HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-1997 PC MinutesCd.-5DO. 0, ;},:)
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
July 21, 1997
Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT:
None STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-
Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Roger
Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue
Devlin, Recording Secretary IN
RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 7,1997 Moved
by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue the Minutes of July 7,1997
to the next Planning Commission Meeting.AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21n-97 - DARYA RESTAURANT A
request for a shared parking arrangement, to allow Darya Restaurant to expand into a vacant adjacent tenant
space. The added restaurant space would be used during evening hours only. The site is located on
the west side of Tustin Street 300' north of BriardalefTaft Avenue (Tustin Plaza Shopping Center,tenant
space addressed 1840 North Tustin Street).NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a).This
item was continued from the June 16, 1997 hearing.)A
full reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition. The public hearing was opened.
Aoolicant
Bob
Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. was called the other day to review this application and the staff report.The
applicant's architect was not present and Mr. Mickelson was asked to represent them. They find the staff
report and conditions of approval to be acceptable.The
public hearing was dosed.Commissioner
Smith wanted to be sure there was enough parking to support the application.Mr.
Jones explained the vacant space the restaurant proposes to expand into under the shared parking concept
would only be utilized during the evening hours. Condition 2 addresses the hours of operation for
the expanded restaurant use. Staff felt if the applicant complied with this condition, it should enhance parking
during the day time hours.1
1----------
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
Commissioner Smith said the Commission had in the past asked for the presence of a security guard in
the parking lot. She questioned if that been thought of with this application.
Mr. Jones stated the security guard issue did not come up when the Staff Review Committee reviewed
the proposal.
Commissioner Pruett wondered if the landlord was in agreement with the proposal and the conditions of
approval because of its impact on the other tenants.
Mr. Jones said the landlord must sign the application for the restaurant to apply for the conditional use
permit.
Chairman Bosch was not aware of any problems with similar restaurants that don't focus on dancing and
live bands, but do have shared parking. He asked if staff were aware of any problems. He felt it was a
reasonable use to share the parking rather than having that resource sitting there and not being utilized.
Mr. Jones was not aware of any problems with this kind of situation.
It was noted this project was categorically exempt from CEOA review.
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2177-97 with conditions 1-12 based upon the revised plan presented with the most
recent staff report of July 8, 1997. The Commission found the conditional use permit meets sound principles
of land use and will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems. It
has been considered in relationship with the community plan for its area, and has conditions necessary
to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of
the
applicant.
AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED
MISCELLANEOUS ITEM 3. ORB APPEAL 2-97 (ORB #3223) CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY BUSINESS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUILDING -
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY An appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to deny the design proposal for a
new "Business &Information Technology" building at Chapman University. The site is located on the southeast
corner of Sycamore Avenue and
Glassell Street.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this
item. This project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at two different meetings: One on June 4,
1997 and the other on June 18, 1997. Chapman University has a Specific Plan and there was nothing
in question concerning parking requirements, building height, the location of the building, setbacks and tne use
of the building. Those were all anticipated with the original Specific Plan, in addition to
recent amendments approved last year. The Business & Information Technology Building (BIT) is fully compatible
with those requirements. It stands at four stories in height and contains approximately 90,000 square feet
of floor area. The Design Review Board's concerns were essentially related to the issue of architectural
bulk and mass, and more specifically, the Design Review Board was concerned with the architectural
context when compared to other buildings along Glassell Street. One of the bigger concerns was that because
it was located at the edge of the campus, and on a major street in the Old Towne area, there should
be more of an attempt to design a building that is compatible with the architectural styles that
are predominant along Glassell Street, rather than the buildings on the campus. However, that is what
the architectural guidelines within the Specific Plan encouraged. That the architect consider those buildings
that are existing, which includes a diverse range of historic buildings and rather new modern buildings
that are comprised of very different architecturaf styles and
different materials.In response to the comments raised at the first ORB meeting, the plans were revised and
the building was made somewhat lower than the original 62 foot proposal. There was a greater attempt to
define the horizontal elements of the building to make it look more in keeping with the kind of
commercial brick buildings that have been developed in Old Towne in the distant past. Nonetheless, the
ORB
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
encouraged the architect to further revise the proposal. There were some community concern expresse.d
at both the first and second meetings. He believed the ORB felt the applicant had come a long way In
revising the plans and encouraged further revision, but it became very difficult to define which direction to
go to after that point. The architect had requested a decision from the ORB, and on June 18, 1997 the
ORB moved to deny the application.
The public hearing was opened.
ADDlicant
AI McQuilkin. Director of Facilities. Chaoman Universitv. 333 North Glassell Street. believed the plan
presented to the ORB conforms to all the requirements of the Specific Plan. The building is fully
compatiple with the height limitations and setbacks and it complies with the Design Guidelines of site
planning, architecture and landscaping, as well as the other topics covered in the Guidelines. However,
some of the Guidelines conflict with the Old Towne Design Standards. The Desi9n Standards, for
example, do not recognize four story buildings nor do they recognize academic or institutional buildings.
They have tried to respect the general goal of the Old Towne Design Standards in the design of the BIT
Building.
