HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-1995 PC Minutese:~ ~ ~o. U-. a. ~
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith
June 5, 1995
Monday - 7:00 p.m.ABSENT:
None STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan
Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Commission welcomed Commissioner Romero to his first Planning Commission meeting.
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MAY 15 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to approve the Minutes of May
15, 1995 as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARING
1 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2108-95 -JAMES
EDWARDS A proposal to use a portion of the Stadium Drive-In on weekends for an auto swap
meet. The site is located at 1501 West
Katella Avenue.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental
Quality Act CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303.A staff report was not presented as there was no opposition. Mr. Jones
informed the Commission of a modification to condition 1 and the addition of
condition 5.The public hearing
Planning Commission Meeting
Applicant
June 5, 1995
Jim Edwards, 22162 Cape May Lane, Huntington Beach, said the auto swap meet would be
held at the drive-in every weekend from 8:00a.m. to 3:00 p.m. People will rent spaces
from him for the purpose of selling their vehices. There will be no parts or other kerns for sale.
He will not participate in the sale of the vehiGe; it will be a transaction between the buyer
and seller. There will be five people on site representing the auto swap meet, inGuding the
security guard. He did not have plans to change the physical features of the drive-in. There
will be 700 parking spaces and free parking. He didn't believe there would be any
traffic problems because it takes place on the weekends. He explained the benefits of an auto
swap meet.Commissioner Romero asked what type of policing and monitoring the applicant had
in mind?Mr. Edwards had 4 pages of rules that he would hand out to all individuals. There
are no alcoholic beverages, firearms, or drugs allowed. He will write down the
vehiGe identification number and license plate number to cheGc against the registration cards. A security
guard will be walking the aisles and if needed, additional security guards will
be added.Commissioner Smith asked what the limit was for an individual selling used cars
vs. a commercial business selling
used cars?Mr. Edwards explained an individual could sell three cars before it was considered
a business.He spoke with the Department of Motor VehiGes, who said they would need to get
a dealers license and business license. He will monitor that also. He did not know the cost fora
dealer'
s license.Commissioner Romero asked how he would be controlling the traffic in and out of
the drive-in for those wanting to take
a test drive?Mr. Edwards said people will escort those interested in test drives out of the
drive-in to avoid hitting other cars in the parking lot. He did not anticipate
that many test drives.Chairman Bosch asked if he had read the staff report and
proposed conditions, inGuding
the amended/proposed conditions?Mr. Edwards has reviewed the staff report and all conditions.
He spoke with Captain Hemandez from the Police Department, who will visit him at the site to
make sure everything is running smoothly. He was worried about the fact Captain
Hemandez might want two undercover policemen at the auto swap meet for one out of the two
days every weekend. That might be an economic hardship on him if he had
to pay for that.Commissioner Pruett referred to one condition -restriction of used cars to
be sold only by those owned by the owner -how do you differentiate between someone
who has brought four or five of their personal vehices and someone who is licensed as a
resaler because they
have exceeded the three?Mr. Edwards will have each person fill out a sheet with pertinent
information and put that information on the computer (create a data base). The third time they come to
the site to sell vehicles, they will be turned away because he will think of them as being
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
have no way of knowing, though, if someone sold four vehiGes some place else and then
came to his site.
The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Bosch noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional
Use Permit 2108-95 with conditions 1-6; modifying condition 1 to read: The project
shall be operated per the proposal and plans approved by the Planning Commission and on
file with the Department of Community Development, and add condition 6 to read: If the sale
of stolen cars becomes a problem, as determined by the Police Department, this Conditional
Use Permit shalt be referred to the Planning Commission for
possible revocation.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett,
Romero, Smith NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED Discussion
on motion:Commissioner Pruett asked for a definition on the word "problem" as it relates to
condition 6.Mr. Soo-Hoo addressed the term - "becomes a problem". When the Police
Department notices a problem exists in their view, then it would come back to the Planning Commission.
At that time, the evidence would be presented to the Commission as to what constitutes a
problem. If the Commission, after reviewing the evidence, feels it is substantial, may revoke
the permit.Chairman Bosch was concerned the modification to condition 1 did not stipulate
to the applicant's proposal to limit the hours of operation to 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Saturday and Sunday. But he takes that to be covered per the proposal and plans, and the staff
report will be attached totheC.U.P. so that might be policed in the
future. (Yes.)2 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2109-95 -
THOMAS P. COX A request to allow development of a new drive-through pharmacy. The site
is located at 3237 East Chapman Avenue (NWC
of Chapman and Prospect).N TE: Negative DeGaration 1470-95 has been
prepared to evaluate the
environmental impacts of this project.Chuck Lau, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report.
