Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE ORANGE, CA OCTOBER 4, 1982 MONDAY, 7:30 P.M. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the minutes of September 9, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20, 1982: Commissioner Coontz pointed out that on page 21 of the minutes, the tally of the vote on the motion fora moratorium on signs and banners had inadvertently been left out. She pointed out that the vote had been unanimous. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the minutes of September 20, 1982, as corrected. D City of Orange Orange, California October 4, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 1982: AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITH DRAWN: ZONE CHANGE 973, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1221, AMENDED EIR 721 - SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LOUIS KENNEDY: AYES: NOES ABSENT: A request to change from the R-M-7 (Residential Multiple-Family) District to the C-2 (General Business) District and to exceed the building height for structures in the C-2 District when built within 120 feet of a residential district, to permit construction of a 750,000 square feet of office space in four office buildings and an eight story 2,215 space parking structure on property located on the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue (2125 North Tustin Street). (NOTE: Supplemental EIR 721 has been prepared for this project.) Mr. Murphy explained to the Commission that the applicant has re- quested a withdrawal of the entire package at this time. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to withdraw the application for Zone Change 973, Conditional Use Permit 1221 and Amended EIR 721. Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1982 Page Two Commissioner Coontz brought to that the Staff had suggested a situation in Orange and thought at the end of the agenda. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: L-J the attention of the Commission study of the possible high rise perhaps this could be discussed VARIANCE 1701, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS NUMBER 82-10 AND 82-11 - LE BLANC AND ASSOCIATES, INC.: A request to provide less than the required off-street parking fora redeveloped industrial complex, to consolidate lots under an existing structure and to relocate a lot line on a vacant parcel to create a parking lot on land located 210 feet deep north and 627 feet deep south of Palm Avenue and west of Lemon Street, extending to a point approximately 480 feet easterly of Batavia Street. (306 through 600 block of West Palm Avenue). (Continued from the September 20, 1982 hearing.) (NOTE: Negative Declaration 781 has been filed in lieu of an Environ- mental Impact Report.) ~,. Jere Murphy explained to the Commission that the Staff has prepared a set of revised conditions for the application, which are a significant change from the original special conditions. He pointed out that references to the requirements related to the railroad company are removed from the conditions. They have been modified to be more specific in nature and the Engineering Div. of the .Public Works Department has identified the areas to be replaced or reconstructed. Mr. Murphy told the Commission that-the applicant had called from New York today to say that he would not be at the meeting this evening but he was in general agreement with the revised conditions, as sug- gested by the Staff. Vice-Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Lou LeBlanc, 2207 Orangewood, Orange, for the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he concurred with what Mr. Murphy had stated. He had. reviewed the revised con- ditions with the applicant and he is in complete agreement. He expressed appreciation to the Commission that they had gone out and studied the site. Commissioner Master commented on Exhibit D, the rules and regulations, and wondered if Mr. Minshew had looked over this, as he felt that some of them overlap the conditions as set forth by the City. Mr. Murphy explained that the types of statements made in these agree- ments are similar to the CC&Rs on a private project and even go further than the city's requirements. He thought that these are very similar to what the private CC&Rs are. Commissioner Master wondered if some would be in conflict with what the city is asking and Mr. Murphy re- plied that he believed that both the city and the applicant have the right to review the projects and can both take action. in the way of regulations with regard to the property. Commissioner Master referred to Condition #11 with regard to security measures and Mr, Murphy did not see this as being in conflict. Mr. Minshew explained that he had not had a chance to review these conditions and did not care to comment on them. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1982 Page Three Commissioner Coontz felt that Commissioner Vasquez' idea to have a study session and her idea for visiting the site had worked very well to solve many of the problems. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 781. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve Variance 1701 and Lot Line Adjustment Numbers 82-10 and 82-11, subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1223 - FRED FIEDLER AND ASSOCIATES: A request to construct an automated car wash in conjunction with a self-service gasoline station and convenience store on land located at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Prospect Street. (NOTE:- Negative Declaration 778 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that the property is an irregular shaped parcel containing approxi- mately .5 acre of land located at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Prospect Street. The property is zoned C-1 and contains an idle service station. C] He explained that the applicant is requesting a conditiona] use permit to allow a car wash in the C-1 (Local Commercial) zone. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing gasoline station and replace it with aself-service gasoline station with convenience store in conjunction with an automated car wash facility. The car wash facility woul d be located along the south property l i ne with the entrance being located at the west property line and the exit on the east property line, leading through a driveway cut out onto Prospect Street. The car wash enclosure, when complete will be 18 feet wide, 54 feet long and 14 feet high. The convenience store, with cashier for the facility, will be located in a rectangular building of approximately 1222 square feet, situated centrally on the property. The gasoline pumps would be located in islands situated in juxtaposition (east and west sides) to the convenience store. The parking requirement for the convenience store is met by 4 parking spaces located along the north side of the automated car wash facility, meeting City Code. Access to the project is via four driveway cutouts (two on Chapman Avenue and two on Prospect Avenue). Mr. Lanz explained tha t a sound study was performed by John Hilliard & Associates, which concluded that the car wash facility would have a significant noise impact upon the residential property, but that the impact could be mitigated through the construction of a block wall sound barrier and the addition of sound insulation to the project. Specifically, the south wall of the enclosure should be built with 8" type A-1 Soundblox and the same materials used in U • Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1982 Page Four masonry block wall running from 5 feet west of the exit line to 15 feet east of the exit line would be required to reduce the air dryer noise to 67 dba at the exit (east end of the south property line). The study pointed out that without the air dryer the sound wall could be reduced to 8 feet in height. Additionally,the roof of the car wash facility shoul d be covered with plywood which is to be caulked and sealed with the side walls. The inside of the entrance to the car wash should be insulated as should the dryer intake fans. Mr. Lanz stated that the Staff has reviewed the project and has two concerns: (1) That the noise impact caused by the air dryer feature of the car wash is still significant to the senior citizen residential faci 1 i ty to the south of the car wash; and (2) that the 15.5 foot x 15 foot block wall necessary to mitigate the noise at the exit of the car wash, due to the air dryer, will create adverse visual impact upon the project site. Staff has concerns about the impact of the proposed facility on the community. However, because the applicant has met most of these concerns through a comprehensive noise study outlining extensive noise mitigation measures, Staff feels the proposal can be approved, subject to the 19 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Vice-Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Patrick Fiedler, 2322 W. 3rd Street, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he had gone over all of the conditions and agreed with the standard conditions. With regard to the special conditions, he would like to have the air dryer because it will give them a better car wash system. Jim Allay, 3350 Wilshire, Los Angeles, representative of Texaco, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that basically they have done a lot of research on these facilities, and they would be producing something short of an all-out system without the air dryer. Commissioner Vasquez asked how they arrived at the 8 am to 8 pm time as appropriate hours for the car wash to remain open. Mr. Lanz explained that this was applied to another car wash in Orange and seems to be appropriate. He pointed out that the noise ordinance cuts off at 10 pm but they have chosen 8 pm as a reasonable hour to close down. Commissioner Vasquez thought that the facility to the south of this proposed facility should have been considered when deciding upon the closing hour. Chris Berg, owner and operator of Casa Orange, a senior citizen rest home located adjacent to the proposed facility to the south, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He explained that they have 80 people residing at this home, whose average age is 78 years old. These people retire quite early, probably by 6 pm. He questioned the 8 ft. wall when their building is a two-story structure. He pointed out where the residence rooms are located, showing about 6-8 rooms which would have noise problems. They are very concerned about these rooms from a noise standpoint. They are concerned about the fact that their building is two stories in height and most of the noise mitigations are directed toward a one-story building.. He questioned the decibel level in the Staff Report. Mr. Berg said that they also vigorously oppose the air dryer, which they feel would be unsightly, as well as noisy. If it were possible to change the plan and place the car wash on Chapman Avenue he thought this would work better as far as their facility is concerned. • o Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1982 Page Five Commissioner Coontz asked what the zoning is for the senior citizen facility. She thought it probably is Commercial. Therefore, when the facility was built the knowledge was there that it was in a Commercial area. William Hudspeth, owner of a piece of property nearby, at which there is a car wash, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. He explained that he leases his land but does not operate the car wash. He pointed out that they went through this same problem with another situation about nine years ago. He is a senior citizen and understands how they feel. However, he was speaking from an economi c standpoi nt. He fel t that i f another car wash comes in, neither business will make it. Commissioner Hart explained that the i'lannitrg Commission is not i n a position to l imi t the competition and felt that b1r. Hudspeth should not speak to the economic aspect of the situation. Mr. Hudspeth then explained that he did not like to see ca.r washes anywhere because they are noisy and dirty. He felt that this was not fair to the senior citizens living next door. Mr. Fiedler addressed the Commission in rebuttal, expla~inirrg that when they positioned the car wash they located i t so that the exit is on the front of the building so that the noise would project out. Their system is completely self-contained and nothing can be seen from the street. Commissioner Coontz thought that the elevation of the structure would be helpful to the Commission in their de]~;berations, so the applicant explained that he had photographs in his file which could be given to the Commission to review. Rick Colen, 212 Huntington, Huntington°~ Beach, representing Hilliard & Associates, addressed the Commission, explaining that they had addressed thi~mselves to the noise level. The 8 foot wall was designed to deaden the sound. He pointed out that they had taken into account that on the adjoining building there were no balconies, only windows. The 76 decibel level which was referred to was a measure level and was only a reference level. They mitigated that level to meet the conditions of the noise ordinance. Mr. Fiedler then passed photographs to the Commissioners for their perusal. Commissioner Vasquez questioned with regard to the equipment to go into the project whether the equipment would be mounted overhead. Mr. Fiedler replied that this is a very small system which you would drive through and one cleaing arm. moves around the car and one moves around the top. Neither of these arms are attached to the building. He gave brochures to the Commissioners which related to the car wash itself. Commissioner Coontz asked if the applicant had any discussions with the opposing neighbor and he replied in .the negative. Mr. Berg again addressed the Commission, mentioning the fact that his facility is not in direct competition with the car wash. But the six rooms which would face it will probably have to be rented for less because they will overlook the car wash. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. • Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1982 Page Six ~-. Commissioner Master asked for clarification regarding the projection of the building being 14 ft. high. Further, in the report it states that the fence will be built to 8 ft. in height. Without the air dryer the fence can be 8 ft. in height. This was not clear to him. Mr. Lanz explained that the building itself if 14 ft. high and the extension beyond the car wash would be 15 ft. high and would extend 152 ft. beyond the car wash. In addition, it also overlaps the car wash by 5 ft. Mr. Lanz was asked to demonstrate on the plot plan what the elevation is for this structure, which he pro- ceeded to do. He explained that as he understood it, the wall would extend 54 ft. inside the wall of the main structure, as part of the main structure 14 ft. high. In addition, at the ceiling of this structure 3/4" plywood,. which is caulked and sealed to the wall on both sides would be added, in order to stop the flow of noise out through the top. If the air dryer were to be installed there would be a 152 ft. length of wall extended, which would be 15 ft. high, also extending 5 ft. back beyond the building itself. He then showed how the wall would be constructed if there were no air dryer installed. Commissioner Coontz asked what the distance is from the wall to the senior citizens' home and the answer was l0 ft. She then asked what the sill level of the windows was overlooking the car wash and Mr. Lanz did not know. Commissioner Vasquez had concern about the noise factor and the visual impact of this project. In view of the time and operation and type of operation, he felt it would create a difficult arrange- ment which compelled him to believe that this is not the best use of the site. Commissioner Coontz agreed with his remarks. She thought that perhaps there was a mistake in accepting the senior citizens' home originally in a commercial area and did not see the solution as being a great one. Commissioner Vasquez said that he has yet to see a self-service gas station that will not impact the adjacent area. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to deny the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 778. ~~ i AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz commented that this is another EIR which is a little confusing as to how it is checked. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to deny Conditional Use Permit 1223 for reasons as stated by members of the Commission. Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1229 - VIRGIL D. JUDD: MOTION CARRIED A request to convert an existing single family residence to an office use on land located on the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Jameson Street (1240 East Chapman Avenue). (NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review.) u Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1982 Page Seven It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to forego a presentation. Vice-Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Virgil Judd, 9091 Shelley Drive, Garden Grove, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he had no objections to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve Conditional Use Permit 1229, subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. L~J AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS: Commissioner Coontz brought up the Santa Anita/Kennedy application, asking for .discussion regarding a possible high rise study by staff. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to request that the Staff study the appropriateness of probable requests for high rise structures in the City of Orange, from the standpoint of adequacy of the circulation system, utility system, intrastructure support systems, as well as interrelationship with surrounding land use which might be seriously affected. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Murphy if this had to be a recommendation to the City Council and he responded that he did not think the City Council had to be involved. This could be a study between the Staff and the Planning Commission. Action by the Planning Commission would be sufficient for the Staff to go ahead with the study. Commissioner Master felt that the City Council should be aware that a study is being made. Commissioner Hart thought perhaps a separate memo should be placed in the Council's packets to this effect. AYES: ~ Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Bill Hoey, resident of the City of Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that several of the people in the audience tonight are concerned about future high rise applications. He commended the Planning Commission on their work and actions in these matters. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to be reconvened to a study session on Monday, October 25, 1982 at 7: 3b p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 4, 7982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez that this meeting adjourn at 8:30 p.m. on Monday, October 4, 1982 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, October 25, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, October 4, 1982. Dated this 5th day of Odtober, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. ~ I J e P. 1u y, C ty P nner and Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Orange. ^~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on October 4, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on October 5, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p,m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of October 4, 1982 was he]d. ^~