Doua Dworskv. Dworskv Associates. 3530 Wilshire Blvd. #1000. Los Anaeles. presented renderings of
the new BIT Building. He stated Chapman University had several goals in designing the building. They
wanted to design a center for Chapman's business educational programs, as well as its informational
technology needs that would take the University into the twenty,-first century. Concurrent with that,
Chapman University wanted a building that would be compatible with not only some of the more
historical buildings on campus, but with the entire tradition of building on the Chapman campus, from its
initial onset up to present day. They kept all those guidelines in mind in designing the building. In
addition to that, they worked with the University's representatives and have met with the community
representatives, including O.T.P.A. The site is constrained on the north by Sycamore and the prior
setbacks of the Specific Plan, on the west by Glassell and the required setbacks, to the south by the
need to maintain a separation to the existing School of Rim and Television, and on the east by the desire
to limit the encroachment of the building on the existing site of the proposed Chapel. In looking at the
issue of the massing and architectural character of the building, they took into account the requirements
and limitations under the Specific Plan. Under the Specific Plan, architectural interest and variety are
encouraged, while allowing for flexibility in building design. And at the same time, respecting the
existing architectural character of the campus and the surrounding community. They grouped the
architectural conditions on the cam~us into two categories and ~ave them nick names. They called them
the "white" tradition and the "bei~e tradition. The "white" tradition referred to the older, more Classical
buildings on the campus. The beige" tradition is represented by buildings from more recent years,
perhaps going back to the 1950's. He pointed out examples of the white and beige categories. The
proposed building relates to both traditions on the campus.
Mr. Dworsky described the architectural styles of the proposed four story building, which was 62 feet in
height. The intent is to match the color and character of the two traditions on campus, bringing them
together in one building at this pivotal location. The ground floor is a windowless floor for internal
functional needs. They revised the design of the building for the second ORB meeting, and included a
trellis on the fourth floor setback to give the building more detail and character. They eliminated the large
areas of glass and substituted a series of smaller window types.
Since the ORB meetings, they have made some minor changes to the design of the building and Mr.
Dworsky showed the Commission those changes which they believe address the concerns of the Design
Review Board. The most significant change has been the setback of the fourth floor by 12 feet to reduce
the perceived mass of building along Glassell Street. They have maintained a series of masses which
break down the scale of the building, both in the lower and upper levels. The window types have been
simpli,fied ~Iong Glassell Street. He also spoke about the landscaping for the proposed building and
area, Including a new entrance to the campus on Sycamore.
Commissioner Smith said it looked like a lot of detail went into the building on the Glassell Street side
and wanted to know how many surfaces there were. (Three different surfaces.) However, there didn't
appear to be a relationship between the two ends of the building.
3
T
Planning Commission Minutes July 21,1997
Mr. Dworsky explained there were different planes of the building using the renderings to show the
differences. He also talked about the metal tower and how it met one of the required emergency exits
to the roof. The nature of the tower is that it would be open and airy. There should be minimal impact to
the Glassell elevation as it will not be visible from the street.
Commissioner Carlton asked how much higher the tower was than the 62 foot roof line? (Approximately
40 feet.) She thought the Queen Palm trees were a chore to maintain and it would impact the City
workers to take care of them.
Mr. Donovan responded the landscape plans were conceptual at this point, but the applicant will be
required to submit 8 final plan to the Design Review Board. He didn't believe Palm trees were any
more expensive to maintain than a regular street tree. There are existing Palm trees on Glassell now and
it well may be the designated street tree for that block of Glassell Street.
Chairman Bosch stated the Queen Palm was the designated tree for that portion of Glassell Street and it
was not the type of Palm to attract critters. It was more user friendly in maintenance than most of the
street trees as it doesn't tend to destroy sidewalks.
Commissioner Carlton's last comment was with the niches with the pillars to be consistent with the old
architectural style of the campus. It didn't seem to be consistent, but it would seem to her that the
design surrounding the whole building, being more uniform would lend to the aesthetic impact of the
structure, rather than the pillars just being on two sides. They are not on the east or west side of the
building.
Mr. Dworsky responded it was often common to have certain details focus on the front, with other details
on the sides. Not all buildings have the same sides, although there were elements that might carry
around the building.
CommiSsioner Romero asked Mr. Dworsky to address the differences between the ORB meeting of
June 18 and this meeting. And, he questioned the graduated height ceiling.
Mr. Dworsky described the differences as being the articulation of the windows on the west and the
setback of the fourth floor on the Glassell elevation. They addressed the most critical issues of the ORB.
There is a graduated height ceiling and it was in the original submittal.
Mr. McQuilkin thought there was a misinterpretation on the part of the ORB with the graduated ceilings.
The Specific Plan includes a graduated height setback as one of the exhibits. It establishes a minimum
and maximum height relative to setback. He thought the ORB interpreted that literally to mean that any
building that is on the perimeter should be stepped back in accordance with the graduated setback. The
proposed building is set back further than is required by the Specific Plan on both the north and west
sides. And, even with the full four storr. height on Glassell, it still fits within that height contour gradient
and fits within the envelope of the SpeCIfic Plan.
Mr. Jones replied in staff's opinion the building envelope does comply with the requirements of the
Specific Plan. The one earlier comment of the tower exceeding the 62 foot height limit IS an element that
is allowed and the Specific Plan encourages that.
Commissioner Smith needed more of an explanation on how puttin~ 40 feet on top of 62 feet works with
the height setbacks. She didn't think that was the intent of the Specific Plan when they were talking about
height setbacks.
Mr. Donovan responded the definition of building height under the City's Municipal Ordinance exempts
anything under five percent (5%) of the roof area of a building. The expressed intent is to allow for
architectural variations. The tower is a focal point to the architecture that is exempt under regulation as
long as it does not exceed that five percent of the roof area of the building.
Mr. Jones added the code does not specify what that additional height limit is. This is something that is
within the Planning Commission's purview to determine whether or not that is appropriate.
Commissioner Smith's recollection of the intent of that was that the campus would be sculptured; not just
the buildings. The highest points would be in the center and then come out to lower building heights at
4
Tn-------
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
the street setbacks. She thought at some point, this may be the center of the campus as it continues to
grow.
Building heights of the existing buildings on campus were discussed.
Public Comments
Joan Crawford. 394 South Orange. complimented Chapman University for being open and available to
discuss their proposed projects with the community. However, the design is not where it needs to be.