Theproposal consists of a 1,976 sq. ft. building with two drive-up windows on each side
of the building. The windows will be covered with a large canopy roof and supported by two
columns on the outer edge. The window on the east side is for ordering; the window on the west sidewillbeforpickuponly.The store also contains a small interior retail area (approximately500sq. ft.) for walk up services. Business hours will be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.
m. daily. Also proposed with this project is a satellite dish that will be installed at the northwest
comer of the site. The antenna is used primarily for receiving and transmitting
prescription orders from medical facilities. The project also includes removal of the existing
non-
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
property line. Fifteen parking spaces are provided and access to the site will be provided with
two new driveways -one on Chapman Avenue and the other off of Prospect. There were four
issues brought up when staff reviewed the project. One had to do with land use compatibility.
The properties on all four sides are zoned commercial and developed with commercial uses.
The only aspect of this project that requires a conditional use permit is the drive-
through configuration, to assure that adequate circulation provisions are made. The next concern
was traffic trip generation. There was a traffic study that was prepared by a traffic consultant.
The study was based on a similar project in Anaheim. The study showed that a queue storage
of two vehiGes at each window was adequate to accommodate for drive-through
demand without interfering with on-site circulation. It also revealed the parking demand is also low
and the 15 spaces provided seems to be adequate. The City's existing parking ordinance
does not have a parking standard for something of this type. Staff applied a parking ratio of
1:200 -typical ratio fora typical shopping center/retail store. Based on that, and based
on the square footage, only 10 parking spaces were required. The placement of the
driveways will minimize the disruption of traffic to and from the site. Staff suggested a condition
of placing one-way directional arrows on the site to avoid confusion. There was a
concern about adaptability of the building to other uses. Hopefully the proposed use will be successful,
but if the building were to change to another use, there should be some flexibility built
in to accommodate for that. If it were to change to a professional office or retail type of use,
the 15 parking spaces would be sufficient. The only concern staff had were if a more
intensive use (restaurant) were proposed, parking would be short about five spaces. The project was
reviewed by the Design Review Board and they found the building to be compatible for the
surrounding area. The only conditionsuggested by D.R.B. related to landscaping. They want
to see a final landscapefirrigation plan. They also want to see a signage plan
for final approval. Three letters were received from nearby property owners in opposition to the
project and they were attached
to the staff report.The
public
hearing was opened.Aoolicant Dave Sheegog, with the office of Thomas P. Cox, Architect, 3242
Halladay, Suite 204, Santa Ana, represented Walgreen's. Walgreen's is the largest pharmaceutical
company in the nation and he explained the store's history. Two stores have been built in Anaheim
and others are in the planning stages. This is not a new facility where they question
whether the circulation will work or whether the demographics will support it. Walgreen's does a
lot of studies for demographics/traffic flow to know whether the facility will have
along-term success. It also has the experience of knowing how many cars stack up in the
facility and how much business they really do. Because of that, they can locate
sites successfully. The double drive-through has served them well. He brought with himthe landscape
plan for the Commission's review.Commissioner Cathcart asked about the site plan for the
Orange site. The north property line shows a break in the landscape planter as if there were a
future ingress/egress plan
for the site to the north.Mr. Sheegog responded it appeared that way. Originally they
had the building pulled Goser to Chapman Avenue with a continuous planter across the
back. In working with the Planning staff it became evident to them that a 12 foot
dedication for widening on Chapman Avenue was required for a future bus stop and also for a five foot
widening at Prospect Avenue for a future right turn lane. This pushed the building to the
northern
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
exact dimension needed to provide a proper tum around in the baGc. They would be glad to
pull the building forward and provide landscaping in lieu of pushing the building baGc againstthepropertyline, but that was a requirement of Public Works.
Commissioner Smith thought the satellite dish was very large for the site. Was it possible to
install a smaller one?
Mr. Sheegog said this was the only system Walgreen's had. He could pass on the suggestion,but he knows they would probably move to another site where they could use their existingsystem. They are screening this one to the D.R.B.'s satisfaction and it should not be a public
eyesore.
Commissioner Pruett did not understand how large the satellite dish was.
Mr. Sheegog explained the dish was six feet in diameter and when placed on the ground, it
was about seven feet tall. It's on about a 15 degree inGine and is mounted on a pole (almost
on the ground) and tilted a little bit.
Chairman Bosch had a concern with Grculation. In looking at the particular layout the piGc updrive-through exits the south directly into the on-coming traffic entering fromtheChapmanAvenuedriveway. How do they intend to regulate traffic at that point to prevent
a collision?Mr. Sheegog said they have found, and the traffic reports will substantiate, traffic
counts were measured over a Thursday, Friday and Saturday during peak business hours. At
dinner time,they found at most of the drive-through windows one five minute interval where
there were two cars. During the rest of the day it was one car. Most of the business is
actually walk-up. The drive-through is provided as
a convenience for senior Gtizens.Commissioner Pruett noticed on the Placentia drawing the driveway to
the north, there is an indication on the pavement directing traffic to turn right and gointotheone-way drive through on the west side. Is there anything to prevent
something
similar on the Chapman Avenue entrance?Mr. Sheegog said they could place painted markings on the pavement
and agreed to
that if it became a condition.Commissioner Romero asked if the stores were franchises and
if
there was a history of Gosures?Mr. Sheegog said it was his understanding they
were company-owned stores.
