Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - January 19 c.. 2SOZ>. ~. 2. ~ MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE ('!TV CL.ERK January 19,2004 ". ~R 17 aM 7 18 Monday - 7:00 p.rA~t4 Mi'il H: Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 15,2003. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to Approve the Minutes from the December 15,2003, Planning Commission Meeting (Continued from January 5, 2004). AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) DEMOLITION REVIEW FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EAST ANACONDA BUILDING WITH THE CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FILM AND TELEVISION BUILDING; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 291-03 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3837-03 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FILM AND TELEVISION. A proposal to demolish the 107,731 sq. ft. industrial building, known as the east Anaconda Building, to develop a 3-story, 80,000 sq. ft. School of Film and Television within Old Towne. The existing structure is a contributing structure within the Old Towne District, and approval is required of the design of the School of Film and Television as a replacement structure. The proposal also includes a request for approval of vertical and horizontal building signs. The General Plan land use designation has recently been approved for PF (Public Facilities), and the zoning classification has recently been approved for the P-I-SP (Public Institution, Specific Plan). The site is located at 305 W. Maple Avenue. This item was continued from the December 15, 2003, meeting. Planning Commission January 19, 2004 NOTE: Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 1721-03 analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposal. Christine Kelly, a contract planner with the City of Orange dealing with the Chapman University Projects, gave a full presentation of the staff report. She noted that the East Anaconda Building is not an architecturally distinct building; the building is a contributing structure in the Old Towne Historic District due to the wartime manufacturing of wire products during World War II by the Anaconda Wire and Cable Company (the former owner of the building). The 3-story replacement building is the School of Film and Television for Chapman University and will provide approximately 80,000 sq. ft. of program space. The proposed signs include a double-sided vertical sign with a total sign area of 212 sq. ft. There is a requirement that the signage stay under 277.5 sq. ft. There is also a request for a horizontal sign that says "School of Film and Television" and it may have a donor's name on it that would be on top ofthe canopy in the same location as the vertical sign (this sign would be approximately 65 sq. ft.) - and the signage is under the maximum allowed sign area. The project EIR has been certified by the City Council. There were general mitigation measures for all of the project and amendments to the Specific Plan. These are detailed as Conditions in the Resolution. The recently approved Chapman University Specific Plan Amendment No.5 included and establishes a Historic Review Process for projects involving contributing historic resources. It was confirmed that this project followed this process. As part of the review process, it is required that the structure be reviewed for (1) preservation, (2) if it cannot be preserved can it be adapted, re-used or relocated, and finally (3) demolition and memorialization. Because of the excessive acoustic treatments and structural seismic upgrade necessary for the new use by Chapman University for a state-of-the-art School of Film and Television, it was found that the existing building would not work and could not be retrofitted. Staff is in support of the findings that the applicant be allowed to demolish the building and follow the mitigation measures. There is also a Master Landscape Plan that has been approved as part ofthe Specific Plan. Both Staff Review Committee and Design Review Committee reviewed the project. Chairman Pruett explained the process in reviewing this project. He stated that it gave the OTPA and the Barrio Historical Society an opportunity to review and comment on these projects. He stated that the Planning Commission would like to see those comments from these groups in future staff reports, and this would encourage communication and would verify that these groups have had an opportunity to review the projects. Commissioner Smith asked several questions of staff regarding signage (height, location, design) that is incorporated as an architectural element of the proposed structure. Additionally, she noted the annual review of the Parking Management Plan, and asked whether or not it made sense to incorporate an item that gave the exact date the review would take place annually, who was responsible, etc. Staff responded that they were currently reviewing this internally. Following a question on Condition #15 by Commissioner Smith, staff responded that final approval of this condition would be reviewed and approved by Community Services and Community Development directors (or designate). Commissioner Smith's concern in this landscaped area is the preservation of several camphor trees in the area, as well as the Acorn Light Standards being incorporated. The Commissioners made the following points: (1) Signage - Commissioner Smith asked questions regarding height, location and design. Commissioner Brandman referred to the signage at St. Joseph as memorializing what had come before, and she would like to see something more shown by Chapman (perhaps a 2 Planning Commission January 19, 2004 monument, on