaking in opposition: Melanie Diedrick, 205 Horth Flower, would like to leave the parcel as R-1-6 with the variance for parking and keep the front part commercial. The restaurant hours are dust too long. The people who live in the neighborhood are working people. They have to get up and go to work the next day. They need a good night's sleep. Before, the plan was too intense for the lot and neighborhood and it was denied because of the intensity. Tow it is a bigger building with .7 Planning Commission Minutes . February 17, 1988 - Page 30 more seating and more spaces with a shared parking lot. They have replaced a plan with a plan that has been increased. She has a problem with the parking. Property values are going to decrease. There will be additional parking, traffic, litter, smell and smoke pollution. The restaurant will be built at the expense of the neighborhood. Rich Costello, 139 Donneybrook, will be affected by the project the most. The speaker boxes are about 100 feet from his bedroom window. You can stick your hand outside his daughter's bedroom window and touch the fence. He does not approve of the proposed plan. Mayne Charles, 213 North Flower, is concerned about the traffic from the stadium coming back through on Orangewood onto Eckhoff, then down Maple to Bitterbush to get to the restaurant. Trash will also be a real problem. Mike Dorty, 130 North Flower, stated there is a traffic problem now. Police do not enforce the weight limit on the street. Noise will be a problem. He does not want trash in his yard from these fast food restaurants. Mabel Kontrie, 148 Bitterbush, is concerned about people parking in front of her house and widening the street. Many accidents occur on Bitterbush. Don Diedrick, 205 North Flower, pointed out if you look at the site plan itself, it is not substantially different from the site that was denied in October. At that time there was ample testimony concerning traffic, litter, loitering, noise, and parking problems. This is virtually the same plan. He does not see any reason why it should be approved. Dawn Frye, 158 North Donneybrook, is concerned about the lights, trash and the delivery hours of the trucks coming and going, and people parking on their street. Mr. Murray was dismayed with the responses of the public's input. He addressed each of the concerns and stated they are trying to mitigate the problems. Commissioner Bosch said the primary reason Mr. Murray was at th h in isn't that he is roposing a restaurant on the e ear g p site; it's the drive-thru window. The zone change is collateral, but there are ways to approach the parking. It is the drive-thru that has been included under the conditional use permit approval requirements of the Ordinance because it can have excessive impacts on the neighboring land uses in the area. That is still his primary concern. It appears the drive-thru window and the •` Planning Commission Minutes ~ February 17, 1988 - Page 31 traffic circulation on the site, the minimization of landscaping, the access points revolve around trying to get the most efficient drive-thru operation possible. The source of irritation in the neighborhood is the traffic from the drive-thru window and the trash that originates from that drive-thru window. He has not heard why a drive-thru window operation should be approved for this specific site and configuration. Mr. Murray explained the advantages of a drive-thru restaurant; less parking stalls are utilized. The configuration is common practice. The queing of cars going through the drive-thru was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and their consultant. Queing requirements are different from other fast food restaurants. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master echoed the same sentiments as Commissioner Bosch. He does not feel any different about the current layout than he did about the first one. The project is too intense for the site. Chairman Scott agrees with Commissioner Master's statement. Commissioner Bosch stated the impacts the drive-up causes will be made more damaging by the sharing of access and parking next door. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council not accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1193. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, faster, Scott NOES: Hone ABSBNT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner faster, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny Zone Change 1086 and Conditional Use Permit 1647. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, faster, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart POTION CARRIED Mr. McGee mentioned that a denial of a zone change action is a final action unless appealed to the City Council. There is a 15 day appeal period on this item. Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1988 - Page 32 IH RE: ADJOURHMBNT ' Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission ad3ourn to February 22, 1988 at 5:00 p. m. for a study session in the Weimer Room, with a special public hearing at 7:00 p. m.; then ad3ourn to February 23, 1988 at 8:00 a. m. for a joint study session with City Council. AYBS: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott HOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIBD The meeting was ad3ourned at 11:50 p. m. /sld ~i/ C