He did not know of any Gosures.Commissioner Cathcart went baGc to the north side
of the building/property line issue. He assumed the drive aisle across the baGc was one way. (Yes.)
And, it could be 15 feet and there was room to put in a five foot
planter all the way across the baGc?Mr. Sheegog responded not across the baGc. They could place a planter potentially adjacent to the building, but a car coming out of the pick up window will
swing all the way
to
Planning Commission Meeting
Those soeakino in oaaosition
June 5, 1995
Luther Bowen, 3335 East Chapman, owns the Key Rexall Drugstore, which is directly across
the street from the proposed use. He has been in business for 29 years in Orange and he
didn't see the need for another pharmacy that Gose to where he is. He didn't think there would
be enough business for Walgreen's. He offered free delivery service to his customers and
thought the drive-through service was
unnecessary.The public hearing was
Gosed.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve
Negative Declaration 1470-95 as there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment or
wildlife resources.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett,
Romero, Smith NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith found the proposal to be a use less intense than the gas station
use that was there previously. Even though there are Vaffic concerns, because of the
less intensive use, she would be in favor of
the project.Commissioner Pruett addressed the concern expressed by Mr. Bowen. He
thought they needed to make sure that the public understands the Commission's decision is based
upon the appropriate land use and the issue of competitive businesses is outside
their purview.Commissioner Cathcart mentioned if it were not for the drive-through
condition, this proposal would not be before the Commission. The business would be there
regardless. The Planning Commission was looking at the drive-through
portion of the proposal.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner
Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2109-95 with the conditions listed in the staff
report, noting condition 3 be underlined and bolded to make sure there are no mistakes when the
store is built; and also add to condition 3 so that it's not only for one-way drive
aisles, but to separate egress and access traffic at the driveway points, particularly
on Chapman Avenue. The Design Review Board shall review the final landscaping and signage
plans, paying Gose attention from the
standpoint of visibility and safety concerns.AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett,
Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED For the record, Chairman Bosch was pretty
much categorically against drive throughs. He thought they were a waste of resources; they cause
endless problems with trash, litter and Vaffic congestion. However, as a Planning Commissioner, he
has a duty to uphold the ordinances of the City and look at the reasons for granting
a conditional use permit. It appears with the careful placement of signage to control the flow of opposing
traffic on the site, the site plan does create a condition that is in harmony with
the neighborhood plan appropriate for the use on the site and is a less intense
use
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
3 -MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1744 -BLUE RIBBON NURSERY
A request to modify a previously approved conditional use permit which allowed Blue Ribbon
Nursery to operate at this location, to incorporate a green waste transfer operation. The site is
located at 1425 North Santiago Boulevard.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1472-95 has been prepared to evaluate the
environmental impacts of this
project.Joan Wolff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this
item.Conditional Use Permit 1744 was originally approved by the City on February 18, 1989.
The permit allowed Blue Ribbon Nursery to relocate from a parcel within the County to a
property directly across the street, which is in the City. The nursery is located on a short segment
of Santiago Boulevard, between Santiago Canyon Road and Santiago Creek.
Santiago Boulevard does not extend across the creek. The bridge washed out some 30 years ago.
The road is under County jurisdiction. TheC.U.P. has been requested to authorize the
green waste transfer operation that occurs on the site. This application to modify the originalC.U.
P.came about as the result of code enforcement action. A complaint was made regarding
the green waste portion of the nursery operation and as a result, the application is
being processed. It is intended for public input in evaluating any potential impacts. The tent "
green waste" refers to plant materials that are generally disposed of such as landscape
trimmings,yard Gippings, etc. A green waste transfer station is a property to which these materials
can be brought by homeowners and landscapers, stored for a limited amount of time and
then removed to an off-site composting fatality. The materials are then recyGed
into landscape products such as mulch. The green waste transfer operation is the first part of
the overall recytaing operation where the plant materials are eventually reused, rather than disposed
of in the landfill. Composting does not occur at the transfer station site. The zoning of
the property is S-G -Sand and Gravel Extraction District and the General Plan
designation is resource area. The S-G zone is intended to provide for the commercial
extraction and processing of earth materials, including any accessory uses and structures.
It also allows farming,agricultural crops and grazing. The zone also allows for
concrete batch plants, sanitary landfills, parks and recreation areas with a conditional use permit.
