Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-1997 PC MinutesMINUTES PIanning Commission October 20, 1997 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary, Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 7. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL 3-97 -PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA An appeal of the Design Review Board determination to prohibit an internally illuminated awning with 10 square feet of copy area used for signage. The project site is addressed 310 South Main Street. Staff received a request to continue this item to the November 17 Planning Commission Meeting. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Design Review Board Appeal 3-97 -Papa John's Pizza to the Planning Commission Meeting of November 17, 1997. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes of October 6, 1997 with the following correction: On Page 13, under Miscellaneous Items, the study session date of October 22, 1997 is changed to October 27, 1997. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIEDABSTAINED: Commissioner Pruett IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-97 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend City sign regulations, specifically Orange Municipal Code Section 17.36.060(A); Sign Program" guidelines. The ordinance amendment would allow sign programs for large commercial developments (of 25 acres or more) to propose criteria that differ from limitations contained within the City sign code, if a comprehensive sign program is approved by the Planning Commission. No variance or conditional use permit would be necessary for these applications. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15311. Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report. This has changed in subtle ways from the time it was last reviewed in mid-August. The first Changes are to re-visit the idea of focusing on sites that are larger than average commercial sites in the City. The sign program could be permitted for major centers only in the C-TR, C-R, C-2 or C-3 zones which are the more intensive commercial areas of the City. There is one change where the amount by which a wall sign Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1997 roof of the building is increased to 25% of the overall height of the structure rather than 10% and that is in subsection f. There is also a provision to add roof signs ~f they are designed as an architectural element which displays only the name of a development on more than one side. The existing code has always allowed a roof sign if it is designed as a feature within a traditional commercial roof such as a dormer or on a parapet wall, and that has always been subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board for a permit to be granted for that type of sign. The other provision of the change is to increase the size of on-site directional signs to a maximum display area of 160 square feet, which is the same square footage by which afree-standing sign is allowed in a commercial zone now. This is intended for major developments of 40 tenants or more. Staff is looking for feedback on some of the particulars and information, or the item could be continued to another hearing if needed. Some of the numbers are not necessarily based upon anything except the staff's estimate (for example) of what would be the appropriate distance between a directory sign and a public right-of-way. They specified the distance at 100 feet. Chairman Bosch noted on the second page of the handout section a. has disappeared under Item 3. Mr. Donovan apologized for the typing error and it will be corrected. The public hearing was re-opened. Applicant Jerry Engen 1 City Blvd. West, represented the Mills Corporation. He thanked staff for their hard work in trying to craft complicated language that will work to not only promote the kinds of imaginative and creative signage that they are looking for, but also provide the comfort level for the City. He still had a couple of areas of concern: The first item is under 3.d. (Page 2). It talks about the display area for wall signs. They were concerned that it might be slightly limiting as compared to typical regional type malls vs. the urban entertainment center they are trying to create. When he does his calculations, it starts to limit the amount of area on the buildings. There are certain tenants that have multiple facades. At a typical regional mall, there would be one big box with a couple of anchor tenants. The urban center they are trying to create really has multiple boxes. The perimeter is made up of multiple anchors of different shapes and sizes, which creates architectural interests and the means by which this project is merchandised. Because of that, there is more square footage to apply signage. There are certain facades that face multiple parking fields. When those facades and square footages are added up, it limits them to smaller signs. They would end up having to use channel letters rather than 3-D and more exciting kinds of signage elements. He didn't know how to quantify it yet. As he reads the ordinance, it refers back to O.M.C. 17.36.080 and he believed that states one square foot of sign area for one lineal foot of facade. Maybe, if they could do a 2 to 1, that might help. It's hard to put a finger on how it can be calculated because of the unique shapes of this particular prolect. The other area of concern is 3.g. (Page 3). It might just be a clarification on the roof signs. It talks about having the name on more than one side. He wondered if it shouldn't say, "and may be on more than one side." He was not sure if the City wanted to force the issue to have more than only one sign on the element. It depends on how the structure is created. The other item is 3.k. (Page 3) and that is on the square footage limits to the internal circulation system. He looked at the types of signage a project of this size would have. As he added up the number of anchors that surround the number of tenants that would be listed on a typical directional signage, the amount of tenants that are required to be listed, when you add up ust the sign face area, starts to get very close, if not right at that amount of square footage. That will ~imit them to just a sign box and that's not staff's intent. They would like to create more of an architectural element along with the sign, but