They want the building to look like it belongs there. They've seen the footprint, but haven't seen the
streetscape of what this building is going to look like next to the Rim and TV School and the original
campus. This building is going to be approximately 300 feet long down Sycamore and it is going to ~
62 feet high. There is a 20 foot difference from the existing buildings on campus. Most of the community
can accept the bulk and mass if they could have an acceptable design - something that looks like it was built
before 1940 so that it would mesh with the rest of the community. This is the gateway to Chapman and
Old Towne. They believe that the Southwest Design Guidelines, the Chapman Specific Plan, and the
Historic Preservation Design Standards, although their wording may not be compatible, they all do require
pompatibility with the surroundin9. area. The community has not asked for a specific design or style,
but were looking for something traditional that would fit in With the campus and with Old Towne.Carole
Walters. 534 North Shaffer. said the Specific Plan does not allow 102 feet. She thought this was wrong
and believed this should be continued until the Commission could review the Specific Plan.Craig
Wheeler. 508 Plaza SQuare #G.lives in Silverado Canyon, but has an office in Old Towne. He was worried
the architect was being forced into a position of having to design something on the front elevation,
while not being able to carry out on the rest of the building. To him, there was too much of a break
between the Glassell Street side and the other sides of the building and they do not tie in together.
It reminded him a little bit of the building having a false front. He would like to see some articulation
between the front and the rest of the building. He questioned how much of this was forced on the
architect by the design process.Barbara
DeNiro spoke as a citizen outside of the Old Towne area and she would like to be included.She
thought the University was still at the drawing board. She also believed Chapman University and Old
Towne were only a slice of Orange. She commended Chapman University for working with the residents
and community.ResDonse
to Comments Mr.
McQuilkin responded to the concerns of the ORB as it was their feeling on the building's design that prompted
Chapman to revise their plan. The ORB couldn't get beyond the issue of the bulk and mass and
Chapman University felt it was in their best interest not to continue with the process that tried to define
the building into some ultimate level while at the same time knowing there were these concerns with
bulk and mass. As far as the issue of trying to design a building that looks like it was built before 1940,
that was a hard thing to do. The building codes a,redifferent and they no longer teach that way and it
would'be very hard to build a building that looks like pre-1940 construction. This is a very high tech
building for Chapman University, but they tried not to design it as such. They responded to the concerns
of the community as a whole and the Design Review Board - not to anyone group of people.Mr.
Dworsky appreciated the gentleman's concern that the architect was being pushed and pulled in different
directions, but this building has become a better building through the design process.Commissioner
Carlton wanted to know if there were suggestions made that Chapman University felt were
worthy of being incorporated into the design of the building.Mr.
Dworsky responded there has been discussion about the windows and there are a number of other details
that will go into the development of the building. They want to look closely at these details to ensure
the building is developed with the appropriate character. But it was too early in the design development
to give specific answers or drawings of those details. The basic mass of the building will be
as described and ,lIustrated in the drawings.5
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
Commissioner Pruett wanted to know about the first floor being a half basement type of construction.
The floors are stepped down in an auditorium style and are below grade, but yet the hallway is at grade.
It's the nature of the design of the room rather than the design of the first floor. He asked if there was any
consideration of taking that first floor down to maybe a half floor to help reduce the mass issue.
Mr. Dworsky responded there was a significant change made from the first ORB meeting and the second.
That was a change in how the building would accommodate its mechanical systems. Typically in these
types of. buildings the most economical means of accommodating the air conditioning equipment is with
roof top equipment. That's the way they originally proposed the building. That led to problems with the
height of the building. In order to come into compliance with the Specific Plan, the University decided to
remove the major mechanical equipment to the basement level. This basement is on a lower level than
the first floor where the audio visual rooms are.
Commissioner Smith saw a vast improvement on the elevation that faces Glassell Street, but it doesn't
match the east side. There is no beige base there, the windows are all different sizes, there is no
representation of the windows on Glassell on the back side of the building, she couldn't see the fourth
floor setback and if she looked at those in two separate places, she would think they were two different
buildings. Did the design on the front not get to the back or is that the way it is going to be?
Mr. Dworsky thought there was an intentional transition from the west elevation to the east elevation of
the building. The building works as a whole. The east and west elevations are not drastically worlds
apart; there are definitely subtle differences. Some of those differences are based on the functions that
are occurring along the east side of the building. The east elevation is the primary entrance to the
building. It has certain functions that are very different from any of the other sides of the building. There
is a two story lobby that is the main entrance into the building and the University wanted to make the
building as friendly and as inviting as possible, both to students and faculty as well as visitors. They
wanted a large, open glazed entry lobby so there is more glass at this location for the purpose of
making the building inviting. In addition, the University added a small cafe to the southeast corner of the
building. Because the cafe is at the ground floor and faces the proposed plaza, the University felt it was
appropriate to have substantial amounts of glass providing views. They felt there was a compatibility
with all the elevations of the building. Although the east and west do have slightly different characters,
there are appropriate transitions from side to side in the building. This will be a consistent and strong
piece of architecture. They are proposing to take the stone along the base of the building and wrap it up
the tower so the materials that are used on the other sides of the building are also used on the east
elevatiorl. They have removed the brick wall from the tower as shown in the drawing and will use stone
with the intent to keep the tower open.
Commissioner Smith heard the new gateway to the campus would be via Sycamore. She was concerned
about the straight facade that will line the entire length of Sycamore. Is that the type of entrance (a three-
story wall) the University wants?
Mr. McQuilkin stated the Specific Plan had always identified Sycamore/Glassell as the main gateway to
the campus and that has always been their intention. Future plans of the University are to abandon
Sycamore all the way to Glassell in order to create a grand entrance. They are paying particular attention
to landscaping and hardscape as they want an attractive entrance to the campus.