The staff report and negative declaration identify that impacts such as traffic, noise, dust
or fire hazards could result from a green waste transfer operation. Because of the small size
of the operation, less than 2/3's of an acre, the report contaudes the impacts are substantially
less than those that would be associated from a sand and gravel extraction operation, which is
a permitted use at the property. The staff report contains several conditions of approval
that are recommended to minimize any impacts that might occur as a result of this
operation. The Commission received a copy of a letter that was sent by Irv PiGcler to the Orange
County Water District regarding this conditional use permit. Ms. Wolff was contacted earlier this date
by the Orange County Water District asking for a copy of the report, which she gave them. She
did not receive any response from
them about their concerns.The
public
hearing was opened.Aoolicant Barry RodieGc, 7658 Woodsboro Avenue, Anaheim, was born in
1951 in Orange. He purchased Blue Ribbon Nursery in January, 1994. It was and has been
operating
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
site that it is right now since 1989. Previous to that, the nursery was across the street. They
were composting there and had a nursery. It was also a contaminated dump site. In 1989,
they decided to scale down their operation, moved across the street, and hopefully created a
positive attitude in the eyes of the homeowners. There has never been a complaint in all the
years until this one complaint now. He wants to comply with the C.U.P. and City requirements.
The nursery and green waste transfer station is a benefit to the homeowners and landfills.
Commissioner Smith was curious as to how he kept track of moving the Gippings along within
30 days?
Mr. Rodieck stated they move them in seven days. It's very seldom it's there longer than
seven days. It is kept that small; he does not let it get out of hand. If it does, he brings in an
extra truck. They do not haul material out on Saturdays or Sundays; only during the week.
There are a lot of regulations he must follow.
Commissioner Smith asked who brings their green waste to the nursery?
Mr. Rodieck said many homeowners and commercial landscapers bring their green waste to
them. He believed the City of Orange years ago actively used the facility as well.
Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Rodieck to explain how he was already in the green waste
business without the benefit of a conditional use permit.
Mr. Rodieck said when he acquired the business, it was already in operation. He believed it
was legal to do it and did not think he was in violation.
Chairman Bosch had the same concern as shared by the letter the Commission received from
Irv Pickier to the Water District relative to water quality control. What measures are in place,
who monitors them and what regulations are present that you operate under with regard to
controlling potential run off from the mulch storage area into either the adjacent pit or Santiago
Creek?
Mr. Rodieck responded he didn't know how Mr. Pickier got a hold of this. He's a resident of
Anaheim and has offices in Fullerton. The County Waste Management visits the site two or
three times a year. They are in compliance and they don't have a problem with their operation.
During the winter, they try to maintain their piles to a very low standard. Run off is very minute
and he didn't believe there was any contamination. It is diked all the way around and they
have a containment where the water sits (about 95%). It basically evaporates. They are not
required to make formal reports to the County Waste Management because it is a small
facility.
Those soeakina in favor
Jeff Oderman, Attorney with Rutan 8 Tucker, represented Mr. Rodieck. He didn't have
anything to add to what was said previously, but wanted the opportunity to respond to any
objections that might be made.
Commissioner Smith said given the concern that has been voiced over the contamination into
the water way, she asked if it would be acceptable if the Commission were to ask for a
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
monitoring of the situation? Mr. Rodieck mentioned he has very little monitoring of debris or
nursery site slough off into the water shed area. She would like to attach a condition that there
be some improvement to that minimal system.
Mr. Oderrnan did not object to monitoring the site. Mr. Rodieck did not mention the State
Water Resources Control Board (the Regional Board) comes out on occasion and they have
no problem either and are somewhat mystified as to why anyone would think there could be a
problem. He thought this had nothing to do with water quality; it had to do with BFI having a
contract with Mr. Rodieck that they're trying to break. So they're trying any way they can to
shut him down. The E.M.A. has been out from the County, the Regional Board has been out.
They don't care if they stood out there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They would be happy
to report if there were any problems. As long as it is not a burden to the operation of the
business, it would not be a problem to have additional monitoring.
Those soeakino in ooaosition
Donald Jackson, Orange County Water District, 10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, said the
letter given to the Commission expressed the District's concerns of this operation. The District
also requests an environmental impact report be done for the project as the green waste may
contain fertilizer. They operate the water percolation basins to service North and Central
Orange County. The site is adjacent to the creek that feeds into the basins. They're
concerned with contamination.
Commissioner Cathcart said up until the time the applicant was asked to come forward for a
conditional use permit, this use has been going on for at least six years that the applicant is
aware of.
Mr. Jackson said that may be true. He does site inspections in the area, and he was not
aware there was any other type of operation there.
Commissioner Pruett noted the letter placed emphasis on the word "may". He wanted to place
emphasis on another word in the letter and that was "significant". He asked Mr. Jackson if in
his mind and judgment, if there was a significant operation there that may contribute to a
problem?
Mr. Jackson responded he would have to have their environmental people go to the site and
specifically look at this particular instance. It would require a reinspection by somebody that is
trained in environmental wncems. He would have to go back and look at the site again before
commenting on the significance.