that has to be calculated within the square footage. Maybe the total allowable square footage can be increased. Chairman Bosch had difficulty following the concern of the display area for wall signs. The buildings are a collection of individual buildings rather than the traditional larger mall. Why should they be treated differently as individual buildings than the standard sign ordinance would allow. Mr. Engen explained in a typical regional mall primarily the only signage that happens is at the anchors. In an urban center, most of the major tenants all need separate identification. They will not be aggregating the sign area to only a couple of larger tenants. This project would have multiple large tenants surrounding the project that would require a sign on more than one face because of the way they are situated on a corner or lot. In order to get their identity, they would need the signage. If the total square footage allowed were added up, in order to divide that up among the number of large tenants, they will have to shrink the overall sides and they will lose their creatively with signage. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1997 Chairman Bosch thought if the aggregate signage available for each building, and if they are articulated as separate buildings for the many anchors, then it would seem there would be no hardship compared to other anchor developments in other major centers by retaining the existing square footage for Imeal foot. Mr. Engen said while they have multiple buildings: in those buildings there are also multiple tenants. For instance, what could be considered as one building, they could have two or three larger anchors. But when adding up the lineal footage, it is added up as one big building and not taking into account the multiple tenants. It would be much easier if they were separate independent structures to take the overall lineal footage of each building. Maybe he could come up with some graphic illustration or calculation that would help show how that works. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Pruett said they were trying to adopt a citywide policy. Cannot someone who has a project that is unique and include some mitigating issues related to their project, seek a variance? Mr. Jones replied if adopted, this would become another one of the City's development standards and yes it could be varied from with a variance application and required findings must be made. The ordinance does apply to certain commercial zones with sites larger than 25 acres. Commissioner Smith would like to see the graphics to illustrate the proposed signage under the existing ordinance and what it might be if more signage were allowed. She would also be interested in seeing how item k. looks as well. It talks about the signage within an internal circulation system, when located more than 100 feet from an arterial street or residences. She asked what happens when it is closer than 100 feet. Mr. Donovan said there was an existing limit on directional signs for all commercial development. The limits are that the sign can be no taller than 42 inches, and no greater than six square feet in display area. That is intended to be for signs along the streets of commeraal developments to help facilitate smooth traffic flow onto the property. What staff is saying here, is that they are trying to accommodate bigger centers that are not so dependent upon the arterial street for their circulation or access. And, they should be granted larger signs 'rf they have their own self, sustaining circulation system within the parking lot. Commissioner Smith didn't understand the statement, "On site directional signs may be permitted to a maximum display area of 160 square feet and maximum height of 20 feet." Is that for the entire center or each time the signs show up? (Mr. Donovan was thinking that it be for each sign.) She would like to see more on the internal circulation system. Mr. Engen made a good point on item g. She didn't read it to be on multiple sides, but maybe the language could be clarified. The suggestion was that it may be on multiple sides, but it didn't have to be. She thought it was coming along and is progressing from when they first looked at the amendment, but she was not ready to move forward with approval. Chairman Bosch was concerned about the great visual displays and art work of signs to the extent there will be too many signs. He cautioned against sign pollution. On item f. there was a suggestion that a vertical extension of wall signs could be considered as not being roof signs, and change it to allow up to 25% of the overall height of the wall above the roof line. The wall could be rather substantial in size and 25% of that sign projecting up could be incredible. He would like to see more information on what this would mean on buildings of a type and size one would expect to see in a C-TR, C-R, C-2 or C-3 zone larger than 25 acres. He doesn't want to get back into the problem that caused this City and many others to say let's not have these things allowed in the past. The language in item g. needs to be clarified because he was not sure what the intent is. He did not want a billboard element that would be a catastrophe for the City. On item k. he was concerned with the internal circulation system. It's a great idea and needs to be encouraged on the larger centers, but what does it mean in terms of how many. A well designed sign program will have that spaced out. He would still like to see more work on these areas as he was not comfortable as it stands now. He would like to see a continuance to address these concems. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-97 for 60 days until December 15, 1997 to allow staff time to address the specific concerns raised and bring back visual illustrations to help interpret the intent of the sign program. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith, Romero MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1997 The Commission asked if staff could give them a scenario of exactly what it would take with the sign ordinance and when would a variance or conditional use permit would come into play. They wanted staff to explain to them the different situations that might occur and what options were available once the ordinance was in place. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1532-97 -ROBERT SCHWARTZ A proposal to demolish an existing one car garage and construct a detached 2+ car garage and workshop. The prot1ect site is addressed 361 South Glassell Street (located within the new National Historic Registered Distnct and the Old Towne Historic District). NOTE: Negative Declaration 1532-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. There was no opposition; therefore, the full presentation of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. A~nlicant Robert Schwartz. 361 South Glassell Street, proposed to tear down the one car garage and replace it with a larger one. He presented this to the DRB on September 17 and they made a few recommendations, which they will incorporate. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Smith referred to the DRB Minutes for September 17, 1997. She asked about items 5 and 6. It says that finished colors are to be reviewed and approved by the Senior Historic Preservation Planner. She wanted to know who that was. She was concerned because on the mitigated negative declaration it was not signed. Only the name was typed in and she didn't have the assurance that the document was reviewed by the Senior Historic Preservation Planner. Mr. Jones replied Dan Ryan is the Senior Historic Preservation Planner and he is also the staff planner for this project. He prepared the document and he will be reviewing the finished colors. Commissioner Smith looked at this site and thought the design of the project, along with the conditions the DRB has suggested do make it compatible with the block in which it is located. It appears the mitigated negative declaration has also been done in good order. This is a contributing structure in the Old Towne District. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration 1532-97 with the finding that all criteria are in place to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith, Romero NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1532-97 -JAMES BUCHANAN Review of a negative declaration to evaluate the potential environmental impacts, if any, related to a proposal to demolish a garage and construct a new detached three car garage and workshop. The project site is addressed 271 North Cambridge (located within the new National Registered Historic Old Towne District). NOTE: Negative Declaration 1536-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. The full staff report was not presented as there was no opposition to this item. 4 Planning Commission Minutes The public hearing was opened. October 20, 1997 Applicant James Buchanan. 271 North Cambridge, said Dan Ryan called him with a question about what kind of siding he intended to use. He preferred a vinyl finish which will match the finish on the house. However, he was having trouble finding a smooth finish as the samples all have a textured finish. He believed the vinyl will hold up much better than wood siding. Chairman Bosch noted in the DRB Minutes of the October 8 meeting that they set conditions for approval of materials. Vinyl siding must be submitted and approved by the Design Review Board. Vinyl siding has proven to be a very big problem with regard to historic buildings. Commissioner Smith saw the height of the garage is proposed at 15' 3". She wondered what the height of the house is. She also noted the Sr. Historic Presrvation Planner did not sign the mitigated negative declaration; his name was typed in and she did not have the assurance that the document was reviewed by Dan Ryan. Mr. Buchanan replied it was ongfinally designed to be much hisher, but it was brought down to the same rake on the roof as the house. Most of that is going to be behind the house; the garage will not be seen from the street. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith said this house is listed as a contributing structure and it is a 1924 Craftsman Bungalow in the Historic District. She was concerned the garage might over power and be taller and not match the house, but it sounds like the garage is pretty much the same height. She was concerned about the vinyl siding in how it wears over time. Her preference would be the wood siding. The cost is a factor in that and that's why people look to the vinyl siding or composite. She did not want to see vinyl siding on this project and would not consider that to be an appropriate mitigation measure. She will trust the opinion of the Planning staff and Dan Ryan on the composite or redwood siding. She was concerned about this setting a precedent and she did not want to see contributing structures having vinyl siding. Commissioner Carlton asked if vinyl windows that look like wood were allowed on a contributing structure? Has vinyl siding been approved in the Historic District before? Mr. Jones believed vinyl windows have been used or allowed to some extent in the past. It's one of those materials that falls under the alternative materials, which the DRB is empowered to evaluate and determine if they are consistent with the Design Guidelines. He was not aware of any cases in the last few years where vinyl siding has been allowed in Old Towne. Commissioner Smith thought there were some vinyl windows in Old Towne, but not on contributing structures. The window trim may be a few inches whereas vinyl siding covers the entire facade. It's more obvious and dominates the structure. Her opinion is to protect the value of the property and historic integrity of the property in case of resale. Commissioner Romero said if the house and garage both had vinyl siding, there would be the potential for approving the project. But for the house to be redwood and the garage to be vinyl, he would rather vote for uniformity. Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1536-97, and to not allow vinyl siding, and to submit redwood or other types of wood siding to the Planning staff, or composite material siding to Dan Ryan for final approval. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith, Romero NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The Commission's concern with vinyl siding is that the pre-finish on the vinyl is going to have a different reflectivity, color match and fading rates. A color match would be very difficult to obtain at the start with paint on a natural composite material, and over time the fade rate is entirely different. The structure would become incompatible. The Planning Commission Minutes will be forwarded to the Design Review Board. 