2013 - May 6 Page 1 of 10
Minutes
Planning Commission May 6, 2013
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESS
Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
All Commissioners present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
None
PLANNING MANAGER REPORT:
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated there was nothing additional to report.
Chair Steiner reviewed the appeal process.
Page 2 of 10
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 15, 2013
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the April 15,
2013 Planning Commission meeting as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 3of10
NEW HEARINGS:
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2887 -12; VARIANCE NO. 2221 -12;
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4660 -12; AND MINOR SITE PLAN
NO. 0713-12 — McDONALD'S RESTAURANT
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,665 SF McDonald's restaurant in order
to construct a new 3,796 SF McDonald's restaurant.
LOCATION: 606 N. Tustin
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) because
the project includes a replacement of a commercial structure with
substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 21 -13 allowing the
construction of a 3,796 SF fast food restaurant with a dual drive
thru window.
Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Gladson asked Ms. Nguyen if she could provide some further details on
the permit for the McDonald's, back in whenever that was, when the sign was
incorporated into the building's design plan for the freestanding monument sign. The
code must have changed to provide the sign with a legal non - conforming status.
Ms. Nguyen stated Staff found building permits in the file for the sign as the sign
currently existed; however, the entitlements were not located. Staff entered into a very
exhaustive search for dates from the 1960s to the1970s. Building permits were found and
therefore, the sign was legal. The codes had changed and there had been a major
overhaul of the codes in the mid 1990s and the allowable sign size had been reduced to 1
5'.
Commissioner Gladson stated that was a 7' reduction of a free standing monument sign.
There may be more questions about the new driveway and the requested variance
associated with that, and they might touch on that later. The variance for that was just 1'
or 2'.
f
Page 4 of 10
Ms. Nguyen stated it was 2', for a one -way drive aisle. The code requirement was 12'
minimum and the applicant was requesting 10'. There had been an opportunity for a
reduction in the landscape to accommodate a longer drive aisle; however, in trade and
discussions with the Traffic Division, they had felt that 10' would be adequate and
therefore the landscape setback had not been reduced. The landscape situation and
setbacks were important for future remodels along the street.
Commissioner Gladson asked if there was a code setback to the property line for a free
standing monument sign.
Ms. Nguyen stated 2'.
Chair Steiner asked on the legal non - conforming status of the signs, was that due to
reconstruction and building of a new McDonald's Restaurant?
Ms. Nguyen stated because the sign would be cut down and physically moved it lost the
legal non - conforming status.
Chair Steiner stated he was relieved that the sign had not been named an historic structure
and could not be torn down. It had been there a long time.
The original sign had been at that site since the 1970s, replacing the original sign.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to address
the Commission.
Jim Bickel, address on file, stated Ms. Nguyen had been fantastic through the process in
assisting them to shepherd a very difficult project. There were a number of challenges in
taking a very successful operating business that unfortunately had worn out its building
and try to keep the business running and conform to the modern world. They fully
recognized that the limit had been pushed for the number of variances that were being
requested. His team had worked very closely with Staff to mitigate as much as possible.
When dealing with WQMD requirements, ADA requirements and structural
considerations that the original building had not had to conform to made the re -build very
difficult. For all intents and purposes the size of the new building was the same size as
the existing building with the dining room being reduced in size. The reason for the
reduction was that McDonalds had recognized that the majority of their business was
brought in by drive -thru customers. It was a nationwide effort to provide a better drive -
thru experience for their customers and create less impact on the site and the roads and to
adapt to those needs. The proposal was for a side -by -side drive -thru. He had been
working with McDonalds for approximately 4 years and initially it was something very
new, but now more and more people had experienced the double drive -thru for
themselves and realized how nice it worked. The drive -thru situation allowed for a more
efficient drive -thru queuing, and to not have cars drag out into the parking lot and block
cars, or to have cars block cars when turning in from the street. Hopefully it was self
recognizable that there was a by -pass lane, a lane in front of the restaurant and the street
Page 5of10
which was very valuable to the patrons. As customers turned in off the street, if they
happened to miss the drive -thru or had a second thought about the drive -thru, it would
allow them to sweep back, swing around and return to the drive -thru without having to
reenter from the street. In an effort to alleviate traffic that design was being used. It
also helped with potential traffic hazard problems of someone turning out into the center
median, or even worse to quickly cut back across, which had anecdotally happened at
sites across the country. He was joined by various members of the McDonalds team
including the owner /operator and they were available for questions.
Commissioner Gladson stated the benefit of the review process for the Planning
Commissioners was having the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting.
The DRC had looked at the architecture and also the circulation at the site and the pattern
that Mr. Bickel had described with the sweep lane. There had been two Committee
Members that had been very concerned with the circulation and the use of the by -pass
lane. Those members had requested that the Planning Commission review that element
of the project. It was stated during the applicant's presentation that there were other
locations that the drive -thru and by -pass lanes had been executed successfully. She was
familiar with several of the Orange County remodels, but not certain if she had
experienced the sweep lane. She asked Mr. Bickel what the reasoning behind the use of
these lanes was.
Mr. Bickel stated in situations where there was a one -way aisle, he could not think of one
location which he had been involved in a recent remodel that had not used the by -pass
lane or sweep lane. In the Staff Report, traffic information had been provided along with
other Orange County McDonalds and West Covina data where the lanes were very
successful.