Commissioner Pruett was a little concerned in the terms of direction this is taking. One state
agency who basically does not have a problem with the nursery and the Orange County Water
District's letter indicates there may be a significant problem, but significance is not the
emphasis in the letter. Then, it was indicated Mr. Jackson visited the site two years ago and
there was no evidence of a problem. He was distressed over what was happening in terms of
the action being taken against someone who has been operating the business for several
years, and now because a complaint has come forward, the District is ready to take action
against the property. Someone is not getting treated property. He's hearing conflicting issues
that really bring to question as to are they responding to a complaint or responding to a
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
condition9 In his view, he's not sure he has seen any evidence presented that indicates there
is a condition that is a problem (other than the complaint).
Chairman Bosch noted the City of Orange is the lead agency who prepared an initial study of
environmental impacts which inGuded (as required by CEQA) those items relative to water
indicating no impact on any item other than changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or
their rate in amount of surface run off, which was found to be less than a significant impact.
Commissioner Cathcart said the staff report refers to the business not accepting treated
material, no fertilizers, no pesticides, etc. If there is a jurisdiction above the City that would
want to monitor Blue
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
Ribbon's activity, they would have the opportunity to shut him down. It doesn't fall within the
Commission's purview. If Blue Ribbon was contributing negatively and accepting waste that
would cause a hazard, those authorities responsible for checking those things would definitely
make him change or shut him down.
Rebuttal
Mr. Oderman didn't think there was any information presented that would dispute the
recommendations in the staff report.
The public hearing was Gosed.
Mr. Soo-Hoo recommended the Commission ask Planning staff and the City Engineer as
to what the regulatory structure is as far as County, State and Federal agencies that oversee
the water quality just to ensure there is a process that is taking place and has been taking
place.Ms. Wolff would be happy to follow up and make some phone calls; talk to the Water
Control Board, the Water Quality District to find out some of this information. She would then
bring back the information at a later date. The agencies she talked to did not have a problem
with water quality at this site. As far as preparing an E.I.R., any E.I.R. needs to be done if
impacts cannot be mitigated. If staff can find out whether this is an issue through the proper
regulatory agencies and if they have mitigation measures, then those can be added in and the
negative deGaration can be
modified.Mr. Johnson thought the Water Quality Control Board was the agency who would
be concerned about the contaminated waters. There are a couple of abandoned dumps in
the area and that in itself presents a substantial Goud on the ground water conditions. It would
be easy for the owner to put in a berm system to make sure no water left the
site.Mr. Odernan said the Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction. If there is
waste discharge, as defined under the law, a discharger is required to obtain a waste
discharge permit. That permit would provide for the levels of certain types of materials that
cannot exceed specified concentrations, it typically has periodic reporting requirements and
monitoring compliance programs. The Regional Board has been out to this site on numerous
occasions and has determined there is not even any activity that is occurring which
necessitates obtaining a permit, much less getting into issues of violation or reporting/
monitoring.
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
Commissioner Pruett did not see this as a land use issue, but more of something that deals
with the Water Quality Control Board. He suggested a condition that the property owner meets
all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and implement any mitigating
requirements that are required.
Chairman Bosch passed this nursery several times a day as it is Gose to his neighborhood.
He appreciated the way in which the current operators have cleaned up and improved the site
and it's operation over a period of time, including solving early access problems relative to gate
placement and management into the facility when queuing might occur. It's a vast
improvement over what occurred before 1989 on the site. That's an important and visible site
to many people and he was sure the operator would want to keep it as a blue ribbon operation.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to approve Negative
Declaration 1472-95 and finds there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a significant impact on the environment or wildlife
resources.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero,
Smith NOES: None MOTION
CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to approve Conditional
Use Permit 1744 with conditions 1-16 and adding condition 17 that the property owner meets
all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and implement
any mitigating requirements that
are required.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett,
Romero, Smith
NOES: None 4 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2110-95 -LUTHERAN HIGH
SCHOOL
OF ORANGE COUNTY A proposal to expand the existing Lutheran
High School facility NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act CEQA) perState CEQA
Guidelines Section 15314.There was no opposition to this item. Mr. Jones said staff had a
possible modification to condition 1 the Commission may
want to consider.Commissioner Smith noticed the notices were mailed on May 22 and it seems kind
of
late to her.Mr. Jones explained it's 10 days advance notice for the hearing when
there is no environmental determination
to be made.The public
hearing
Planning Commission Meeting
Aoalicant
June 5, 1995
Richard Brumfield, RCR Architecture, 850 East Chapman, #C, represented the Lutheran High
School Association of Orange County. They have read the staff report (inGuding the
modification to condition 1) and understand and agree with it. He would entertain any
questions the Commission had.
Commissioner Cathcart asked if there would be any negative feelings on the applicant's part if
during the incremental phases of the project the Commission were to place a condition that at
each one of those phases it be brought back to the Commission for an administrative review to
make sure it was in conformance with the master plan?
