Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1998 PC Minutesv'.'~. e:><~ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange March 16,1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Romero STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Ted Reynolds, 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 MARCH 2, 1998 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1548-98 - RICHARD R. BELLO Negative Declaration 1548-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of a project to allow the demolition of an existing addition (a residential remodel) and the construction of a new 328 sq. ft. addition to a 1915 craftsman bungalow located within the National Registered Historic District within Old Towne (addressed 222 North Grand Street). RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration 1548-98 as satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 3. DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY - CITY OF ORANGE Review of a Parking Study which analyzed the parking situation in Downtown Orange, and proposed a number of recommendations to improve and manage parking. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1539-79 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the November 3, 1997 and January 5, February 2, and February 18, 1998 hearings.)Mr. Jones reported the parking study is the outgrowth of planning efforts to improve the Downtown.Multiple needs have been identified in Downtown which include parking, lighting, signage, safety and access. The focus of the parking study is to improve parking in the Downtown area. About three ( 3)years ago the Merchants Association had approached staff about providing some assistance in terms of Improving the parking situation. Since that time, the Public Works Department has installed some new signage to help direct visitors to the public parking lots located in back of the Chapman and Glassell street frontages. Also, a commitee was formed to look at the parking issues. The committee is made up of a number of property owners and business people from the Downtown area. The committee has attempted to not just identify the parking needs, but to suggest funding sources to accomplish those needs. The committee wanted to try and ensure that it would not be just another study. The economics were not nearly as promising three (3) years ago as they are today. The funding sources that the 1 I' I"~ r- Planning Commission Minutes MCI'd116, 1996 committee looked at (Le., the pay for parking source) is what has added a lot of complexity and controversy to the parking study. There are a number of other positive projects occurring in the Downtown besides parking. The master plan for lighting is under way and there is also a Plaza renovation concept plan that is being developed. Staff is also working on an outdoor dining ordinance that will greatly benefit the restaurants who currently use public space for outdoor dining. Mr. Jones briefly reviewed the infonnation contained in the Commissioners' packets, including the eight (8) attachments.At the last meeting on February 2, 1998, regarding the parking study, the Commission took a couple of actions. The N~ative Declaration was approved for the project and two Ordinance Amendments were approved. One IS to establish a new parking requirement for the Downtown area that creates a fair playing field for an area that is very unique. Secondly, the in-lieu fee concept was recommended to be approved, which involved new construction in the Downtown area. It would not apply to a change of use in the Downtown, but it would apply if someone wants to physically expand their business. The Commission also asked that the concept of a Downtown Parking Commission be dropped, which has been done. Beginning on Page 3 of the staff report, A. includes the studies needed to determine the merits of the proposed improvements that deal with issues of access, potential shuttle service, and acquisition of property to improve parking. B. includes the physical Improvements needed for safety, parking management and business vitality and would include lighting, signage, safety and access. C. is administrative recommendations that address enforcement and staffing levels in order to implement the parking study plan. D. lists the revenue sources to accomplish the studies, physical improvements and administration of parking in the Downtown. This is where the "pay-for-parking" concept is located in the recommendations. A new category E. has been added, comprehensive planning program, that ensures better public input into the process and build more support for identifying what the needs are in Downtown, as well as the solutions.The Commission still had many questions regarding the parking study and made several comments at the previous hearing relative to the funding alternatives, identifying a trigger point to know when it was right to Install pay-for-parking and assurance that the money collected in Downtown would stay in the Downtown area. The committee feels that many of the questions are not answerable at this point in time with a high degree of certainty. The underlying concern is whether or not the pay- for-parking concept would be good for business. It may be there is no community consensus on that point until everyone IS convinced that not having pay-for-parking is bad for business. Clearly, most of the business community is concerned that pay-for-parking, particularly parking meters, will not be good for business. There is some additional information provided by the committee in response to the Planning Commission's questions in the attachments to the staff report.In summary, the committee feels they have done all they can to provide information to assist the Planning Commission in making a recommendation to the City Council. The committee believes the pay-for-parking concept is viable. Alternative 6 provides more funding, but also more potential for impact because of the use of meters. It is clearly