Loading...
2002 - November 4 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange November 4, 2002 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 23,2002 and OCTOBER 7,2002 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to pull the September 23, 2002 minutes from the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes from the September 23, 2002 with the following change on page 2, third paragraph adding the sentence "She also had concerns about left turn movements from the center median turn pocket into the Mall of Orange site ". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes from the October 7, 2002 with the following modifications: Page 3 under "Commissioner Brandman" delete the word have with trails and under "Commissioner Bonina" reword the first sentence to read "Asked of Mr. Brennan if the street design needed to be reworked or redesigned with the redesign of the trail". Page 11, under Motion No.5 the sentence should read: "The perimeter of the site from which the house will be removed shall be fenced off until the site is developecf'. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4, 2002 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2341-00 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-09 - THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (PACIFIC BELL) A request for a one-year time extension which allowed the expansion of a public utility building in conjunction with a reduction in front setback and parking space dimension requirements. Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2425-02, VARIANCE 2112-02, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 02-025 - IN-N-OUT BURGER RETAIL CENTER (PHASE I OF II) A proposal to develop a 2.2 acre lot by demolishing the eXlstmg Coco's restaurant and constructing three buildings in two phases for a mix of fast-food restaurants and retail spaces. The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial (GC). The zoning of the site is Limited Business - Tustin Redevelopment Project Area (C-TR) District. The site is located at 2585 North Tustin Street. This item was continued from the October 21,2002 meeting. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 36-02 approving Conditional Use Permit 2425-02, Variance 2112-02, and Administrative Adjustment 02-025. There was no opposition to this item, so the full presentation of the staff report was waived. Mr. Rice introduced the item. Sherman Jones, Associate Planner, presented a briefPowerPoint presentation. He explained this was phase one of a two phase development. The applicant was proposing to develop 2.2 acres with three buildings; Phase I would include an In-N-Out Burger restaurant and Phase II would include another fast food restaurant and a retail building. Phase I would also include demolishing the existing Coco's restaurant, landscaping and redesigning the circulation for the entire site. All of the development standards are being met except for the parking and the applicant is requesting an administrative adjustment of 8.5% or 2 parking spaces. There is a cross access and reciprocal agreement with Wells Fargo and Del Taco. A variance was needed for the 15 foot freestanding sign on Tustin Street. On September 4, 2002, the Design Review Committee heard this application and they recommended a metal seam roof. The applicant prefers a tile roof. Commissioner Pruett received clarification that the tile on the bank roof was Spanish tile. 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4, 2002 Mark Lamoureux, 402 W. Arrow Highway, #4, San Dimas, represented the applicant. The applicant had no objection to the staff recommended conditions. He clarified that the third building in the second phase will be a combination retail/restaurant. The flat tile roof was chosen because the DRC was recommending a standing metal seam roof so this was the compromise for a flat roof. The applicant had no objection to the Spanish style roof. This In-N-Out would have three grills, with one devoted just to the drive-thru lane which would move the customers through faster. Commissioner Romero was concerned with the circulation and asked if the drive-thru lane was per code requirements. Mr. Lamoureux explained that typically they propose a 10-11 foot wide drive-thru lane but the City required a 12-foot lane. He also mentioned that the turns in the lane are critical and bottlenecks occur but the way this one was designed it has approximately 20 feet between the inside curb and outside curb so extra large vehicles can make the turns. Their studies indicate that even during peak hours, they have the capacity to accommodate the vehicles. Mr. Lamoureux explained that there are two existing driveways on Tustin Street, the south driveway has full left tum and right turn movements and the north driveway has right turn in and right turn out only. They are not proposing to change this. Commissioner Brandman was told the landscaping in the drive-thru lane is open to the sky with low shrubs and to the east is an existing sound wall. She was concerned with the left turn out onto Tustin Street on the south driveway and wondered if the applicant had talked to Del Taco about the increased traffic on the north driveway. She would like to suggest having customers make a left hand turn at Heim instead of off Tustin Street. She would like to condition the project by making both driveways on Tustin Street right-hand turn out and right-hand turn in only. Commissioner Pruett was told all three parcels on the site have a legal reciprocal use agreement. Commissioner Bonina confirmed that Phase I includes all the landscaping, parking and improvements for the entire 2.2 acres. In-N-Out is a heavy user of parking so sharing this with two other re~taurants was a great concern to him. He did not agree with the reduction in parking. He was concerned about the concentration of traffic on the north driveway from customers exiting the In-N-Out Burger drive-thru and the Del Taco traffic which could generate heavy backup. He agreed the left hand turn on Tustin would be problematic. Mr. Lamoureux explained their proposed sign was 15 feet high, compared to the existing 12 foot Coco's sign. However, their sign is 12 feet above parking lot