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1997 5. PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1189-97 -WILLIAM MATTERN, REYNALDO LOZANO, HARVEY MORENO, LARRY MALONE AND MARGERY BASSETT A proposal to assign zoning to half the width of an abandoned alley; unzoned to C-1. The site is a strip of land 10 feet wide by approximately 420 feet in length, which was formerly a portion of the alley north of Chapman Avenue, between Earlham Street and Hewes Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental duality Act per State CE(~A Guidelines Section 15319. There was no opposition to this item and the full presentation of the staff report was waived. Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, was unable to reach William Mattern, but the applicants were aware of this hearing. He explained this was 'a City-initiated application. Staff is trying to assign a zoning classification to the property at this time. Letters of consent from the property owners are included in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and then closed. There were no public comments. It was noted this project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Pre-Zone Change 1189-97, finding that the zoning is consistent with the General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith, Romero NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2193-97 -ROBERT BRESKIN A request to modify an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2102-95) to allow the conversion of an existing 2-car garage parking space to commercial use. The project site is addressed 200 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1468-95 was previously certified identifying the impacts of this project. Presentation of the full staff report was waived as there was no opposition, and the public hearing was opened. Apalicant Robert Breskin 200 East Chapman Avenue. said this will improve the appearance of the building by removing the parking garage and it will increase the square footage and attract a larger retail tenant. This will not increase any parking requirements. Chairman Bosch asked what his intent was with regard to the fill in of the wall? Mr. Breskin said they will match the existing stucco wall and the window will have an awning covering over it. This will improve the appearance of the building by having a continuous wall down to the first floor. Commissioner Romero asked about the third floor? Mr. Breskin explained the second floor originally had a 15 foot clearance and they were going to put in a mezzanine, which would have been the third floor. But the seismic retrofit and cost became prohibitive. There will not be a third floor. Chairman Bosch stated in approving the request, there is a stipulation that the total square footage, including the garage conversion, would not exceed 9,112 square feet. The conditions state that project development shall occur in substantial conformance with plans as approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Carlton asked about the retrofitting of the building. How extensive is that? 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1997 Mr. Breskin stated the retrofitting was completed and it cost three times what he expected -- about 120,000. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Smith understood this project did not go back to the DRB for design approval. Mr. Jones said that was correct. Staff looked at the plans and felt they were in conformance with the original design. Commissioner Smith said there appeared to be a wrought iron fence in front of the addition, which is not a feature that was on the original plan. This is on the Orange elevation. Mr. Breskin explained the wrought iron fence was in front of the former restrooms on the Orange Street side. It is an architectural picture because they installed a handicap ramp and needed something to break up the looks of the ramp. Commissioner Smith was uncomfortable that these revisions did not go back to the DRB. This is a bit of a design change. Orange Street is a major arterial. This needs to go before the DRB for consistency of the building and other buildings in the area and to make sure it is compatible with the Downtown area. Chairman Bosch stated the railing is not a handicap railing. If a railing is needed for safety, it should be an appropriate design to go with the building. He didn't have difficulty in asking the DRB to look at that railing. He was delighted to see the garage door disappear and the rest of the building to look more integral tying into the overall design of the building. The underlying concern lies with the impacts on parkin. With the reduction in the square footage of the building, he would be concerned that in addition to stating that the August 19 floor plan is the one being reviewed, that the 9,112 square feet be put into the conditions so it carries with the motion and doesn't get confused in the future if this were to move ahead. That will assure they are no farther off with parking than they were previously on this project. Chairman Bosch thought of adding a fifth condition which would state: The Design Review Board shall review and approve the modified Orange Street elevation design, including, but not limited to specifically the wrought iron railing for design conformance with Old Towne Standards in the Plaza Historic District. Commissioner Smith also liked the condition of the 9,112 square feet and it would also give the DRB an opportunity to review the materials used for the window and door. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2193-97 with conditions 1-4, keeping in mind the Negative Declaration was previously certified. And, to add condition 5: The Design Review Board shall review and approve the modified Orange Street design elevation, including but not limited to the wrought iron railing for conformance to Old Towne and Plaza Historic District Design Standards; and to add condition 6: The square footage of the total building is not to exceed 9,112 square feet. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith, Romero MOTION CARRIED NOES: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a study session on October 27, 1997, at 5:30 p.m., in the Weimer Room for the purpose of initiating a review of the City's General Plan Update. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED NOES: None sld 7