the most controversial of the proposals. Alternative 7 proposes pay stations in the parking lots, but no parking meters, provides less funding, avoids the use of meters and will help managed parking. Either alternative could allow use of parking permit system so that short-term and long-term parking users could be accommodated in the public lots. The committee understands if the Commission is not comfortable with the pay-for-parking proposal at this time, they believe the Specific Plan approach may more comprehensively address the needs and funding sources.Commissioner Carlton asked if funding were possible for a structure, where would the structure be built.Mr. Jones explained the South Orange Street lot was previously considered for a parking structure, and the committee still believes this isthe most logical lot for a parking structure, if one were to be built.CO'!lmissioner Carlton asked what it would cost for a professional study to be done on this type of proJect. Mr. Jones. said in order to do a comprehensive specific plan with sUp'porting environmental documentatIon would cost approximately a couple hundred thousand dollars as It is a major under taking. Commissioner Smith noted a couple of positions were recommended in C. Planning Commission Minutes Mard116, 1998 Mr. Jones replied if pay-for-parking occurred, then funding for the Project Manager position would come out of the pay-for-parkin~ administration. If the pay-for-parking concept is not approved, then the only source would be the Citys General Fund. Or, staff may assume the additional burden of providing that function for the City.Commissioner Smith asked what action would need to be taken to implement item 5. under C. - that all citation revenues collected be maintained in a separate program fund that could be used only for the Downtown parking-related studies, administration and improvements.Mr. Jones thought all it would require is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council, who would then take specific action to direct the City Manager and Finance Director to create a special fund.Commissioner Smith asked if the City starts enforcing the parking law, what will happen to the employees.Mr. Jones' understanding is that parking enforcement has been more extensively enforced over the last few months. Attachment 2 shows where the existing parking time restrictions occur. A lot of the employees park on Orange, Olive, Almond and Maple Streets, where there are no time restrictions. The Lemon Street lot also has unlimited parking.The public hearing was opened for public comments:Judv Schroeder. 1041 North Elizabeth Place. currently has a studio above Watson' s but will be moving to Maple where she will have unlimited parking. She did an interesting study on the pros and cons of parking issues in Downtown. One of the problems that became obvious is with employees parking on the spoke streets. People who work Downtown need a place to park and not be out on the street moving their cars after being marked.Robert Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. did not need to speak, but supported the committee's recommendation.Lisa Ackerm~n. 2295 North Tustin #28, looked forward to working with her neighbors if pay-for-parking is approved to provide 10-minute parking zones, loading zones, directional signage to where there is free parking and security. If the pay-for- parking concept is not approved, she hoped they could look towards a citywide bond issue to pay for needed parking and improvements in the Downtown area. This project should pay for itself.Scott Parker. 158 Monterev Road, favored the recommendations of the Parking Committee because it will generate income and monies for the much needed improvements in Downtown. He is willing to gamble tllat parking meters or pay stations will be a positive response. There is a need for some type of managed parking and income. A comprehensive parking study will help to keep the Downtown growing.Vital D'Caroio. 404 West Fourth Street # B. Santa Ana. opposed the parking meters based on what he has seen in Santa Ana. The negative effect of parking meters is transferred to the merchants. He suggested tax alternatives as a way to fund future Improvements.Gertrude Reed. 1716 Santa Ana Canvon Road. is against the parking meters because they will mar the beauty of the Plaza and Downtown area. Orange had parking meters before and they were unsuccessful. She also does not approve of the 2-hour parking time limit.John HarDer. 19306 Savior Terrace. Santa Ana. built 33 health clubs and in almost every case; specifically,Glendale, Santa Monica, and West L. A., where parking meters were put in after the clubs were built,they saw a serious decline in the business. Downtown Orange is unique because the businesses feed off of each other. People do not want to be in a hurry when visiting the Plaza and historical area.Business owners should enforce their employee parking problems. He thought there were better ways to solve the parking problems.Hank Mascolo. 1459 North Blake. opposed the parking meters. The meters will drive people Planning Commission Minutes MCI'ch 16, 1998 Brian Lee Cross. 121 1/2 North Glassell Street #10. lives upstairs over the Orange National Bank, overlooking the Plaza. They do not have assigned parking. It will be a hardship to the residents in the Plaza area to have to pay to park. He also had aesthetic concerns about the Circle. Scott Couch. 