grade but since its closer to the street, it is considered 15 feet. This sign had been examined internally by the applicant's staff and they found it to be outside the line of sight. He further stated this sign was dedicated to the third building and not for the In-N-Out. The second drive-thru restaurant would use the bottom panel. There would be no freeway signage for the third building. The applicant was not sure what tenant would be going into Phase II and this phase would not be done when the In-N-Out was opened. Chair Smith had some serious concerns with the traffic circulation on the entire parcel. She stated there was not a straight-line entry into the drive-thru lane. She was glad to hear there was reciprocal use of all the parking. It appeared to Commissioner Bonina that if the restaurant/retail building was retail and not a restaurant, the area could be increased by 1000 sq. feet and that would take care of the administrative adjustment the applicant was seeking. 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4, 2002 Mr. Lamoureux stated that they are not looking for a McDonalds or hamburger chain in Phase II but perhaps a restaurant with different foods and peak hours. No one in the audience came forward to speak on this item. In summary, Mr. Lamoureux realized tonight that traffic circulation was a sensitive subject. He indicated that drive-thru lane use would be approximately 35-40% of the volume of business. They had hired a traffic engineer to study the circulation and their report said traffic circulation was adequate. This site has a longer drive-thru lane than any other in town. Commissioner Brandman was concerned about possible backup in the two parking areas and that more signage would be needed to direct the cars. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that they are satisfied with the circulation on and off the streets. The center drive aisle helps the circulation between this property and the other adjacent property. He also felt it was appropriate to allow for the left turn ins and left turn outs on the south driveway on Tustin. He would not encourage circulating all the traffic to Heim because it would add to congestion. He would agree that both Wells Fargo and Del Taco should be consulted on any change in circulation. Commissioner Pruett would like to see only one drive-thru sign on the south side of the parking lot directing traffic to the drive-thru lane. He stated that in Phase I there was more than sufficient parking but was uncomfortable approving Phase II not knowing what was going to be approved for that site. Mr. Rice explained that if the action to approve the administrative adjustment was not taken now, it could be addressed later, however, it would remove some of the leasing flexibility that the applicant was trying to entitle tonight. Mr. Lamoureux responded to Commissioner Pruett's proposal to only approve Phase I and explained they are trying to purchase this piece of property but it doesn't work unless they have the two users, otherwise, they won't close escrow. He would prefer the denial of their request for an administrative adjustment for the parking and let it stand on its own and make adjustments later on the third building. Commissioner Pruett explained he had concerns regarding Phase II drive-thru access and circulation. Mr. Lamoureux responded that there might be a tenant for the second building that would have as high a volume as In-N-Out and they would scrap the third building. He explained there was flexibility in this design. They did need some type of blessing as far as the square footage of the restaurant/retail as a minimum so they can go back and say the site plan may change depending on the user but they could have X amount of square footage for a restaurant or retail. A new application would be submitted at that time. He also stated that if the third building was eliminated from the equation, then they would want something that stated they can have up to a 6000 square foot restaurant use. Mr. Rice explained that the conditional use permit was for the drive-thru lanes and the administrative adjustment portion was for parking reduction which impacts the third building. He stated also that generally the industry standard is about 10 feet with a 12-foot knuckle for a drive- thru lane and the standard for stacking is 6-8 cars. This particular In-N-Out would accommodate 15 cars. The south driveway has three lanes, an inbound, exclusive right turn lane and exclusive left turn lane which allows for on-site circulation to still maneuver while people are waiting to make their left turn movement out onto the street. City staff was very comfortable with the amount of stacking, the generous drive-thru lanes, and the stacking throat on Tustin Street on the south driveway. The sign is placed dead center between the driveways and this far exceeds their 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4,2002 template for line of sight. The administrative adjustment is under the 10% threshold and they are flexible on the parking. Commissioner Bonina stated that the on-site circulation is not as important as the off-site that leads onto the property and he was still concerned with the left-hand turn out onto Tustin Street. Mr. Lamoureux stated that the existing reciprocal access agreement is between the legal property owners and not between users. He further explained that the site plans have been shown to Wells Fargo and Del Taco from the real estate department of In-N-Out and they had no objections to the proposal. He stated that the reciprocal access is in two forms, one is an actual meets and bounds strip access easement that's defined on the site plans and the second form is a blanket reciprocal access to go anywhere in the center. Commissioner Pruett confirmed that the ingress and egress is unchanged. He believed that the issue of the ingress and egress onto Tustin Street is not that big of a problem because it currently exists today. Commissioner Brandman stated that traffic on Tustin Street has been increasing and two or three more high traffic installations on this site would have more people coming in and out. Mr. Sheatz suggested that the commissioners continue this item to further discuss access on Tustin Street. He had some legal concerns because of cutting off the Ford dealership and because of the reciprocal ingress/egress with Del Taco and Wells Fargo Bank. Public hearing was closed Commissioner Bonina made a motion that this project be continued and brought back to staff and Commissioner Brandman seconded. Commissioner Pruett was concerned that by restricting left turn access to this site, it would be putting conditions on this particular property that others along Tustin Street don't have. Commissioner Brandman wondered if they are responsible now to try and stop the problem because it is getting worse. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that the first priority was the safety of Tustin Street. If it was found in the future that there was a safety problem with turning movements, they could put in a raised median to control that type of an issue. But unless there is a safety issue, they would rather leave it unrestricted because it would allow for circulation to and from the street to disperse cars away from the intersections. He will go back and look at the accident history along Tustin as far as left hand turn conflicts. Mr. Sheatz explained that even if it was a retail site, the same condition would still exist with access off Tustin Street. Commissioner Pruett did not feel this needed to be a condition of the project because it would affect all the businesses on that block. Commissioner Pruett offered a substitute motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 2425-02, Variance 2112-02 and deny Administrative Adjustment 02-025 for the project in which the drive- thru sign on the northerly east/west drive would be deleted and instruct staff to review the exit sign on the north driveway. Commissioner Romero seconded. 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4, 2002 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue Conditional Use Permit 2425-02, Variance 2112-02 and Administrative Adjustment 02-025 to the December 2, 2002 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Smith Commissioners Pruett, Romero None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith summarized the five items the Commission wanted staff to investigate further: 1. Continue to study the ingress/egress on Tustin Street, particularly looking at either keeping or eliminating the left turn only on Tustin Street. 2. Contact representatives of parcels 1 and 3 to make sure they are aware of these circulation plans and see what their thoughts are on the use ofHeim for left turns. 3. Look at the parking ratio and any issues around that as it relates to parcel No.3. 4. Look at the circulation on the whole site for one last time to see if there is a better plan for the two fast food restaurants proposed at this time. 5. Look at the addition of signage which would direct one of the two east/west aisles to the drive-thru lane. Recessed until 9: 15 p.m. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 4. ZONE CHANGE 1216-02 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1706-02 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to allow the pre-zoning of various unincorporated county islands known as Annexation Areas 3-0R-6, 3-0R-7, 3-0R-8, 3-0R-9, 3-0R-IO, 3-0R-ll, 3-0R-12, 3-0R-13, 4- OR-I, 4-0R-2, 4-0R-3, 4-0R-4, and 4-0R-5 for annexation to the City of Orange. The proposed pre-zoning generally represents the City zoning equivalent to current County zoning. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1706-02 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 38-02 recommending that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration No. 1706-02 and approve Zone Change No. 1216-02. Chair Smith asked if there was anyone present who was opposed to this application. Since there was, Chair Smith asked Mr. Rice to do a full reading of the staff report. Anna Pehoushek, Senior Planner, explained that the reason for the annexations is the Cortese Knox Hurtzberg Local Government Reorganization Act 2000 and through this legislation, the State directed LAFCO and counties to work with cities to annex unincorporated islands of less than 75 acres in size surrounded by a particular jurisdiction on all sides. Islands less than 75 acres can be annexed without the majority support of the property owners. The City, in 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4, 2002 coordination with LAFCO, have identified 13 islands as candidates for annexation. Because all of the islands are contained within the sphere of influence of the City's General Plan, they already have City General Plan land use designations. Once the City Council adopts the pre-zoning and resolution of intention to annex the islands, which should occur in December, the City intends to file its annexation application with LAFCO in January. The annexation should take effect July 1, 2003. Ms. Pehoushek explained the zoning for these sites were determined by looking at the County's current zoning and the objective was to maintain the status quo because in some ofthese areas the property owners did not have a say in the annexation. Ms. Pehoushek compared the current County zoning of the thirteen islands to the City's proposed pre-zoning. The two islands, out of the thirteen, not being considered in this application are Area 3-0R-6 and Area 4-0R-1. Ms. Pehoushek explained that any projects that have been permitted by the County or entitled by them, the City would respect those permits and entitlements. The intent of the pre-zoning is to allow people to maintain the rights they currently enjoy. Also uses that were legally allowed by the County that are in conflict with the City's code would be recognized as legal non-conforming. Irma Hernandez, Assistant to City Manager, came forward to answer more of the Commissioners questions. She stated in most cases the utilities are already serviced by the City of Orange Water Department. Ms. Pehoushek clarified that anything that is currently legally allowed by the County, such as pigs and horses, the City would recognize as legal. The City would not actively be going out to find properties with a lot of animals but if they were responding to a complaint, they would work with the property owner to reduce the number of animals through attrition. Ms. Hernandez explained those with septic tanks would not be required to go on the City sewer, unless it was required by the Health Department. The public hearing was opened. Richard Vining. 