Commissioner Smith understood the University needs a 90,000 square foot building and they were going
to build a big square or rectangular building, which is not the intent for the Old Towne area. She has had
the privilege of working with Chapman on many development projects and it seems like Chapman
University doesn't get it in terms of what the spirit of the Old Towne Design Standards are.
Mr. McQuilkin said it was their goal to create a building that will be functional for the University. He
believed there were some differences between the Design Guidelines that are spelled out in the
Specific Plan.
Chairman Bosch thought it would be helpful if Mr. Dworsky gave the Commission an idea of what
happens when a basic design is approved. When does the process go forward to finish out the design
and resolve the issues raised at this meeting.
Mr. Dworsky explained this was a schematic design, which sets the basic plan arrangement, height and
bulk of the building. It also sets the basic appearance of the building at a conceptual level. Following
6
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
the approval of the building, they would move into a detailed design phase, which is called design
development and following that, construction documents. During that phase they would look at all the
details of the building - interior and exterior - and coordinate them with all of the engineering disciplines required to
make this a functioning facility. In studying those details, they would look to a proportion of the detail
elements such as specific colors and materials and the window details.Chairman Bosch
stated those details would come back for final approval by the Design Review Board.Mr. Donbvan
clarified in an ordinary review, final details/plans would be reviewed by the ORB, but in this case, the
ORB took action to deny the application. If the Commission were to approve this application,the Commission
could choose to review the final plans or send it back to the Design Review Board.Chairman Bosch
asked Mr. Dworsky to go back to the elevation board of the currently proposed scheme and address
how the elements wrap around the buildin9 and how the design iteration process might carry them through.
A key concern appears to be the transitIonal element from the north and south facades to the east
facade. It appeared to him there were several things going on. The Glassell facade is grouping the windows
in a variety of arrangements that are both vertical and multiple shapes, whereas on the north and south
facades it is going to just the punched windows on the second floor; on the third floor they appear to
be the same window detailing but they are in a different arrangement. They are together, but they don'
t relate vertically. Then, wrapping around the east side, the punched windows are picked up again in
some of the multiple shapes. What types of facade articulation details do wrap around that are maybe disguised
by the simplicity of the line drawings? The upper left elevation looks very modem than the other
facades.Mr. Dworsky
referred to the site plan to address Commissioner Smith's concerns about the compatibility of the
various ends of the building. The building sits at a pivotal point and straddles the various traditions that have
evolved in the Chapman campus. The west end of the building does relate more somewhat to the older
buildings along Glassell, which are the original Classical buildings. But the east end of the building does
relate to a different tradition and quadrant on the campus. The subtle evolving architectural character from
one end of the building to the other is a response to a building that sits at a pivotal site and relates
to different quadrants of the campus. He explained the architectural transition of the building for Chairman
Bosch.Commissioner Carlton
felt the visual impact of the west side of the building had some interesting variations than
the sides of the building. She asked why nothing was done on the sides of the building to break up
that long straight line. Was there any consideration to make the sides more interesting with the different variations?
Mr. Dworsky
thought there had been some sculpting of the north side already. The greatest desire for articulation has
been on the east and west facades because they were the most visible. In addition,there is
a significant amount of landscaping prorosed along Sycamore. The link along Sycamore is a procession into
the University to a major point 0 arrival. They have developed a series of architectural elements to
create a rhythm pattern along that elevation. Additional major sculpting of the facades would impact the
University's ability to accommodate its functional needs.The public
hearing was closed.Commissioner Pruett
said it appeared the University was wrestling with two different cultures in terms of design on
their campus.Commissioner Romero
did not have a real comfort level with the uniformity of the buildings.Commissioner Smith
said many Universities are faced with the same dilemma of campus expansion where there
were the original traditional buildings and then the need to expand and to build new buildings. They
need to bridge the old and new campuses. She agreed somewhat with Chapman University's
interpretation of the Southwest Design Guidelines and the Old Towne Design Standards.While Chapman
University believes this building is in full compliance with those specifications, she didn't agree. But,
she didn't think the place to understand each other to work those things out is on massaging all of
the tiny architectural detailing of a 90,000 square foot building. She was not sure if Chapman University fully
grasps the concept or the spirit ot the Old Towne Design Standards and she was not sure if the
community and citizens of Old Towne fully understand the forward-looking, educational academic 7
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
aspects of Chapman University. She didn't think the tw~ have come together t~ meet a!"d. see eye-
to-eye, although everyone is talking to each other and t~lng to do that. She believed this IS a m~~.
rn looking building for a modern purpose of education, and it was a difficult task to address the
compatibility of not only the neighborhood, but also with the Chapman campus. It's a difficult task to bridQ,e the
years.he was not in love with the proposed buildin9 and itdoesn't do everything she would Iike.~ to do.
Her first preference would be to replicate a building that was pre-1940's style, but the SpeCIfiC Plan
a~d Southwest Design Guidelines do give room for Chapman Ul1Iversity and other residential
and commerCial buildings to have a little leeway in that area. She was willing to move forward with this buildingin
c;:oncept and asked that the detailing continue to be worked out. She really liked the look of the
elevation that faces Glassell and she would like to continue to work on the compatibility of the other two sides.