2715 East Mavfair. took a survey of the business owners in Downtown. Fifty-one ( 51)business owners were against parking meters. Seven (7) business managers were against parking meters and only four (4) were in favor 01 parking meters.Commissioner Pruett found surveys to be interesting. He wanted to know what question was asked on the survey.Mr. Couch replied the question asked was, "Are you opposed to parking meters, or do you approve."Commissioner Pruett asked would the owners have answered the same way if the question was stated,There are a number of people living in ~artments and at The Rats, who are taking up parking spaces all day. There are employees who are taking up parking spaces all day on the spoke streets. Would you be in favor of parking meters to open up those spaces to customers so that they could shop and do business in the Downtown."Mr. Couch said there were parking regulations in place right now, but they need to be enforced.Employees should be parking on the side streets to free up some of the parking spaces. The bottom line is that the heartbeat of the community does not want parking meters.Commissioner Smith was impressed with Mr. Couch's study. She had wished Mr. Couch had asked a second question as well of the merchants: "Would you like to have some money to improve the Downtown area or do you think some money infused into the Downtown area could improve business."She personally would like it if people were asked if they would like to have more financial support. She asked Mr. Couch if he asked anyone if they would like the infusion of more money Downtown generated by the parking meters.Mr. Couch said there was money set aside three times to improve Old Towne Orange, but that money went to build a road in EI Modena. Other money was set aside specifically to upgrade Old Towne Orange and the money is not to be found. If parking meters are put in, who is to say that money is going towards improvements. He suggested taking the monies from the Street Fair, street and rental fee money, movie fee money, banner fees, traffic fines, taxes and fees and have these monies monitored by an outside C.P.A. volunteer. The money is there; it just needs to be managed.Carroll Johnson. 100 South Glassell. opposed parking meters. The City does not need the money that would exploit the businesses and their customers. Parking meters proved to be a headache in the years 1968 to 1972. Money could be taken from the Street Fair, banners, sales tax, movies, traffic citations and that should total between $300,000 and $500,000 a year. Downtown Orange was a ghost town because of the old parking meters.Carole Walters. 534 North Shaffer. stated they have 6,026 signatures opposing the parking meters in Downtown. The Bank of America parking lot is closed and not being used. She suggested using that lot for employee parking. The money goes some place else; the money needs to be given back to the Downtown area.Nate Wiselv. 215 South Dunas. saw what happened in Santa Ana with their downtown area and watched Orange go through a similar time when the Downtown began to deteriorate. The antique business has saved the City. The need for parking is not that great. H'e thought the City was big enough and could find a way to fund a parking structure in a different manner. He encouraged the parking to remain free for the antique browsers and stores.Laura Thomas. 7211 East Clvdesdale. Orance Park Acres. is concerned about the parking meters. Her dauQhter works Downtown and expressed her concerns about parking in a safe area. The concept of parking meters is not user friendly. The merchants need the availability of short-term parking. Then, for long-term parking, the lots need to be safe and maybe provide transportation from the parking lots to the businesses.4 Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1998 Carlos. 30 Plaza. suggested building a parking structure in the middle of the Plaza. That's about as bad as the parking meters. Mr. Jones pointed out that the City does have a parking permit program. They have talked about using pay stations in the parking lots and the permit program could be used in combination with the pay stations for employee or resident parking. Downtown Orange has some special unique needs. There are opposing VIewpoints that parking meters will discourage business. The City talked to one expert who said three things exist. First of all, if there is parking problem where the demand exceeds t~e supply, if the rates are reasonable, and if provisions are made for short and long-term users. and thiS accomplishes the goal of freeing up spaces for customers. then it will have a positive impact.Commissioner Pruett said concern was raised regardin9 public safety as it relates to early morning or late evening activity. It might be important to outline how thIS issue folds in with the recommendations.Mr. Jones said the Lemon Street parking lot was created for long-term parking for employees. There was a recommendation that pathways to and from those areas needed to be well lit and access needed to be improved. Those things will need to be in place and factored into the implementation of any kind of a parking program.Commissioner Smith asked if the parking permit program is still being used at this time.Mr. Jones replied the City is selling permits at this time. He believed about 80 permits are sold every six months. At one time, the City was selling as many as 500 permits a year. With enforcement not being what it should over the years, a lot of people realized there are other ways other than paying those permits to survive in the Downtown area. The money for these permits goes Into a parking fund as a specific revenue source and he is told that the money stays in the Downtown area.Commissioner Smith said public information revealed there are 15 apartments above Orange National Bank and she wanted to know how many people lived in The Rats. ( 30 apartments.)Commissioner Smith asked where the movie money goes.Mr. Jones understood the City charges specifically only for those services actually provided. The money would go to the Public Works. Police and Are services to cover the costs of prOViding their services at those events. He did not believe the City rebated any of the money to the merchants. He did not know if the merchants were compensated by the movie company.Commissioner Pruett asked if just a blanket permit is issued to park anywhere at any time. Has there been any discussion about requiring parking permits for employees who work Downtown as part of the business license application for doing business Downtown.Mr. Jones said there were designated areas in a few of the public parking lots for permit parking. There is only one permit and it is used for employees or residents to park in the Downtown area. The idea of making parking permits a part of the business license application has never been considered.