19841 Mills Drive, owner of Area 3-0R-13. He objected to being taken into the perimeter of the City. He was upset by several developments approved by the City. He objected to being zoned 20,000 square feet for a residential lot and the renaming of Mills Drive to Wimbledon. He currently has a pvc pipe line running above ground that should have been put back in the road. Bob Bennyhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. He wanted to know if Orange Park Acres could be annexed without a vote. Ms. Pehoushek, in her closing remarks, recommended the recommendation of approval to the City Council on the pre-zoning and the negative declaration. Ms. Pehoushek clarified that even though Area 3-0R-6 and 4-0R-l will not be filed with this application, they are a part of the pre-zoning request. This has been done so that in the future when the City does proceed with filing applications for those two areas, pre-zoning and environmental work has already been completed. The only parcels left are islands that the City shares with other cities. 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4, 2002 Ms. Hernandez further explained that the El Modena and Olive Orange islands, which meet the current requirements for annexation, are more complex to deal with because they are tied in with the County's redevelopment funding. She also stated that there were two community meetings. The City did not start the annexation process. It was started by the state legislature. The County approached the City of Orange two years ago and asked that it get started. The City met with the County to get a tax allocation agreement. The County and LAFCO are following the State legislature's regulations on implementing annexations. Since all 11 islands eventually have to be incorporated, it is easier to do it all now. Ms. Pehoushek had talked to the owner of 3-0R-12 and they just wanted clarification what the pre-zoning would be and what they would be allowed to have. Mr. Rice stated that the question before the Commission is what is the appropriate zoning if this annexation occurs. The question about annexation is not a purview of the Commission. Ms. Hernandez explained that the County has two years to implement this program that was mandated at the State level. The County originally wanted all 13 islands in order to receive the 1.3 million dollars plus the tax allocation. A renegotiation with the County took place in which the County was willing to give the City the 1.3 million dollars for road funds if the City processed all 11 islands now and the other two later on. LAFCO would be the final authority and they would have a public hearing. Kim Koeppen. 12 Civic Center Plaza. Room 235. Santa Ana. representing LAFCO. She stated that the City and the County did enter into discussions in order to agree upon a pre-annexation agreement for all 13 islands. There has been a revision and an agreement was reached that would allow the City to annex 11 small islands now and get the majority of the road funds transferred almost immediately. The balance would come after the annexation of the larger islands. Once the City Council takes action to approve, the LAFCO commission cannot deny that proposal. It will sunset in 2005. Ms. Pehoushek stated that initially when staff looked at the pre-zoning, they did debate what the zoning should be for 3-0R-12 and 3-0R-13 because they are surrounded by smaller lot size areas and it was concluded that the most appropriate thing to do was to maintain the current zoning. In the future, these areas could go through the zone change process. She indicated that area 3-0R- 13 could be rezoned differently if the Commission makes that decision. Ms. Hernandez explained that the 1.3 million dollars was only for road improvements, which includes providing street sweeping, road repair and all new street names with new street signs. This amount won't cover the entire cost. Mr. Hohnbaum understood that this money would go to the City to be used citywide but it is actually being collected against the deficiency of these different islands. Some of these streets may not be to final width, some may be missing sewers, streetlights, storm drains, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. He had estimated 12 million dollars would be needed. Mr. Sheatz noted that the Commission was looking at what would be an appropriate zoning district destination for 3-0R-13. Staff had made a recommendation but the Commission tonight could look at it and deem it could sustain a higher density and make an alternate recommendation. Ms. Pehoushek explained that the R-I-20 represents a minimum lot size of20,000 square feet and with the exception of animal uses, basically the permitted uses would remain the same. 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 4, 2002 Commissioner Brandman made a motion to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Bonina and the motion carried unanimously. Hollis Fitz. 20672 E. Santiago Canyon Road. living on property zoned 3-0R-IO. He was upset that they were not consulted about the annexation of their island. His address was changed when the road was widened five years ago and now it will be changing again. Mr. Vining voiced his preference for being zoned R-I-6 instead of R-I-20. Mr. Rice explained that from a procedural standpoint, the City was just looking at mirroring the County's current zoning. He further stated that the R-I-6/R-1-7 was consistent with the City's General Plan designation for that site and it wouldn't be inconsistent for the Commission to consider a smaller lot size. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina approving PC 38-02 and recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 1216-02 and adopt Negative Declaration 1706-02 with modification to Area 3-0R-13 from current zoning recommendation R- 1-20 to R-I-6. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to the Planning Commission regular meeting on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:41 pm. 9