Commissioner Gladson stated she was familiar with the McDonalds at 17 Street in
Santa Ana that had a by -pass lane and she wanted to clarify that further, as it had been a
concern from the DRC. On the relocation of the freestanding monument sign, she asked
if there had been other alternatives for the location of the sign. It was proposed to be
located on the south edge and she asked if there was an option to locate the sign at the
north property line and reorient the motorcycle parking to south side. Had that been
considered? Her reason for suggesting that was that it could be a vertical icon or
identification. In driving south or north bound on Tustin, a sign could function as an
entry arrow or a way finding sign to designate the turn into the restaurant. Possibly there
was a barrier that the option for another location had not been explored. Some obstacle
and possibly the change of the sign's location could assist with having people going out
onto the north drive aisle.
Mr. Bickel stated the sign location had been studied extensively and to be honest, it had
been quite some time and he was not certain for the exact reason to not locate the sign at
the north. That option had been explored, but it had not proven feasible.
Chair Steiner stated the proposed project carried a lot of variances, however, what had
been presented by Staff provided him with a comfort level for the need for variances at
Page 6of10
the site. In discussing drive aisles that were 10' instead of 12', it was a situation that
Public Works had reviewed and they had not had any safety issue concerns with the
proposal and it presented more validity to the variances sought. He wanted to ensure that
the applicant was okay with the Conditions of Approval, all 68 of them. He asked Mr.
Bickel if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Bickel stated the Conditions of Approval had been reviewed and discussed with the
owner /operator of the restaurant and there was just one very minor change being
requested. For the undergrounding of the electrical components, it would be from the
power pole at the rear of the site to the restaurant; there was merely a language change
being requested to clarify the intent of the condition.
Ms. Nguyen stated Mr. Bickel was requesting modification of Condition of Approval No.
20. Staff suggested alternative language as follows at the end of the statement; the
condition currently read: "Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, plans shall
show that all utility lines shall be constructed underground, including areas of public
streets and easements, including power and communication lines from the Edison power
pole to onsite facilities ". Staff was suggesting a deletion of the second half of the last
sentence, to strike: "from the Edison power pole to onsite facilities ". With the addition
of the following language to replace the stricken text: "the utility poles along the west
property lines may remain above ground. However, utility lines from the pole to the
subject property shall be underground from the pole ".
Commissioner Gladson asked if the lines would run north/south.
Ms. Nguyen stated the power lines were currently on the west property line. They ran
overhead to the adjacent residences. What would occur was that the power pole would
remain onsite, above ground, with pipes running down to the ground, then run
underground on the subject property site to the new building. The utility lines from the
pole to the building would run underground. The power pole would remain above
ground onsite.
Commissioner Buttress stated the current site had power lines that ran over head and
what was being proposed would be that the new service would run underground from an
existing wood pole that would house the transformers with service lines running
underground.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Bickel if he was in agreement with the proposed change to the
language for Condition No. 20.
Mr. Bickel stated yes, he was acceptable of the change in language.
Commissioner Buttress stated the Staff Report was excellent and although there were a
number of variances being requested, the reasoning for those variances had been
explained very well and the reason that she had minimal questions.
Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 21 -13, approving
2887 -12, Variance No. 2221 -12, Design Review Committee No. 4660 -12 and Minor Site
Plan No. 0712 -13- McDonald's Restaurants written in the resolution and subject to the
conditions contained in the Staff report and noting the items categorical exemption from
CEQA, noting the change in language, as presented, to Condition No. 20.
Commissioner Gladson stated she was not a big supporter of variances; however, the
conclusions for the variances were grounded in good logic and good planning. She had
the most trouble with the very tall monument sign. It was quite large and quite tall, but
had believed that the sign carried a cultural identity. She would suggest for the
applicant's consideration that the site plan and landscape plan return to the DRC. That
would give the applicant a chance to explore the placement of the monument sign to the
north side of the property. In granting the variance, the sign would be legal and changes
could be made to the sign as long as the sign met the code and it would provide for
flexibility to play with the sign copy. This would be an opportunity to get the sign to
match up with the signs that were part of the sign program.
Commissioner Cathcart stated in the minutes from the Design Review Committee
meeting there had been a comment that there would not be a landscape architect on the
Planning Commission and he resembled that remark. He had not had an issue with the
tree variance or in saving the pine trees. He was pleased with the new trees that were
being added and he was looking forward to getting back to that McDonalds for his
quarter pounder with cheese.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 8of10
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2902 -13 — ORANGE EMPIRE
RESALES
The applicant is proposing to relocate their used automobile dealership to the industrial
district. A CUP is required for the retail sales and showroom of used automobiles in the
industrial district.
LOCATION: 1940 N. Glassell
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing
Facilities) because the project includes no expansion of the
existing building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 19 -13 allowing a
used automobile dealership in the industrial zone.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Stu Livingston, address on file, stated he was available for questions.
Chair Steiner stated he was pleased to understand that the present location would still be
able to be used by Volkswagen. Orange Empire had been in the community for a
number of years and he appreciated the business continuing on in the City of Orange.
Commissioner Gladson asked for some clarification on the photo lab?
Mr. Livingston stated the new storefront was the internet and the manner in which a
business's merchandise was presented on the internet was critical. The photo lab was an
area that the lighting was precise and the cars were run through an assembly line with a
screen set up and specific lighting.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action.
Chair Steiner made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 19 -13, approving CUP No.
2902 -13 -Orange Empire Resales, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report,
noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Page 9 of 10
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 10 of 10
(4) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Buttress made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, May 20, 2013.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 7:30 p.m.