They're nice and they are under the constraint of space. She had some concerns about the east side
more from the hospitality end of thinlils. That side is oriented to greet people on campus, whereas most
of the people will view that building from off campus. She believed it was a great improvement - the ~
est orientation - over what it was originally. She thought the Planning Commission needed to review the final
details and she would like to see more detail on the cornices or capping of the building. The original
buildings and the dorms all have the cornice to tie in the elements. The most important part of this
buildin~ is that it will educate people and make our country and community a better place to live. She
appreCiated the p'rocess they went through with Chapman University over the years to come to the point
of discussing With the community, with the City, with the University, how they can work together in
continuing to develop the campus and the neighborhood. Her greatest concern is the precedent that it
sets for future buildings on the campus. She firmly believed that some day this will be the center of
Chapman University. Her concern was that all other proposed buildings will look like this one, but she
trusts that Chapman will employ proper sensitivity to other projects based on the Design Standards of
Old Towne and also the Southwest Redevelopment Guidelines. There needs to be some extra
attention paid to the pre-194O building elements that could be incorporated into other
structures.Chairman Bosch concurred with Commissioner Smith on her remarks. He applauded the University
for participating as fully as they can in a process that involved the community's participation in the
design.Architecture is a subjective thing to define. Yet, in Orange it is less subjective than in many
communities because of the many design standards that were adopted. The key for him was looking at the mass
and bulk of the building, the footprint, and how it sits on the site. It meets the intent and
specific requirements of the Chapman University Specific Plan as approved by the City of Orange. So, then
he looks at the architectural design and its compatibility to the need of the building Itself. This building has
to look like a business and information technology building and what it contains inside. But, it also has
to relate in a familiar way with the architectural heritage of the campus. He thought it needs to do
that without replicating the existing historical buildings around the quad. To that extent, the detailing
becomes the most critical thing to him. There is a lot of concern about the north and south facades seeming
too plain, repetitive or redundant. He agreed in the Classical sense with Mr. Dworsky in terms of the
rhythm that is being approached in the schematic design, both vertically and horizontally, as it relates to
an interpretation of Classical orders that is perhaps more appropriate to the original intent than the
historic buildings on the campus are. Yet, it needs to continue with the articulation of the buildings, the
recesses,their depth, the detailing of windows, cornices, string courses, columns etc. so that it isn't making fun
of the existing buildings, but respects them and carries forward its own interpretation of what has
happened before it to further give value to the historic buildings. That has to be worked on most with regard to
the continuing development of the already developing transition from the north and south facade to the
east facade. He wants this building to stand by itself and say in the future (SO years) with great elaboration
to the design and details is that it will be a historic building in itself at that time and continues to
provide respect to the even older buildings that will hopefully still exist on the campus. Chairman Bosch'
s concern lies almost entirely in the major aspect of design with how the details and materials are
articulated around to the east facade. And, also how the specific details are developed. He saw the framework
for an excellent building and was willing to see this approved in concept so that Chapman University
could move forward, but they come back to the Planning Commission for final review and approval.
Thatwouldn't hold up the process of developing the building if approved, but he strongly urged that
the detailing be brought back to the Commission for review during the design development stage and
prior to the completion of the construction documents so as not to cause concern in the process. He
was concerned about the tower and wanted staff to explore more deeply the ordinance basis for that. It'
s more of an artistic element added to the building and it will be at a key point on the campus to
help identify entry and major focus. But, at the same time, they must make sure itdoesn't violate the intent
of the Specific Plan or the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Smith articulated very well the concept
of setting a precedent with this building. He wanted it to be made clear, presuming that approval
occurs,the review of the building is looked at in context to, and its acceptable conformance to the review
and
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
approval standards of the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne, the Secretary of
Interior's Standards and the Southwest Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines, which dove tail into the
Specific Plan requirements, subject to further review and approval of the developed details for the
building to carry that on. The review does not set a precedent for setting this building as the focus for
review of future buildings on the camfus. The community at large will continue to look at what is the
driving architectural heart and soul 0 the core of the campus that drives the remaining design. He
strongly encouraged approval of the design presented at this meeting in concept with regard to site
placement, basic landscape design concept, the floor plates, and the basic articulation of the building
subject to the continued development of the designs as articulated by the architect and brought back to
the Commission for review and approval during the design development stage. The applicant, architect
and City staff need to further review the basis for the tower and identify its legitimate basis within the
ordinance.
Commissioner Pruett thought there needs to be some consideration as to how the tower is going to
interface with the Chapel. Each end of the building will set the architecture for the Chapel because it will
be the center of the interior campus. By building this proposed structure, it will set the stage for future
projects.
Commissioner Carlton applauded Commissioner Smith because she eloquently spoke to the issue and
she agreed with her comments. She was still not convinced this is blending in a historic relationship
between the buildings. She still didn't see it as being finished, but will look forward to the next review.
Commissioner Smith addressed the Design Review Board's work. She wanted the ORB and public to
know that the ORB did not rule on this design. There was a different design, which they denied. She
agreed with the reasons why they denied that building. They stated the aesthetics were not in
compliance with the intent of the Old Towne Design Standards and the building should be in a more
traditional style. That was true with the first design. The ORB stated the mass of the building and the
relationship to the location of the campus exceeded the intent of the Specific Plan with regard to the
stepping graduated height to the edge. They did their job in that they read the Specific Plan to the letter
of the law on how that was to apply to their understanding and she believed that was the right jud~ment
for them to make. They also said they denied that building based on the compatibility with adjacent
buildinQs. She agreed in that the first building had no compatibility with adjacent buildings or as much as
this bUlldinQ does because some things have been changed. The height has been improved; the foot
print and size remains the same. Even though the changes are significant, they are not drastic or
significantly different from what the ORB ruled on. She was basing her decision on the new, improved
concept of the building.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to uphold ORB Appeal 2-97
with the amendments and changes to the plan as presented at this meeting, subject to approving the
basic site plan, landscape concept, floor plates, heights, setbacks and general articulation, but the applicant
is required to come back to the Planning Commission with the design development of the specific details
of the building to demonstrate that further articulation meets the intent of this approval. Staff is directed
to investigate the tower details to assure it complies with the ordinance and the design concept, as well
as the acceptance of the necessary findings relative to the design in the Secretary of Interior Standards,
the Old Towne Design Standards, Southwest Guidelines and the Chapman University Specific
Plan.
