Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - September 8 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange September 8, 2004 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2004. A motion was made by Commissioner Brandman to approve the minutes from the July 7, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Domer. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Smith None Chair Pruett (not in attendance at the July ih meeting) None. MOTION CARRIED (2) MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 332-04, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1732- 04, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2004-163 - HEDLEY ORANGE I, L.L.C. (HBITZER CENTER) A proposal to construct a 79,918 square foot multi-tenant industrial complex on a 4.13-acre site located at 313 W. Grove Avenue. The proposal also includes a Tentative Parcel Map for condominium purposes to allow the individual sale and ownership of tenant spaces within the complex. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item and gave a brief overview of the project. She also mentioned that Associate Planner, Chuck Lau, was in attendance should the Commissioners have any questions for him. The public hearing was opened. APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 Chairman Pruett invited the applicant to come forward and make his presentation on the project. Ralph Hastings, Hastings Partnership, 5031 Birch Street, Suite A, Newport Beach, the architect, spoke to the project. He described the project as six buildings totaling 79,000 sq. ft., and also indicated it was a condominium project. The presentation was accompanied by two renderings that were further detailed by Mr. Hastings. He pointed out that the planners had spent quite a bit of time with the City's Fire Department to design a loop system through the property so that there was good access for trucking, but also for access of fire vehicles should they be needed. The project is single-story, with a maximum height of 23 feet. The individual units range from 2000 sq. ft. to 6500 sq. ft. Each unit has their own individual entry and truck door. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Regarding the chain-link fence around the property, there are several different types available; many are different heights, some shielded with strips, and some have razor wire across the top. What is your proposal for the height of the fence and the material to be used, especially on the north edge? The material that we propose to use is a coated wire, in either black or green, and then there will be landscaping integrated within that (vines). This is not a security fence; there will be no razor wire. The height will be the standard 6 or 8 feet. The fencing is not called out on the preliminary submittal, but it is on the construction documents that will be reviewed by staff. It is currently specified as black, but if the Commission feels green would be more appropriate it can certainly be that. . Because of the dust on the east side (from the reclamation project) there is a significant amount of dust and a color might pick that up quickly. We are hoping that within the first 8-14 months that it will be filled in with the vines and cover the fencing. . Who owns the existing fence, is it the adjoining property owners? The fence is currently on our side of the property line. Chairman Pruett noted that a letter had been delivered to the Commissioners during the administrative session preceding the Planning Commission meeting. It was from Wanda Bose who expressed her opposition to this development due to the traffic congestion on Grove Street. She indicated this was a problem from drivers on Trask Street who, upon entering Grove Street, swung wide onto the street. Chairman Pruett asked the applicant if he had seen the letter (he had not, although Chuck Lau had informed him of it) and a copy was given to him at this point. . What is the color of the glaze? The manufacturer calls it a "mid performance blue." It will take on different characteristics at different times of the day. Does it ever take on the characteristic of a green? Very seldom, you may get that a little bit in the early morning hours, but once the sun starts to hit it head on it will appear to be very blue. . Commissioner Bonina stated that if the applicants did not have a real preference for the color of the fence, he would prefer to see it be green, simply because it may be a year or so before the vines grow in and cover it. The Design Review Committee brought some of 2 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 these issues up, and they stated they would appreciate working directly with the Landscape Architect, which we've agreed to do. So I will mention to her that it is an issue on how we blend that. . The project is very nicely designed. To that end, to the extent possible, when we look at the signage for each unit, try to make efforts not to compromise the architecture in terms of the area above the window. A follow-up question was addressed to Staff: what is the allowed signage, based on the building size and noting that there are individual units here that will all have signage, how is that being addressed? Generally speaking, they are allowed to have up to 1 sq. ft. of linear feet of storefront. If it is 40 feet in length, they are allowed to have approximately 40 sq. ft. of signage. There is usually a certain height limit, no more than two-thirds of the facade height. The applicant would present the signage package with graphics to the DRC for approval. Isn't 40 sq. ft. on each of these buildings quite a bit of signage? That's fairly typical for this type of project. The Commissioners stated that, noting the above comments, they did not wish to impede the developers or the new owners in their signage and branding of their buildings. We're all speaking the same language here. Our desire is to keep a cohesive look in the project through landscaping, color, architectural facade, and our intent is to keep the signage in line through the CC&R 'so Ken Hansen, Manager of Development for Hedley Construction, 3189 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, spoke to the signage design plan. He stated that the CC&R's for the project would be submitted to the City and the City Attorney for approval, and he said that typically the City Attorney has comments that they wished to be included in the CC&R's. The applicants are planning to designate things such as which parking spaces go along with which buildings, etc. Regarding the signage, of the allowable space provided by the codes of the City of Orange, they do not expect to even hit 25 - 50% of that amount, for it would be too big for the density of the project. If there are exceptions, and they are approved by the owners' association, they may allow a logo (i.e., for Coca Cola, and those types of companies). The CC&R's are in draft form, and once they have map approval to legally define the 19 units, they will include that information and submit to the City Staff for approval. Chairman Pruett stated that the Commission did not wish to create and define what the sign layout should be on the buildings, rather what they were trying to stress is that there needs to be a consistency (and some consideration into the design of the project). He said he would look to the City Attorney to advise the Commission on how they can make certain that when the CC&R's are submitted that this issue is taken into consideration. Mr. Hansen noted that this was consistent with other projects that they had built. Selling the building changes the dimension, for then you have 19 owners, versus one owner who can dictate all the colors, sizes and locations. Once the buildings are completely owned and the architects are out of the picture, it is the CC&R document which gives the local ownership the enforcement right and then the City has that built into resolutions, as well. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 George Hedley, of Hedley Orange I, L.L.C., 3189 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that they would be hiring a signage design firm, and the plans would be submitted to the City's Planning Department for design review approval. It will include the standard signage size, shape, fonts, colors, etc. Chairman Pruett reiterated the fact that what the Commission was concerned about was not what was approved today, but what would happen down the road as owners change and the project is sold to new owners. He believed the CC&R's would be the best way to achieve the overall objective. Commissioner Domer noted that Item #7 of the Conditions of Approval addressed some of the signage issues, noting that a signage plan would be submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval. Chairman Pruett stated that he wanted to ensure that the signage program was contained within the CC&R's. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated that the staff was really not looking at having signage templates included within the CC&R's, but that if the Commission felt it was necessary then she would recommend having it included in Condition #32, where it dealt with the "in common" portions of the property. She asked the Assistant City Attorney if including signage in this item would be appropriate, as signage would not be owned in common, but rather was for each individual unit. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated that it would be an appropriate place (to add it to Condition #32), if the Commissioners would like to add it. He stated they could also make a note in Condition #7. Commissioner Brandman asked for clarification as to what was meant on Page 2-04 where it referred to "mounted mechanical equipment," and what happens if you have an owner who needs more equipment on the roof, can that be done? If an owner comes in later to add an additional air conditioner or a fan, etc., he will have to receive a building permit. If it can't be screened by the parapets in the front, typically they will be required to install a roof screen to screen it. If it is higher than the sight line from the street, then the planning department will not approve it unless it is screened. How long will you remain involved with the project? The way it normally works when you build-to-sell is that as long as we have the majority ownership, we're in control. Once we don't, we can be voted off the Board. We hire the original association management firm, it's a company we've used for years and they are very detailed. Hopefully they will be kept on, but every building owner's association can hire whomever they want. You have a copy of this letter from Mrs. Bose. She talks about the fact that the traffic is a problem now, have you identified that it is a problem and is there any thought to doing any enhancement to alleviate this? (This response was answered by Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer). The street was just finished being improved. The area that is being developed did not previously have curb and gutter on it. There were a number of places along the street, because of the lack of curb and gutter, water would build up, there were quite a number of potholes, and coupled with the type of industries that are up and down the street, it was in pretty bad shape. So the City went back in about two years ago and improved it, and the street was repaved with thicker paving, the width is at the ultimate now, and there is parking allowed along the edges. Because of the types of trucks that pull in and out of the different businesses, from time to time a truck may have to come out across the centerline of the street as it pulls out. The City views this as typical for an industrial area. I would suggest that the 4 Planning Commission APPROVED September 8, 2004 letter, although it is addressed to the Commission in respect to this project, it is probably not pertinent. Commissioner Smith stated that in her review of the Staff Report, she saw nothing relating to the fencing. Mr. Hastings mentioned that it was included in the plans. It needs to be spelled out, particularly if the property is sold, the nice fencing should complement the building. Ms. Roseberry stated that it certainly could be added as a condition. The applicant stated they would like it to be noted as 6' high, coated chain-link fence. It was mentioned in the DRC that the fencing would be part of the landscape approval. Ms. Roseberry stated that the height and coated chain-link fence would be noted, and the color would be determined in discussions with the DRC. The Commissioners felt the color decision should be left to the DRC. Chairman Pruett asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wished to speak to the issue. Seeing none, he brought the issue back before the Commission for action and discussion. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Pruett summarized the item that was before the Commission, and noted that the Commissioners wanted to add several conditions and the color of the fence would be determined by the DRC. Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification on Item #7, that upon approval by the DRC the item shall be included in the CC&R's. The answer was yes. Ms. Roseberry noted that the CC&R's would not be taken back before the DRC, but they will be looking at the signage and the landscape plan along with the determination of the color of the chain-link fence with the DRC. Commissioner Smith wanted to note, that for Condition 6, it stated that the final landscape plans would be submitted to the City's Community Services Department. Ms. Roseberry stated that, in further review, she realized that the DRC did not ask that the final landscape plans be brought back before them. They did have discussions about the final landscape plans, and the final determination was that the normal course of events would happen and the plans would go back to the Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris, in Community Services. If you would like to have it go back to DRC, that could also be done. The Commissioners decided that rather than have the plans go back before the DRC just to determine the fencing color, that they would condition that it be made green along with the other conditions. Commissioner Smith made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 35-04 recommending to the City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 1732-04, Major Site Plan Review No. 332-04 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2004-163 with the following conditions: 1. On Condition #7, the signage plans submitted to the DRC for approval should also be included in the CC&R's. 2. Condition #32 would also be changed to include signage to all the other items that the City has discretion to enforce. 5 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 3. Where appropriate within the Conditions of Approval (to be determined by Staff), the Commissioners would like to add the condition that the fencing be a 6-foot, coated chain- link, of the color green. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 356-04, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1735- 04, AND DEMOLITION PERMIT - HATFIELD RESIDENCE. A proposal to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new one and one-half story single-family residence. The project site is located in the Old Towne Historic District at 355 N. Pine Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1735-04 was prepared in accordance with the provIsIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act, section 15070 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The item was introduced by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry. She noted that the existing single-family residence was a non-contributing structure located within the Old Towne Historic District. In order to implement the project, the applicants have applied for a Demolition Permit for the existing residence as well as a Minor Site Plan Review. Because the site is located within Old Towne and includes a demolition, an environmental document (the Negative Declaration) was done and is attached to the proposal. There were no mitigation measures found to be necessary during the analysis of the project. Staff has found that the project is within the City's development standards. The public hearing was opened. Jon Califf, 1231 E. Sycamore Avenue, Orange, is the architect for the applicant. He gave an overview of the project. He noted that the existing structure (which is to be demolished) was built early in Orange's history, but due to the subsequent inappropriate alterations by the previous owners, was not listed as a contributing structure during the Historic Building Survey. He said that the applicant and himself had worked with Staff to ensure that the new structure was sensitive in design to the surrounding neighborhood and that it would meet the design guidelines for Old Towne. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: 6 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 . Could you tell us about the materials that are going to be used for the house, please? The foundation would be concrete, typical to Old Towne. The exterior wall material is a lathe siding, it is a composite material, which is very similar in appearance to redwood clapboard siding. Because it is an in-fill structure, modern materials are allowed to be used, as long as they match and are compatible with historic materials. There would be wood trim, wood windowsills, wood surround and decorative trim around the windows, wood barge, and decorative treatment at the eaves and the rake, composition shingle roofing, and the porch and railings would be wood. The garage would match the materials of the residence. And the windows and doors? The doors would be wood, the windows will be a vinyl window, and where the windows are divided it would preserve the appearance of a true wood divided-light window. There are several pictures of that particular window that is proposed for your review. . The front window, where it appears to have leaded glass, what is the treatment of that window? The proposal is that the window frame and manufacturer would be the same as all the others, but the window would be made for a custom piece of glass to be installed (it is leaded) separately. . The windows are not listed in the staff report. They're listed on the plans on the east elevation. . The doors are not in the staff report. The east elevation lists the doors as wood, as well. It shows a vented door. Then on the north elevation there is another door. And on the west elevation there is, of course, the front door. There's always the chance that the project doesn't go through with the present owners, so it should be noted that the materials for the doors should be called out in the staff report. . Where it is noted that the classic style of window is to be used does that lock in a style? What does that mean? That is just the manufacturer's particular name for the product. It is utilized in historic Craftsman and Victorian-style homes (and it shown in their product literature as such). As opposed to aluminum windows which typically have a very narrow profile, these windows have a wide profile which is similar to what a wood window would have. . What type of screening will be on the windows, and is it called out? No, it is not called out, that is a good question. Typically, on a single-hung window, it would have an exterior screen. And on the windows that are shown as hopper windows, those would have interior screens because the windows open out. And so, in essence, that covers up the nice window from the exterior. True. It is a fairly standard nylon, champagne colored (not galvanized color) and the frame would be integrated into the window frame. . Regarding the latticework at the base of the building is that wood or is that manufactured? It is wood. Is the garage door wood? It is a wood door, a slab door, as opposed to a sectional, and it would be designed to emulate an older sliding-type door. . In this case, do you actually pour some layer of slab before the tiers are put up on the foundation? Except for the fact that they extend deeper into the ground, and are bigger, it is the same exact concept as the historical models, the old ones. If we were in a climate where there was a lot of moisture in the soil, then we would be more concerned with sealing the ground beneath the house off. In California, that's really not necessary. . Since this house is being built new, is it going to be retrofitted for earthquakes? It is designed to the current code, which means it is up to date. (Ms. Roseberry noted that the 7 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 Unified Building Code had a number of requirements, so there's no retrofitting, it must meet certain codes). Chairman Pruett noted that there were two cards from the public who had asked to speak. He advised the applicant that he could make note of their comments, and could come back to respond to them later, as appropriate. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer, Orange. She noted that she was addressing the Commission speaking as Preservation Chairman of the Old Towne Preservation Association (OTP A). She stated that it was with sadness that they noted that the original structure had gotten into such poor condition that it is okay to tear it down, and the OTP A was glad that there were standards in place now that would prevent the inappropriate modifications being made to homes within Old Towne. She felt it was an improvement on the neighborhood to add the new structure, stating that the OTP A's only wish was that the windows and other appurtenances on the building (including the siding) would be wood. The OTP A does not believe that plastic or vinyl windows have the same profile as wooden windows. Even though it is not a requirement, the OTP A would urge the applicant to use wooden appurtenances on the structure. Commissioner Bonina asked Ms. Crenshaw if she had a chance to review the brochure that identifies the actual vinyl window. She stated she had not. Commissioner Bonina felt that, after looking at them, it appeared they had texture and character on the windows very similar to the wooden ones. Jon Califf noted an address where Ms. Crenshaw and the Commissioners could actually see the windows and siding in place. They were 439 and 459 S. Pine, off of Palmyra. Those structures have the same windows as those being proposed. There is also an address on Almond that has the siding, and he will provide that to her. Commissioner Smith asked if these windows had the screens on them; Mr. Califf stated he was not sure whether the screens had been installed or not. Brian Lochrie, 360 N. Pine addressed the Commission. He noted that he was across the street from the applicant. He wanted to say how excited he was about the project, and how much he looked forward to it. He also wanted it noted for the record how much work the applicant had done on their yard, and it was a wonderful job. He admired the applicant's commitment to the neighborhood, and felt that the improvements would add to the property values of the new home as well as others on the block. He encouraged the Commissioners to approve the project. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Domer asked for clarification from staff (not necessary at this time, but if staff could get back in the future), is the screening of windows considered a Health and Safety item, and is it required? Under some federal programs he noted it was considered a housing quality standard. Mr. Hohnbaum said he was not aware of any condition in the building code that says you must have a screen. 8 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 Commissioner Domer moved that the Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 36-04 approving Minor Site Plan Review 356-04; Issuance of a Demolition Permit for the existing residence at 355 N. Pine Street concurrently with the issuance of the new single-family residence approved by Minor Site Plan Review 356-04; and negative Declaration 1735-04. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. Commissioner Domer wanted to ensure that the windows, as called out in the plans, be part of the Conditions of Approval. Additionally, the following conditions should be incorporated in the Conditions of Approval: 1. All doors should be wood. 2. Window screening should be a compatible, Milguard Classic Vinyl Windows, with the frame integrated into the window frame. 3. Lattice porch skirt shall be wood. Commissioner Domer asked as construction was occurring on this project, if applicant could make the staff aware so they could inform the Commissioners, it would be interesting to see how the new construction relates to the earthquake standards, etc. Also, it would be of interest just to see the progress of a building that will really contribute nicely to Pine Street. Commissioner Smith said that she believed that the project had excellent architectural detail, but wanted it noted that she would prefer that the windows and siding be wood. She thanked the applicant for all the hard work and creativity. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2507-04 - T.J.'S BAJA GRILL A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license for an existing restaurant and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. The restaurant is located at 331 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). The project was introduced by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry, and she gave an overview of the staff report. She noted that staff had reviewed the project with public safety 9 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 officers and that staff was recommending approval of the project. She also stated that public safety officers were in attendance to answer any questions from the public or the Commissioners. Chairman Pruett noted that it was not necessary for the public safety officers to speak, but he wanted to point out that there was a change in the officers, and wanted the new officer to be able to meet the Commissioners. The public hearing was opened. Sgt. Tom Kisela from the Orange Police Department spoke to the project, and introduced his replacement Sgt. Rob Miller. He stated that the police department had no concerns about the item before the Commission. Jacqueline Garcia, 331 N. Tustin Street, Orange, is the applicant on this permit. She summarized the project as a family-owned restaurant, responding to the wishes of the customers by adding this license. Chairman Pruett asked if the applicant had read the Conditions of Approval. She stated that she had. He noted that one of the conditions of approval was in regards to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages cease one hour prior to closing. He further explained that the Commission did not specify the time of closing, as that was up to the applicant. Commissioner Brandman asked if the applicant was currently offering any liquor, beer or wine at the restaurant, and the response was no. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Pruett described the motion before the Commissioners and said he would entertain a motion on this item. Commissioner Bonina moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 30-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2507-04. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Domer. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED 10 APPROVED Planning Commission September 8, 2004 Commissioner Smith moved to adjourn the meeting until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 2004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. 11