Mr. Brumfield did not object to that.
The public hearing was Gosed.
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional
Use Permit 2110-95 with the conditions listed in the staff report, inGuding modification
to condition 1 - (end of third paragraph) to read: will expire automatically. (as to unconsUucted
portions of the project.); also to add condition 4 - at each phase the applicant will present a specific
plan for review of substantial conformance by the Planning Commission; and find the project
is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES:
None IN
RE: MISCELLANEOUS 5 -
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL 2-95 (D.R.B. NO. 3057) B. LANCE MILLER,
APPLICANT AND APPELLANT
A recommendation to the City Council is sought concerning the appeal of a decision to deny
proposed modifications to the facade of a building in the Plaza Historic DisUict, Old Towne and
C-1 (Limited Business) Districts. The building is addressed 132-140 South
Glassell Street.Commissioner Cathcart was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict
of interest.No one was in opposition to the appeal and the appeal hearing
was opened.Mike Van Volkom, Westhill Management Company, owners and managers of the
building at 132-140 South Glassell, briefly explained the building was undergoing
aseismic renovation.They're about 95% complete. Problems have arisen with the presence of
a steel frame located outside the facade of the building. A previous owner in years past
had recessed the front of the building back about six feet from the second floor. Because
of the engineering they had to put two steel frames in the building -one inside the middle of the
building and one underneath the second story at the front. He brought two pictures with him
and explained the problem to the Commission. In attempting to get the building signed off, Dan
Ryan felt he could not allow the metal elements to remain visible. They had proposed to
enGose
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
columns with the same wood trim that all storefronts have. Mr. Ryan did not want that because
it would set a bad precedent. He wanted them to move out the entire store front in front of the
steel frame. However, they felt it did not make sense because the store front would stiGc out
three to four feet further than the other store fronts. The tenant who used it as a tea court did
not want to lose the front patio area. When you looked through the glass, one could still see
the large steel frames. Moving the glass out a few feet corrects nothing. It would be better to
hide them in the wood Goaking and add a seat to hide them completely. The Design Review
Board felt they could not allow the precedent of an element technically being outside of the
building. The D.R.B. proposed three alternatives: 1) the entire store front be moved out in
front of the frame; 2) the left and right sides of the store front be moved out in front of the
frame and the middle would stay put; or 3) a compromise whereby they could Goak the beams
in wood, but they wanted the store frame to come up to the wood to appear as part of the front
and they also wanted them to change the cosmetic nature of the trim on the sides. Every store
front has a blue wainscoting element sticking out with little white fish scale elements on the
side. This pattern is on all four store fronts; it's not something they created. They're thinking
was something had to be in front of the frames to technically qualify them as being covered.
The other problem was they wanted to change the design element to get rid of the blue and
white elements. In the presence of about four inches of space, behind the frame and in front
of the glass, there was a void. They could eliminate the void, but did not want to eliminate the
white fish scale material and wanted to keep the same blue wainscoting. To move the glass,
whether in whole or in part, still didn't hide the fact there are still -two large frames sitting in
plain view. Inside, about 50 feet baGc, is exactly the same 2-story steel frames. It
was encloaked in wood and painted white (it's invisible, but there). They want to do the same
thing to the outside. However, they feel all four stores are more or less equivalent. Theydidn't
want to do to one what would not be done to the other three because it would look sVange.
At some later date they might consider doing something more to the entire store front such
as paint, new awnings. But all they want to do now is complete the seismic renovation and
Goak the frames with the same blue wainscoting trim on all four sides and not move the store
front out in any
way.Commissioner Smith asked if Mr. Van Volkom was aware of the work of the Plaza
Design Collaborative? (Yes.) And, had he considered initiating and using some of those ideas on
the project for the facade
renovation?Mr. Van Volkom explained their project was within the interior of the building. The only
reason they are here is because the frame for engineering reasons had to be installed. They have
not touched the exterior of the building. At some future date they would like to do
something.They want to finish the seismic renovation and have it signed
off.Commissioner Smith visited the site and she did not understand. It Dearly looked like
there was a 12 to 14 inch difference between where the steel column stands and the glass
window.She keeps reading about a three inch difference. Is the intent to bring the wood Goaking
baGt within three inches of the window? Have they looked into what it would cost to do a
facade restoration according to the Plaza DesignCollaborative's
plan?Mr. Van Volkom said it was their intent to Goak the wood tightly around the steel frames
and either at the bottom build a seat or planter, etc. A gap would remain at the baGc of the
frame and the front of the store front glass. They have had a cost run over of 30% thus far, they'
re
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
way over budget. The facade renovation is a separate project and they would have to give
considerable thought to that.
Commissioner Pruett asked if they have focused on any time tables as to when they might
address the exterior facade improvements?