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith heard a lot of people were opposed to the parking meters. but did not hear anyone say they are opposed to any of the recommendations or parking plan. She assumed there is not a lot of opposition to the other good things in terms of parking in Old Towne. Not one person opposed any other recommendation in the staff report. There is good information in the staff report that reflects great work -- lots of work by the merchants. She would recommend the pay-for-parking with alternative 7 that asks for meters on 275 of the 605spaces. She didn't think that was going to fly. but she was willing to try it on a limited basis without putting in parking meters all over the Downtown area. She believed parking should be enforced everywhere in Orange. She would like to see more of a promotion of the permit parking program. She is very concerned that money raised in Downtown stay in the District. She would like to see some type of mechanism be put in place so that any revenue raised in Downtown,including the movie money. the present parking citations, street sweeping citations. Street Fair monies,banner hangings, special event fees, be kept in Downtown. She long felt that money raised in the neighborhoods should be spent in those neighborhoods. She is also very much in favor of a Business Improvement District as it would be a way to keep the money in the Planning Commission Minutes March 16. 1998 In listening to the public comments. a couple of things made Commissioner Smith sad. Two things were said that were incorrect. It's misinformation and they are becoming myths in Orange. One is that the parking structure money went to EI Modena. or it went some place else (outside 01 Old Towne). The money went towards the initial engineering plans for seismic retrofit of the Plaza Historic District. That was not an arbitrary decision, but the State mandated that the brick and mortar buildin~s needed to be retrofitted or knocked down. The City officials and staff correctly redistributed that fundln~ to get the Old Towne seismically retrofitted. She did not know about the EI Modena monies and still IS investigating that. She has no proof that happened. The second myth is that somehow the great work of the Design Collaborative. a meeting of some 15 to 20 professionaf architects. who spent 2 1/2 years or so. donated time worth $250.000 to the City. She heard at this meeting that this was done in order to generate mo~ey for the Old Towne District. That is absolutely incorrect. Of that beautiful plan that the DeSign Collaborative did, only one building adopted the design and took the advice of the group. No one else has taken advantage of the facade improvements recommended by the Design Collaborative. There was no ulterior motive in offering that 9.ift to the community and it is an Incorrect fact to state that it was in any way manipulative of the community's resources. She would like to adopt the recommendations (A, B, C and E) on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Whether or not the Commission recommends the pay- for-parking concept, is up for discussion.Commissioner Carlton thought this is an emotional problem and can see both sides. There needs to be a compromise. She also would like to try alternative 7 and regulate the funds. She knows from a personal experience that enforcement has not been good. There may not be a critical parking situation now, but some years down the road, that is when everyone will get upset that there is no available parking and no money. She talked to a lot of business people who would not object to parking meters.She personally does not like parking meters. They are ugly and would ruin the Plaza area. If they could have lot meters and enforcement with something creative in the way of employee parking ( reasonable fees) and 15 minute zones for appropriate areas, those are things that might go a long way in solving the parking problems and provide funding for the future. There needs to be assurance that the funds go into a special account that could not be touched for anything else except Downtown improvements.Commissioner Pruett asked at the last hearing to get really creative and see what other ways there were to develop potential revenues looking at the issue of other sources that might be available from Downtown_ He thought the list of potential revenue sources that are p'art of Attachment 1 are good. He liked the idea of the Parking Authority with the establishment of a speafic City fund to collect the revenues from the variety of sources. Then, the management organization looking at how the monies can be used Downtown to make improvements that have been set out in the plan. It concerned him that employees were parking on the street and moving their cars after they are marked. They are not the people who are doing business. He keeps hearing the business owners say that it is important that the parking spaces be available for people who shop and browse, but at the same time, if those spaces are being withheld, then it is not fair to the other merchants. Employee and long-term parking needs to be dealt with. He suggested the concept of issuing employee-permit parking with Business Licenses. If an employee is parking somewhere else without a parking permit, then maybe there should be a significant fine for illegal parking. Or, they can pay to park some place. He knows alternative 7 has been proposed as the alternative that should be pursued. but that is putting pay stations on the off-site parking lots. Based on what he has heard, as it relates to the use of that parking by people