AYES:
NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith None MOTION
CARRIED IN RE: NEW
HEARINGS 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1523-97 (DESIGN REVIEW BOARD NO. 3225) - MR. AND MRS.
TOM
LOUGHREY A proposal to demolish a 255 square foot rear porch addition and construct a new addition to the rear of
a 1914 Craftsman Bungalow single family residence. The site is located at 259 North Orange Street, in
the Old Towne
District.Mr. Jones presented the full staff report and explained staff recently implemented a new
procedure relative to processing projects located in the Old Towne area and/or within the boundaries of
the
9
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
Nominated Historic District. All applicants proposing projects within these two areas will be required to
submit an Environmental Information Form for their project. Staff reviews the project and if further
documentation is required, a determination as to whether a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact
Report is required. This is the second project to be brought forward to the Commission. The applicants
propose to demolish a rear porch and a 170 square foot single story addition on the back of the principal
structure. The Design Review Board reviewed the addition and found it to be consistent with the Old
Towne Design Standards. Staff determined with the compliance of the Old Towne Design Standards and
the condition proposed by the Design Review Board, that there will be no impact and a Negative
Declaration is adequate and complete.
The public hearing was opened.
ADDlicant
Tom and Nancv Louahrev currently reside at 569 South Dunas Road, and will be living at 259 North
Orange soon. They propose to remove a porch on the back of the house that is covered with shed type
roofing. In their research, it appears the Craftsman Bungalow didn't have hip type roofs. It was
apparently added in two different phases somewhere between 1925 and 1950. The house hasn't had
much mamtenance over the last 15 years. They propose to bring back the gabled roof at the back of the
house and convert the area into a new master bedroom and bath.
Commissioner Smith noted the only condition the ORB specified was to provide wood windows to match
the existing windows. But, she assumed the applicants would also provide wood siding that matches the
existing.
Mr. Loughrey replied yes. It was specified in the plans as redwood siding to match the existing.
Public Comments
Bob Bennvhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. Orange Park Acres. thought this was the last item. He had no
objection to this project.
The public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to certify Negative Declaration
1523-97 as adequate and complete, and approve ORB #3225 as consistent with the Old Towne
Design Guidelines, subject to one condition to the subject plans as applied by the ORB at their meeting
on June 18,
1997.
AYES:
NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith None MOTION
CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2178-97 - SALEM LUTHERAN
CHURCH Proposed expansion of an existing school with the relocation of two existing modular classroom
buildings and the addition of a third. The site is located at 6411 East Frank Lane at the comer of Santiago
Canyon Road and Orange Park
Boulevard.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15311.Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
Vice-Chair Smith conducted
the hearing.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this
item. The school, as it now exists, contains an elementary school, pre-school and kindergarten. There are singular classrooms, one classroom per grade. The school's present enrollment is 433
students and would increase next year to 451 total students. The code for school purposes attempts to
estimate a parking requirement by the number of classrooms. Salem Lutheran has a requirement of 25
parking spaces for the school. The church, as it exists now, with seating for 180 persons has a requirement
of
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
The multi-purpose room has the largest requirement of 98 parking spaces, which is based on a
square footage requirement of one space for every 35 square feet of floor area. The total parking that
is required is 168 spaces. There are 131 parking spaces in the existing lots, but part of the request is
for the City to acknowledge that there are different functions, and not all the facilities are utilized at the
same time. Therefore, there is a sharing in the requirements where their particular use at various times of
the day are offset. The school has only recently been annexed to the City of Orange. It was
developed under County jurisdiction before 1993. The existing development includes two modular
classroom buildings, and the proposal is to add one more modular unit. The plans on the wall show the
exact location of the proposed building just north of the church structure. As staff understands, the
church expects to submit an application at some point in the future to enlarge the facility. The applicant
has been open with staff in stating the classroom will facilitate one grade and this time next year they will
be looking to accommodate an increased capacity, but that would be through a long-termdevelopmentplan.One issue is the question of whether they are setting into motion a process where they
might be enlarging the campus by one grade per year, or one grade now and several more later. Atthispoint,there is one specifIC proposal for one classroom. Two classrooms, If the modular unit
were sub-divided,Is feasible according to the Building Code. There are several conditions of approval if
the project Is approved. The school has requested the modular unit be installed on a temporary basisforaperiodbetween18and24months, but staff is recommending five (5) years in case there are
any problems as they have experienced with other churches and schools and fund raising efforts where
the temporary uses wind up being on the property substantially longer than originally anticipated. The
other requirements are related towards the permit requirements unique to modular structures including
accessibility for persons with disabilities
and seismic andlors.Commissioner Smith understood there are two modular structures on the property
already, which were approved
through the County.Mr. Donovan said that was correct. They were permitted and being installed as the
City annexed the property in 1993. The City did, in the annexation agreement, acknowledge the
modular units were approved through the County. Their time period was approved for 10 years
at that time.The public
hearing
was opened.Apolicant Brian Dineen. 728 Lemon Hill Trail. is the Chairman of the School Board of Education
and volunteered to represent Salem Lutheran Church and School. He gave a brief overview of thesdloolandeveryoneinvolvedwiththeschoolarecommittedtoprovidingagoodeducationforthechildren. There are waiting lists for many classes and due to that fact, they request an additional modular unit be
placed on the property to accommodate the growing enrollment. They propose to use the building forafirstgradeclassr~m for approximately 18 students. It will sit just north of the worship center and they
will provide a four foot walkway, handicap access, earthquake tie downs, and one additional security light
to meet the City's requirements. If additional classrooms are necessary in the future, the modular unit
only has a maximum capacity for 50 people. At the most, they anticipate an additional enrollment
of 30 students.This plan does not take away any parking already' on the site. This use only requires
an additional two parking spaces and he believed they complied With this requirement. Seventy-six
percent (76%) of the students at Salem Lutheran live in the City of Orange -- eighty-six percent (86%)
within the boundaries of OUSD, which includes Villa Park. He knew there were several members intheaudiencewhoopposedthisproject; however, there were many families associated with the church and school
that approve of this plan and he asked for a show of hands in support
of the modular unit.Commissioner Carlton asked if there were school buses for the children or do
the parents
drop the dlildren off?Mr. Dineen responded Salem does not provide bus service. Parents drop off and
pick up the students and a lot of people carpool. The school starts at various hours: A.M. and P.M. students for kindergarten,daycare hours, etc. He believed there would a
minimal impact on traffic.Commissioner Smith asked how long had Salem Lutheran Church been there at that
site? She wanted to know the colors proposed for the modular unit. She also noted therewerenolandscapeplams
submitted
for
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
Mr. Dineen believed the church had been there since 1970, and the school has been there since 1983.
