Loading...
2016 - October 17 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 Minutes Planning Commission October 17, 2016 City of Orange 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the Study Session to order at 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director, said this was a chance to address some of the inquiries made by individual Planning Commissioners. Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney, provided the Commissioners with a handout from the California League of Cities giving a basic overview of Planning Commission duties and meeting procedures. He stated the City does not follow Robert's Rules of Order. He explained that the City uses the Orange Municipal Code which applies to the City Council under OMC Section 2.04 to guide the actions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Sheatz explained how procedures change over time. For example, currently public speakers are allowed 3 minutes to speak but the code states the time limit is 2 minutes so this falls within the discretion of the Chair. The practice is similar to City Council practices. Commissioner Correa asked if there were any plans to establish Planning Commission procedures. Mr. Sheatz said there were not any on the horizon. He said they were not bound by a specific set of rules and the flow of the meeting depended on the Planning Commission Chair. Mr. Sheatz discussed the result of a tie vote on a motion explaining the motion would fail. Chair Gladson was concerned when there is discussion of an item before a motion and a second has been made. She said there have to be rules to follow that show they are being impartial so the applicants don't think the Commissioners have already made up their minds. Mr. Sheatz had seen a procedure from another city where after the public hearing was closed, the Chair would ask if there were any further questions for the staff and if there were any further Commission comments (which could turn into a motion). After the motion and second, the Commission could discuss their position on the project. 1 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I Mr. Sheatz told the Planning Commissioners not to hesitate to call him if they have any questions or concerns. Chair Gladson said she liked the idea of having formalized steps for motions. Mr. Sheatz said the Chair should proceed by closing the public hearing; bringing it back to the Commission to ask any further questions of staff; asking if the Commission has any comments; making a motion and a second; and asking if there is any further discussion. Commissioner Correa asked what the legal ramifications would be if the procedure was not followed. Mr. Sheatz said it could result in not understanding the motion. The comments should not be morphed with the discussion. Mr. Sheatz discussed four additional issues: 1. Disclosure of applicant meetings — any Commission disclosures should be announced before the staff presentation because failure to disclose a meeting could become a due process issue. 2. Hot file — sometimes distribution of the material in the hot file can be controlled but not at other times. If information comes in the weekend before the Monday meeting, it should be emailed to the Commissioners by staff and placed in the hot file. If hot file information received by staff and the Commission arrives late or is too much to review, the item can be continued. 3. Appealable items to the City Council — everything can be appealed to the Council. 4. Amendments to motions — amendments to motions such as an amendment to an agreement, should be made as part of the motion. The Study Session adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 2 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I Planning Commission October 17, 2016 City of Orange 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 2.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Gladson led the flag salute. 2.3 ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. 2.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 2.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 2.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: 3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2016. Motion was made to approve the minutes as written. MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. 3 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I 4. NEW HEARINGS: 4.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0044 -16; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2987 -15; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0837 -15; DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4821 -15; AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0237 -15 — GLASSELL TOWNHOMES The applicant proposes to construct a new 40 -unit townhouse development within the Residential Multiple Family (R -3) zoning district. The application includes a request for a conditional use permit for an additional third story and minor adjustments to building setbacks and driveway length. The project also includes a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes only. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the project on September 19, 2016 and approved the project. Action on the Tentative Tract Map was inadvertently omitted from the action. The item is coming back before the Planning Commission to address the map and amend the previous approval to a recommendation to the City Council. LOCATION: 2830 N. GLASSELL STREET NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15332 (Class 32 — In -fill Development Projects) because the project meets the following criteria: a. The project is consistent with the existing General Plan designations, General Plan policies and applicable zoning designations and regulations in that the intended townhouse use is a listed permitted use consistent with the intent of the land use designation. b. The project is in the City on a site less than 5 acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species in that the site is void of any vegetation or landforms. d. The project has been evaluated for significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality and no significant effects have been identified in that: • A traffic analysis (on file) was performed and showed no impact • Noise levels will fall below mandated levels for residents and surrounding properties • Air quality guidance thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality Management District would not be tripped, and 4 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I • A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan has been approved e. The site would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services in that all services exist to serve the site. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 18 -16 recommending City Council approve construction of a 40 -unit, 3 -story townhouse development. Discussion: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director, explained that this item had been before the Planning Commission on September 19, 2016 in which the project had been approved. At that time a piece of the entitlement had been omitted from the hearing which was the Tentative Tract Map which required the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council. Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney, indicated he had several conversations with the attorney representing the applicant. The applicant's attorney did not feel the item needed to come back for a full review by the Commission. Mr. Sheatz explained that the Tentative Tract Map required the approval by the City Council. Commissioner Correa asked if he could still vote on this item since he was absent at the September 19 meeting. Mr. Sheatz said he could. Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. The Commission asked staff what the difference was between a townhouse and a condominium. The applicant who spoke on behalf of the project was Daryl Sequeira. Public Hearing was opened. There were no speakers. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission thought the entire project had not changed except for the subdivision and the only change in their action would be to recommend City Council approve the proj ect. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 18 -16 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 0044 -16, Conditional Use Permit No. 2875 -15, Major Site Plan Review No. 0837 -15, Design Review No. 4821- 15, and Administrative Adjustment No. 0237 -15 for the construction of a new 40- 5 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I unit, three -story townhouse development at 2830 N. Glassell Street, incorporating the minutes from the Planning Commission September 19, 2016 meeting and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA: MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I 4.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3000 -16 AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4851- 16 — RAPIDS EXPRESS CAR WASH The applicant proposes to construct a new 4,914 square foot building and related site improvements to establish an automated, express, exterior car wash. LOCATION: 2045 NORTH TUSTIN STREET NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because it consists of the construction of a new, small ( <10,000 SF in urbanized area) structure zoned for each use, not involving the significant use of hazardous substances, where all necessary public services are available and where the area is not environmentally sensitive. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 22 -16 approving the construction of a new building and related site improvements to establish a drive -thru car wash. Discussion: Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. She stated that Condition No. 8 in the draft Planning Commission Resolution was included to address any potential issue with vehicle queuing and on -site circulation. The Commission had questions for staff on how this project did not fit the typical parking parameters for existing car washes; on the vacuum stations; on the location and amount of noise generated by the blowers; if the patrons would stay in the car while it was being washed; if some of the parking spaces would be for employees and what would be the reason for a patron to use a parking spot; on the circulation between the adjacent properties and any agreements between the three properties; on the south property line getting a new landscape edge; if the east wall would remain and if there would be any headlight issues; if the lack of a reciprocal parking agreement with adjacent properties would be an issue; and if the two previously approved CUPs for the property, which included an ABC license and a donation trailer, could affect this project. The applicants who spoke on behalf of the project were Geoff Von Der Ahe, owner /operator of Rapid Express and Ulises Araujo, designer. Mr. Von Der Ahe explained what a typical customer would encounter on the site. He said there would be a concierge who would manage traffic, monitor trash and loud music, and ensure customers continue to move on their way. The Commission questioned the applicant about the amount of time a car would be in the wash tunnel and how that related to the queing study; if he foresaw any problem with 7 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I crowding; how loud music would be controlled; how gray water and water stains on the glass would be handled; the amount of time needed to wash a car, concern with vehicle queing potentially backing up on Tustin Street and how that would be handled; how many employees would be on site at all times and what their positions would be; if any of the existing trees would remain; and if the applicant had similar operations in the area. Mr. Araujo explained he has been designing car washes for the past 10 years. He discussed the importance of having a long queue. The Commission asked if the applicant would be able to handle the additional patrons waiting for the vacuum stations. Public Hearing was opened. There were no public speakers. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission commented that Condition No. 8 mitigated vehicle queuing and on -site circulation issues and if any problems did occur, the City could step in. It also voiced concern that the report stated 120 cars could be processed in an hour. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 22 -16 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3000 -16 and Design Review No. 4851 -16 to construct a new building and related site improvements to establish a drive -thru car wash at 2045 N. Tustin Street, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA: MOTION: Commissioner Simpson SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 8 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I 4.3 MAJOR SITE PLAN (MJSP) NO. 0849 -15, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3002 -15, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) NO. 1843 -15, AND DESIGN REVIEW (DRC) NO. 4838-15 — VILLA FORD The applicant is proposing to remove two existing one -story service buildings (a combined total of 22,670 square feet), construct a three -story parking structure and service /inventory building consisting of 126,470 square feet, and expand the existing dealership building by 2,290 square feet. LOCATION: 2250 NORTH TUSTIN STREET NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1843 -15 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines (Exhibit B). The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21 -16 approving the removal of two existing service buildings for replacement with a single three -story parking and inventory /service building, and the expansion of existing showroom area at an existing auto dealership. Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. He explained how the loading zones do not meet the dimensions specified in the code and that it required a conditional use permit. He stated that the lighting aspect of the parking structure would go back to the Design Review Committee for approval. The Commission asked staff if there was adequate parking on the site; if staff received any public comments on the project; if only the lighting issue would go back to the Design Review Committee for approval; if there was any off -site overflow inventory parking; and a discussion for the benefit of the Commission about why this project was not exempt from CEQA. The applicant who spoke on behalf of the project was Casey Griffin. He explained that the proposed parking structure improved the current parking conditions which will now accommodate employee parking. The Commission asked the applicant about the benefit of additional service bays, and noted the northern edge of the site lacked maintenance and looked tattered. 9 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 t Public Hearing was opened. There were no speakers. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission commented that traffic jams have never been seen at Villa Ford and thanked them for that; that the parking structure was going to be an enhancement; liked the structure and the color blends; thanked staff and the applicant for a nice project; suggested during construction that the applicant meet with the neighbors; and commended the applicant for solving an on -site parking issue. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 21 -16 approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1843 -15, Major Site Plan No. 0849 -15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3002 -15 and, Design Review No. 4838 -15 for the removal of two existing service buildings for replacement with a single three -story parking and inventory /service building, and the expansion of existing showroom area at an existing auto dealership located at 2250 N. Tustin Street. MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 10 Planning Commission October 17, 2016 I 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, November 7, 2016. MOTION: Commissioner Correa SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. 11