who are not shopping Downtown, but are making it their business to take up the parking spaces for their own benefit.He supports alternative 1, which proposes putting the meters on the street and leaving the off-street parking without meters. The employee permits ought to designate a particular lot and the residents should have resident permits, for lots close to their residences.Chairman Bosch appreciated all the input received from the citizens as it provides a basis for decisions to be made. He commented the employee parking seems to be a critical issue in terms of the impacts upon the current parking availability, whether it is employees or business owners or others. He thought the Parking Committee has done a great job and they admit that to go further on various aspects of this is beyond the time they have as volunteers and beyond the current resources available to them. To solve this issue, it is not that easy. There has got to be a balance, a carrot and stick approach. Although the parking meters, which did help fund the free parking lots Downtown, those meters categorically did damage some businesses. It's hard to identify what they were, given the other things that were going on. General change in the method of doing business, the development of the Malls, the lack of monies in the Downtown area all contributed to the deterioration of the attractiveness of Downtown. Penney's and Western Auto didn't leave because of parking meters. Virtually, all of the national and regional businesses that were in the Downtown area, left for regional issues, Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1998 confirmed that Pasadena has done incredible growth in business and retail revenue, but with many nationalized chains coming into that, despite the parking meters that are there. He did not believe they wanted to re-create another Pasadena or Santa Monica in Orange. The most positive thing to say is,We've been talking about fixing Orange back to what worked well for so long, that the other cities have stolen Orange's ideas and moved ahead without us." The key issue is how to solve the employee parking, but there is no answer at this time. This issue needs everyone's help. The vast majority of the recommendations of what has been labeled by the Parking Committee are excellent ones. At ~ ome point, he believed Orange will need a pay-for-parking alternative. He still wants to know what IS the threshold for which program that guarantees that it will work. They need to identify the resources and all of the players involved such as the customers, business owners, building owners and employees, and work together as a team to help each other. He thought everyone had the same goal, but just couldn't agree on what the best approach is to get to the goal. A key issue for him on the spoke streets is short-term parking. Some of the spaces need to be reserved for short-term parking. He is in favor of every proposal to be implemented immediately, except for the pay-for-parking. Pay-for-parking is something that needs continued work to identify how best to apply it, and when to apply It, and that there are other measures that have to lead up to that to assure when the right time is appropriate. He hopes for any other method at all to finance improvements to the parking concerns in Downtown, including structures, to parking management to free up spaces needed for safety and for aesthetics. He is willing to move forward and thought that recommendation D. relative to revenue sources has several items that should be moved into the study section. He agreed D.4. should be done, but it does not belong in the revenue or pay-for-parking study. It needs to be tied into refurbishing the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program.He agreed with Commissioner Smith, the myths get carried away. It's good to agree to disagree in a civil way. Everyone's viewpoints are valid and need to be taken into account.The Commission thanked the Parking Committee for their hard work and many hours to come up with the best possible recommendation, and thanked the business owners in Downtown for coming together in a positive way for this District.It was noted the Commission previously recommended approval of Negative Declaration 1539-97 and recommended the City Council amend the City ordinances to create an "in-lieu" parking replenishment fee for new construction in the Plaza Commercial District, and to also establish a new parking requirement of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building floor area.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend that the City Council accept the Downtown Plaza District (DPD) Short Term Parking Strategies report, also known as the Downtown Parking Study, as the supporting documentation for implementation of parking management,administration and improvements in the Downtown, with the following specific identification of the Study recommendations that the Planning Commission supports at this time and are forwarding herewith to the City Council for their consideration:A. Studies Needed to Determine the Merits of the following Pro Dosed Imorovements:1. Improve access between the Plaza and Public Lots D,E,G,H,1 and J.2. Review the need now or in the future, or identify if no need exists in the future, for acquisition of property between Public Lots H & I, relative to, and only to, parking requirements for the future of Downtown.3_ Study the potential for incorporation of private parking lots in pay parking program, specifically including the full input and concurrence of private parking lot owners in any proposed plan_4_ Study potential for shuttle service between the Plaza, public lots, and major arrival and use concentration areas such as the Depot and Chapman University, the medical complex at Main and LaVeta, as well as The Mills shopping center. 