The unit will be a beige color with a brown fascia board to match the other modulars on the site.
Public Comments
SkiD Ravmond. 6016 Teton Avenue. is the Vice-President of the Salem Church congregation.
Four hundred students is not an accurate number. Two hundred to four hundred children are
pre-school students. The only classes being added are first through eighth grade -- not the pre-school.
The demand for increased enrollment is because many families started school with one child In what was
essentially a full school. When the younger child was ready to start school, the school was full and the child
had to attend school elsewhere. There is a need to accommodate their families and students and
are requesting the one additional
modular unit.Craie Olson. 699 Creekview Drive. spoke in favor of the project and is the Executive Director
of Salem Lutheran Church. Their buildings are available to the community, free of charge, for use of
the facilities.They are meeting a need of the community with respect to increasing enrollment to provide
a
Christian education.Gerald Wolf. 1121 Dorsetshire. Santa Ana. had two daughters who go to Salem Lutheran
School. They drive down Orange Park Acres and have not had to stop for traffic in making a left hand turn
into the school. When he goes down Crawford Canyon, he has to stop for traffic. Traffic is not an issue
at Salem,but it is an issue at Panorama. The way Salem Lutheran sits on the site, there are two drop off
and pick up areas for students andhe didn't have a problem with ingress
or egress.Commissioner Smith noted the Commission received three letters from residents in opposition
to the project and they will become a part of
the record.Laura Thomas. 7211 Clvdesdale. is the President of Orange Park Acres Association and a
resident of Orange Park Acres. The outgoing President, Mark Sanford, had written a letter in March to
the Planning Commission with regard to concerns for the expansion of Salem. Those concerns are still
present, even though the issue at this meeting is just the modular unit. It is the first step for the total
expansion of Salem Lutheran Church. Traffic, parking and the combination of uses are issues and she
opposed the project. With doubling the number of students from 430 to 1,000, it would have a tremendous
impact on Orange Park Acres. She felt Salem has outgrown that
particular location.Diana Garvers is a resident of Orange Park Acres and she wanted to know how Ms. Thomas came
up with the number of students from 400 to
1,000.Nero Rov. 10939 Meads Avenue, was the President of the Orange Park Acres Association in
1970 when Salem Church was built and he explained the history of the community's involvement with
the Church.With the proposed expansion of the church, they will be doubling the student enrollment.
He believed traffic was a problem and he was concerned about the traffic impacts when the
school
enrollment doubles.Richard Siebert. 1388 North Kennvmead, did not oppose the modular unit, but wanted to
state his concern with the expansion of Salem Lutheran Church within a residential community. He is
the Chairman of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee, and per the staff report, their Committee
should have reviewed and evaluated the proposed plans and made their recommendation to
the Planning Commission, but this was never brought to their Committee. He asked that this be continued so
that the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee has an opportunity to review
the project.Commissioner Carlton noted in the staff report on Page 3 that the church is in the process of
preparing a long-range expansion plan, and recently made a presentation to the Orange
Park
Acres Planning Committee.Mr. Siebert replied the Orange Park Acres Association heard that presentation. They
are a different group of people -- volunteers elected by the community which oversees things in Orange
Park Acres.The Orange Park Acres Planning Committee is different from the Association. The City
Council expanded their responsibilities in April, 1997 to not only planning, but to traffic and
other
impacts.
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
Commissioner Smith asked staff for clarification on the existence of these two groups and the differences
between them.
Mr. Jones explained there were multiple homeowner associations in the Orange Park Acres area and
there is an official Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. There must have been a misunderstanding by
staff as to the differences between the homeowners association and the Planning Committee. The
Planning Committee is appointed by the City Council.
Commissioner Pruett stated the letter received from Charles Leffler dated March 5, 1997 does refer to
the recent OPA Association meeting at which the expansion plans were presented. His point is
confirmed in the letter.
Amos Deacon. 9702 Windes Drive. is the Director of the Orange Park Acres Association and questioned
the Salem school operation itself. They're talking about a private school; not the church. The CUP does
not address what happens after the temporary structure goes away, or what it becomes. He wondered
what the expansion of Salem school brings to the OPA community.
Terrv Canavello. 606 Brambles. is a resident of Orange Park Acres and felt the expansion of the private
school was in conflict with the semi-rural atmosphere and lifestyle of
OPA.Bob Bennvhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. Orance Park Acres, is a strong advocate for better education.