site, to memorialize the structure being demolished), even though what Chapman has proposed currently complies. (2) Landscaping - Commissioners Smith and Domer voiced concerns regarding the preservation of the camphor trees and the incorporation of the acorn streetlights into the plan. Staff responded that the final approval would come from the director or designee of the Community Services and Community Development departments. (3) Architecture - Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification on where in the area could he find a structure that makes the proposed Chapman structure "appropriate in scale & architecture." He asked for clarification on lighting, security, whether or not the school would host outside events - all in relation to how it affects the surrounding neighborhoods. (4) Security - Hours of operation of the proposed site are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The security plan has been enhanced greatly over the last two years - there is electronic card access throughout the whole building. (5) Parking - 218 spaces will be provided off street; on street parking is allowed. Any large trucks would be parked in a screened area on campus. Ken Ryan of Edaw, Inc. (2737 Campus Drive, Irvine, CA 92656) represented the applicant. He gave a PowerPoint presentation of the Master Landscape Plan. He noted that they planned on keeping the existing camphor trees and would be filling in the areas with Palm, Maple and Italian Cypress trees, and the acorn lighting would be included. He explained that the design of the proposed structure was a combination of classic film school design fitting into the Old Towne design. As part of keeping the history of the structure to be demolished he stated that there would be a WTitten history required, they would be creating a movielhistorical documentary and they would be developing some sort of monument to further memorialize the history of the site. He stated that they had encouraged public involvement and a number of changes were made from discussions with OTP A and the Barrio Historical Society - including adding additional landscaping, changing the overall color, and relocating and screening rooftop equipment and loading area. Responding to an earlier question by Commissioner Domer, he stated that as the site was for academic use, it was tax exempt. The public was invited to speak on this topic. Augie Morales, 1822 Devon Place, Vista, CA. - concern with traffic, height of building. Had not received full set of plans - Commissioner Pruett said he would ensure he received one (as well as any others who are interested). Anne Siebert, 320 S. Olive, Orange - Pleased with color change. Concerned with "Hollywood" look. Traffic needs to be monitored. Grateful to EDA W for their part in the process. Jerome Ryan, 429 N. Lemon, Orange - Concern with traffic issue and impact on neighborhood. Feels the area is already overburdened with traffic in the area. Feels if the front of the building is on Cypress Street, the entrance to the parking should be there, as well. Any diesel trucks should be on property, not on City streets (smell). Need more landscaping on Lemon. Building is too tall. The metal boxes on side of building should not be visible. The applicant addressed the concerns of the public and outlined plans for improvement that should mitigate their concerns. The Commissioners complimented the Plan, and thanked the applicant for listening to them and for applying a process to address their concerns regarding why it could not be preserved or adapted. Commissioner Smith stated that in order to incorporate the building into the existing community and into the focus of Old Towne grid pattern, there should be nice landscaping on the site (paying particular attention to the landscaping on the south side), and there should be a sign on the back side, as well. (The Applicant later stated that the focus of their plans, the repositioning of the main entrance of the project, was that they get it as far away as possible from the surrounding neighborhood so as to minimize any 3 Planning Commission January 19,2004 disruption.) She also voiced a concern for the Liquid Amber trees being used as landscaping as they drop their leaves in winter, leaving the parking area exposed. She requested that they protect and preserve the existing camphor trees that are currently there (if they do not interfere with a driveway, etc.). She asked staffto come back with a date for the report on the Parking Management Plan. Additionally, she would like them to preserve bricks from original building, plumbing fixtures (which were brass when it was created), in addition to pulling some pieces of the original glass if any is left to be used in a museum or an archive. The Commissioners would like to see the following additional notes made to the Conditions: (1) Add to Condition #12 or #15 (whichever is more appropriate) to make a special effort to preserve the existing mature street trees, particularly the camphor trees. (2) Add to Condition #16 to provide an additional identification sign on the South Side of Project, and include the approval of the Director of Community Development. (3) Add to Condition #38 - as required by the Site Plan, to ensure installing Acorn-Style Lights on all four street edges to satisfaction of the Old Towne Master Plan of street lighting. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt Resolution No. 49-03 approving the demolition of the existing Anaconda East building and replacement of the structure with the Chapman University School of Film and Television. Major Site Plan Review No. 291-03, and Design Review 3837-03. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED MINUTE ORDER: Proposed by Commissioner Smith and agreed to by the Commissioners: The hopes that the original brick fayade on the Anaconda West Building could possibly be incorporated into the next project, as well as the need to formalize and add structure to the comments from OTP A and the Orange Barrio Historical Society on future applications that need their review. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS (3) MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0311-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2480-03 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1724-03 - APPLICANT: BURNHAM USA EQillTIES (CHAPMAN AVENUE RETAIL). A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT a 58,260 sq. ft. multi-tenant commercial development on an approximately 5.1 acre site located at the northeast comer of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Place. To implement the project, the applicant has applied for Major Site Plan Review 0311-03 for construction of a building larger than 10,000 sq. ft., Conditional Use Permit 2480-03 for an automotive stereo installation facility and for construction of a fast food restaurant with a drive- through window, and Variance 2134-03 to allow a freestanding sign to exceed the maximum sign height and area, and a wall sign to exceed the maximum wall sign area as permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance. 4 Planning Commission January 19, 2004 NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1724-03 has been prepared for this project in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines. Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item. There was no public comment. The applicant (Darrel Hebenstreit, Partner, Architect's Orange, 144 N. Orange Street, Orange) and Staff were in attendance. Chairman Pruett expressed the Commission's thanks to the applicant for his patience in waiting for his opportunity to speak to the Commission. Mr. Hebenstreit stated that there was also representation on the project from the Owner and the Broker. He stated they had reviewed the Conditions of Approval and are in agreement with all of them. He asked to reinforce one area of the project that is very important to a major tenant, which is Best Buy - and that has to do specifically with the two variances that they are requesting. One variance is for the size of the primary identification sign on the front of the store. This is being requested because of the very deep nature of the site. They are requesting a 391 sq. ft. sign because the front of the store is 410 feet back from Chapman Avenue. He referenced a Site Line study which indicated that the sign would not appear larger than the code allowed (250 sq. ft.) due to its placement far back on the property. The other aspect of the variance is for the pylon sign for exposure to the Freeway. Best Buy's sales are regional, and it is important for them to have exposure to the north- and south-bound lanes. The Commissioners commented on the following issues: (1) Parking - is the parking field in the back sized properly for the truck circulation? The answer was yes. There are 336 parking stalls proposed (285 required). There was concern that there was enough parking in front for the other businesses. It was noted that Best Buy's peak period was in the evening, and the applicant was looking for tenants who would not compete during the same peak periods. The rear parking field is considered vital for employee parking, particularly during the holiday period, to keep the prime parking area open for customers. The applicant mentioned that it would not be a problem if there was a condition imposed to ensure that employees park in the rear parking lot. (2) Pedestrian Access - there was concern for pedestrians walking to the fast-food restaurant. Would like to have it designated more clearly where the pedestrian access is in relationship to the tree on the plan. (3) Queue from Fast Food Restaurant - There is the ability to "store" 7 cars from the entrance to the fast food restaurant to the street. (4) Signage - concern for variance in signage (there was one individual who noted a problem from the Design Review Committee). Applicant said there was no standard signage for Best Buy, but felt that the proposed signage was appropriate for their business, and they felt they were sensitive to the residents in the neighborhood. Where is the multi-tenant sign? The answer is on Chapman, and the fast-food restaurant signage is located on that multi-tenant sign. (5) Median Strip on Manchester - who maintains? The answer: it is maintained by the City. (6) Lighting - what is the lighting scheme for the back & entire site? The answer: the entire lot will be lit. Commissioner Bonina would like the record to show that he believes it is a great use for the property; however he does believe there is an issue with parking, he does not believe it has sufficient parking, in light of the fast food restaurant and the other shops which are also included. Commissioner Smith felt that the signage was not too large as it is in an isolated area; and also felt that the parking was not sufficient for the site (due to the parking behind the building with no access to the store). 5 Planning Commission January 19,2004 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Domer, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to Adopt Resolution No. 04-04 approving Major Site Plan Review No. 0311-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2480-03, and Variance No. 2134-03 and certifying that Negative Declaration 1724-03 as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to Adjourn. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 11 :05 p.rn. 6 6