Mr. Van Volkom said they have picked out paint and awning colors from a book and have
discussed it with some architects. The architects have shared their opinions and options with
them, but they don't see anything happening in the next few months. They're looking at 6 to
12 months before starting the other project.
Commissioner Pruett asked in approving the appeal, if the property owner were to agree to
submitting a time table for improving the store front and moving forward in that direction, is that
something the City can do with this approval? And, if it were not done, what would the
condition be?
Mr. Soo-Hoo responded that was the primary issue. Once the project is signed off, hedidn'
t imagine outside of a very awkward enforcement process what leverage the City would have
to enforce a
renovation.Chairman Bosch commented if the Plaza Design Collaborative created a series of designs
that applied to specific buildings that were adopted by the D.R.B. and City Council to be utilized
as a guideline for an applicant or builder who desired to restore or renovate the building to
match the guidelines, they could avoid going through theD.R.B. pre-approval. It cuts out the
red tape along the way. The key feature of the building, as he personally recollected and
through the study that was done is that most of the store fronts in downtown had recessed
entries with show windows on each side of varying depths. There is not a straight, uniform
store front across the front of the facade. So the Design Collaborative was concerned that
the building frame work itself be encouraged to represent historically accurate as possible
the original buildings. And, the individual facades be allowed to have a certain amount of
freedom that would characterize them as tenant facades and represent their individual businesses,
as long as the character, the shapes of the materials utilized, the finishes be those that,
although may not be replicating the original materials and type, would carry forward the historic
theme. He looked at this and found a couple of issues: 1) the seismic renovation needs to
be wrapped up; and 2) he felt very strongly that nothing more should be done to create a
permanent icon out of the columns, which are in fact interior features or skin features, rather than
a strong architectural feature to the building. In his opinion, he felt they should limit the cladding
to as tight of cladding around the steel columns as possible and keep the colors as
background as possible so the elements don't jump out. The applicant should be strongly
encouraged to continue to look at renovation of the facade of the building, particularly the store fronts
as it becomes economically viable for several reasons. There are substantial tax
credits available for restoration within the range of historic styles available for the buildings since Orange
is a National Registered Historic District. Those credits are available for six to 12
months more after reimbursement of work already done in the past. Some of that is already
being applied for by other people in the downtown area. He encouraged the applicant to look at that as
it will help a lot, not only with architectural facade improvements, but with other work. Of
course, it has always proven to be good for business. He was very concerned about the
existing store fronts. They're terrible and should have never gone there, but they're there. There'
s no curent City ordinance in place which requires they be moved; only that if they're
changed,
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
they be changed in a way that is in conformance with the historical precedence. If the appeal
were granted, he would want to do it subject to the absolute minimum wrapping of the column.
It should be a very subdued enterprise when completed. Economic help is available and
should be an encouragement to the applicant through tax incentives. He didn't want to see
additional trim, planters or benches - it not only discourages future renovation, but also puts such
a price on the appearance of these things that they become a strong feature and destroy the
value of the building.Mr.
Von Volkman did not have a problem with the Gadding improvements being as tight as possible.
The
hearing was Gosed.Commissioner
Smith thought it was a shame people are not availing themselves of the tremendous
work that was done by the Plaza Design Collaborative. With all the incentives, it'san "
E" ticket through the process with D.R.B. and a permit is granted automatically. She was very
disappointed that still another store front is being improved with the seismic retrofit without taking
advantage of $250,000to $300,000 of donated expertise. She understood some of the financial
constraints around that, however, having improved her own home many times over the
years. The property value continues to increase with each dime that is invested in the building.