He contributed to the church when it was first built and he has no qualms with the school. He is a member
of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee and they have never discussed this project before
tonight.There is a traffic problem now and he discussed the traffic concerns with City staff. OPA has no
sidewalks and they do not want them. The streets are narrow. There is no parking on Frank Lane. This
proposal needs to be reviewed by the Planning Committee and there should be a traffic survey made to figure
out how much traffic the school will bear if they
expand.ResDonse to
comments Mr. Dineen believed everyone's goal was the same: To provide education to the students.
Mr.Bennyhoff mentioned there will be 11,000 additional cars on Chapman Avenue. The request is to put
a modular unit on the site. That additional unit will generate two cars per day; not 11,000 cars per day.
The expansion of grades 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was not part of this discussion. The church will present an
expansion plan in the future and they will meet with the residents and City. In September they will need
this additional classroom building for their students and are requesting approval of the modular unit.
They were willing to look at a traffic study to address the impacts and concerns of the community. If, in
five years, they do not have approval for the school's expansion, the modular unit will be removed.
The school is a non-
profit organization.Mr. Raymond discussed the overall larger plan and met with the Traffic Engineer and consulting
firm hired by the City to do traffic studies. The church was told by both entities a traffic study was
not necessary because of the minimal impacts. The church is part of the OPA community too. They
would like clarification of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee's role in reviewing
their plans.Mr. Jones clarified the City Council took action to update the Orange Park Acres Planning
Committee and to also update their mission, which he read. The Committee is advisory to the Planning
Commission and City Council. There is not a specific requirement that every planning issue in Orange Park
Acres comes before the Planning Committee. At the staff level, they have always been happy to meet
with the Committee. Just last week they had a meeting on the trails system and they talked briefly
after the meeting about this particular item. But, it was not agendized and he understood the
Committee had already had the project presented to them. Possibly this is a miscommunication between staff
and
the Committee.Mr. Hohnbaum addressed the traffic concerns for the area and to clarify, for this specific
project of providing one modular unit for classroom use, there is no need to do a traffic study for
the temporary modular unit. It would not have a significant impact on the traffic in the area. With regard to
any other types of traffic study, they have not received any type of a base line study of what the
existing situation may be. The opposition is concerned that future additions will exacerbate the situation depending
on the scope of what the additions would be. If those additions came in one large sum, then a
traffic
study
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
would be required. If it continues to come in small increments, once again, it is up to the discretion of
City staff to determine whether it is still categorically exempt or not.
The public hearing was dosed.
Commissioner Pruett thou~ht there were some things that needed to be clarified so the public would
understand the action that IS being requested. This is a request for a conditional use permit which goes
with the use of the propert~. In granting the request, the Commission must look at the use of the
property; not by a particular Individual. There are several requirements and findings that must be met in
order to approve the conditional use permit. He recalled when discussing the expansion of St. John's
Church across the street, the Commission requested the church come back with a master plan for their
school and the site. The Commission was concerned about the cumulative impact of the expansion and
how it would affect the surrounding neighborhood. His concern with this project was with the number of
modular units that will continue to be added to the project to where it will have an impact on the area.
There is a threshold one would cross on the site only from the standpoint that it is coming off of a private
road, it's not served off an arterial or main street directly so it may have some issues that need to be
considered in relationship to the community. He was not suggesting the project be denied based on
some of the facts that were presented, but he thought the church may want to consider having this matter
continued and maybe bring forth an overall master plan to see what their plans are for the site. This item
really needs to be reviewed by the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. If properly planned, it will
bring value to the community and the community will react very positive to it. On the other hand, there
may be some things that need to be done to mitigate and address some of the issues.
Commissioner Romero thought a master plan for the future expansion of the church and school was
warranted. If this were the only addition, he would not have a problem with it. A single addition of a
modular unit will not cause a significant impact, but if it creates special problems for the area in which it is
located, then the Commission must make their decision upon that finding. He also felt the Orange Park
Acres Planning Committee should review the proposal.
Commissioner Carlton said the issue before the Commission was one single addition of a modular unit.
It's not a master plan they were looking at. This is not a significant impact. The evolution from a church to
a church school is very natural and it happens all the time and they're providing a good service to the
commul)ity. She was In favor of approving the conditional use permit and asked that a master plan be
provided in the future.
Commissioner Smith said it appeared to her that a couple of things have been over looked. It sounds
like there was some confusion over whether or not the OPA Planning Committee had actually seen the
project. Given the concerns of the people, obviously this is the cornerstone of a much larger project.
Mr. Jones told the Commission it does not meet the definite criteria of a major significant site application,
because of the interest of the community and the mention of a master plan for the future, that it could
possibly go to the OPA Planning Committee for review. The Commission may want to continue this item
In order to allow that to happen. She would also like to hear from staff (in writing) about the traffic
concerns, the status of Frank Lane as a private street, and anything that has been discussed in terms of
ingress and egress. A landscape plan has also been omitted from this particular application.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Conditional Use
Permit 2178-97 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 1997, and request a review be
done between the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee and Salem Lutheran Church, that the
Commission receive information from the Traffic Department on the status of the traffic issues previously
discussed specifically Frank Lane), and a landscape plan needs to be
submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Romero,
Smith Commissioner
Pruett Commissioner Bosch MOTION
CARRIED Commissioner Pruett thought the traffic impact is greater than just two cars. He was not sure the City'
s Public Works Department had the responsibility to look at the traffic issue. A master plan needs to
be developed by the applicant and they need to address those impacts. And, also the mitigating
measures need to be addressed to deal with the impacts to help resolve
them.
Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1997
The Commission strongly recommended that the master plan for Salem Lutheran Church and School be
discussed with the OPA Planning Committee and some agreement is reached as to when that master
plan will be presented to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Bosch retumed to the meeting.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to a special study
session on July 28, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. at the Library to discuss the parking study document for the
Downtown Parking Study. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
Isld
15
T