She understood the seismic retrofitting is very expensive and it'seating up a lot of money
that doesn'tshow at all. She agreed entirely with Dan Ryan, Senior Planner with the expertise
in historic architecture. She agreed with the D.R.B.'s ruling on the property. The standards
are not only that of the City of Orange; they are that of the Secretary of Interior applied
to properties within a National Register District. She thought it was a very bad precedent
to have the steel columns standing there independently and she was listening cerefully
to the recommendations of Chairman Bosch as to how to treat those. She believes they
will set a precedent for other owners. She hopes someone goes out there and actually looks
at the distances being discussed. She's not an architect, but she knows the difference between
three and 14, 15 inches. The wood that surrounds the beams is out probably six inches
from the beams and then there is six or eight inches more to the window. She would probably
vote against this as an incentive to do proper facade work. One of the things that is so
startling is that in the seismic retrofitting evidently a person is not required to do anything about
old glass which breaks into shards during an earthquake and it could kill people. If there was
something that addressed that such as shatterproof glass had to be installed, there wouldn'
tbe that much expense in pushing it out and putting the plate in. She knew the blue vertical
pieces and the white fish scale shingles are not appropriate for the facade of a brick mason
building. She wished something could be changed about that. That seems to be a minimal
improvement that would not be that expensive. She was not anxious to see that replicated
on the columns because it is not historically correct for the building as k is. With the agreement
on how those columns would be treated, she would be inGined to vote for the project,
but with extreme reservation for the fact it will set a precedent for other people in the same
situation. She also pointed out the front of the building does not match as it is now.This
particular store front is recessed and the other three or four are out. She didn't trust the plans;
visually it looks different. None of the other columns stand out in front of the glass. The store
to the north is less recessed. She rejects the argument they want this one to remain the same
as the others, because it is already different than the others.15
T
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
Chairman Bosch concurred with Commissioner Smith's concerns relative to getting to the
overall improvement of the facade of the building. He thought the applicant would find there is
going to be increased economic incentives; many are available now to partake of and he
wished the applicant would go after them. The only things he could go back to is to look at
what the D.R.B. said. They proposed three options in their initial motion to continue. The
applicant came back and desired to do none of them where upon the D.R.B. denied the
application. The three were: 1) to replace the store front at the original position, which would
be something historical research would find; 2) remove the existing glass curtain and relocate -fill
the void between the new I-beam support between the columns; or 3) increase the depth of
the wooden box to extend beyond the glass curtain so the glass appears to end at the edge of
each pillar. It appears from this the concern of the D.R.B. was to eliminate the sense of the glass
disappearing behind the columns, but have it span from column to column and it would be
inside the building. Relative to those three, with due difference to the D.R.B., the problem is
that the columns are there at all. His opinion, as an architect and one involved in looking at the
restoration of buildings in the Plaza area, he was less concerned about whether there is a three
inch or six inch void behind the columns and what the columns look like until they're blessed
by the good reasoning and contusion of the applicant to avail themselves of the opportunity
to restore the facade appropriately. Because that is the problem. The column is not
the problem. The glass, how it is built, how it is framed, where it exists is the problem. The City
can'tmake the applicant move it because the facade is not being renovated (except where the
columns came through). There are other buildings where the seismic retrofit, in tact,engaged
the facade of the building causing facade renovation to be required as part of the seismic
upgrade, in which there was teeth to be put into doing it. He believed he would like to see
is everything possible to minimize the appearance of the columns -furring as tight to the columns
as possible, not adding fish scales to it, not adding any box outs other than minor wood
trim at the base and at a wainscot height, utilizing paint colors to differentiate the wainscot
from the upper part of it (if that is appropriate to blend in to the adjacent side walls of the
recess) and that there be no planters, box seats or any other construction placed in the recess
because those would in fact be initiating a modification to the facade. He would make a
condition of this, to state: "Any such additional work would in fact require the upgrade of the entire
facade of the building." That puts some teeth into it. He questioned how the picket fence
got there. It'scute and may help business, but it'sdestructive of the fabric. (The applicant
didn't do it.)Moved
by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Design Review Board
appeal 2-95 (D.R.B. No. 3057) subject to the conditions that the furring and sheathing of
the two columns be limited in extent to no more than two inches in thickness from any exterior
dimension circumscribing the steel column, inGuding trim; that the materials be identical to the
wood siding adjacent to the columns and the store front other than the fish scale; and that the
encasement be painted to blend in with the existing store front color. Any further construction
within the recesses or the store front would necessitate an application for complete designreviewoffacaderestorationtothebuilding.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Cathcart returned to the meeting.
16
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
6 -SITE PLAN REVIEW - McDONALDS AT CHAPMAN AND JAMBOREE The
applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider a revision to the approved site
plan for the Albertson'sShopping Center located at the southwest comer of Chapman AvenueandJamboreeRoad.There
was no opposition and the hearing was opened.Aoolicant
Robert
Lombardi, Senior Project Manager for McDonalds Corporation, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, has read the staff report and agreed to it.Commissioner
Smith was concerned as to how the drive through exits into the main traffic drive
aisle. It causes an extreme problem when cars are stacked up at the window. Is there an
internal control of that when there is a situation like this? If you see the traffic is stacked up,
would you slow down the serving process until it moves along?Mr.
Lombardi replied they do not have an internal mechanism to have someone go outside and actually
gauge or control traffic. The issue is probably the peak hours -their busy noon hour.It
will not coincide with the shopping center's peak hours. He believed the peak hours of the shopping
center were the evening hours or weekends. He believed the lay out would be self-remedying
in the sense that if there are a stack of cars, that will slow up the order itself.Moved
by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the revised site
plan for McDonalds.AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner
Cathcart brought up a point they have discussed in the past. They would like to meet
with the Design Review Board to go over various relationships and responsibilities betweenthePlanningCommissionandD.R.B. He asked staff to find a date that would be acceptable
to all parties and report back to the Commission. Staff would be happy to set up suchameeting.Commissioner
Smith said a member of the audience mentioned it is still very difficult to hear what
is being said while in the audience. It'sa garbled sound from the microphone. She would
like staff to find out how the new sound system is working.IN
RE: ADJOURNMENT 17
Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 1995
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn the meeting at
9:30 p.m.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
sld
18