5. Study revenue sources to accomplish the studies, physical improvements and staffingl administration to support parking management solutions:a To identify opportunities to establish a consistent revenue source such as maximizing non-fee-for-parking programs in the Downtown area, specifically prioritizing those which are initiated in the Downtown area, outside of the direct support of the property owners and merchants in the Downtown area without damaging or diminishing potential business and revenue to the merchants. This includes, but is not limited to, such programs as the International Street Fair, other not-for-profit and profit events in the Downtown area, banners,motion picture and advertising media programs, etc. And, the potential for pay-for-parking Altemative #1, Alternative #6 (combination of meters and pay stations) or Alternative # Planning Commission Minutes Mad' 16, 1998 with regard to which Alternative may be most appropriate to accomplish the needs of the Downtown area in support of the merchants and business environment, given the amount of information that can be generated at this time, but identifying that time is of the essence to identify alternative funding sources to enhance existing revenue generating opportunities, other than pay-for-parking, including General Fund, Redevelopment, and the above-listed sources to be able to respond in advance to the parking needs with the least fiscal impact on the Downtown merchants and property owners.b. That a Parking Project Manager, if retained by the City, including assignment to existing staff,be directed to prepare an initial parking fee schedule and long- term users program for review by the community and the Council as part of any proposed pay-for-parking plan.e. That, if in the event, any pay-for-parking program is, in the future, initiated by the City in the Downtown area, that al pay- for-parking revenues generated be maintained In a pr~ram specific fund that can be used only for the Downtown parking-related studies, administration and improvements.d. That, if in the future, a pay-for-parking concept may be approved by the City Council, a Revenue Management, Control and Planning Procedure be established, to include an audited Annual Report ( as discussed in the Downtown Parking Study) for review at a public hearing.e. That all other potential revenue sources be evaluated to implement the approved physical and management recommendations of the Downtown Parking Study prior to any initiation of fee for pay-for- parking alternatives.B. Phvsical Imorovements Needed to Imorove Safety. Parkina Manaaement and Business Vitality of Downtown:1. That the street and parking lot lighting levels be increased in and around the Downtown Plaza District, including the extended Downtown area to provide well-lit vehicular and pedestrian connections to the Depot and Chapman University.2. That existing pedestrian and vehicular signs be re-evaluated, and added to or modified as determined necessary, identifying locations of parking facilities and parking time limits and restrictions.3. That the Police and Public Work's Departments review all public parking lots for safety and access concerns and identify those improvements which need to be addressed, including the use of private security guards at the Lemon Street and Depot lots.C. Administrative and Oraanizational Asoects of Implementina the Recommendations of the Parkina 1. That at such time as revenue sources and need are identified to support a full-time Project Manager to coordinate the implementation of any approved elements of the Downtown Parking Study, or that a part-time Project Manager be identified on staff to coordinate the implementation of any' approved elements of the Downtown Parking Study, if additional revenues are not identified.2. That a Downtown Plaza District Parking Committee, with a composition to be identified by the City Council, duties and responsibilities, be established. 3. That all parking time limits on the streets and within the public lots in Downtown be consistently enforced.4. That funding be provided so that the Police Department can hire two (2) additional employees to enforce the time limits and/or permit program in Downtown. And, at such time, if a pay-for-parking alternative is adopted by the City Council, be funded to enforce that program. The report noted that the estimated cost is $25,000 to $30,000 annually.5. That the City identify the mechanism by which all citation revenues collected in the Downtown Plaza District, in addition to the parking permit program revenues, be maintained in a separate program fund that can be used only for the Downtown parking-related studies, administration and Improvements, as a designated fund with annual audited reports available at public hearing for review.6. That the existing permit parking program in the Downtown Plaza District be re-defined and management restored, recognizing the needs of commercial, not-for-profit, residential tenants and land owners in the District, as well as the specific needs of long- and short-term parking and special parking requirements for the handicapped and elderly.7. That the residential areas Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1998 neighborhoods at the same time as management of the existing Parking Permit Program is restored. D_ Comorehensive P1annina Proaram 1. That the City Council consider development of a Specific Plan, and environmental impact report, which would comprehensively address all of the important issues in Downtown, including land use, parking, signs, landscaping, circulation, marketing and funding. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chairman recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m.IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 4. PRE- lONE CHANGE 1194-98 - GREYSTONE HOMES A proposed annexation of property to City of Orange, with proposed zoning classification of R-3, and General Plan Amendment of Low-Medium Density Residential. The site is located at " Greystone Crossings", Tract 15314 (North side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Orange- Olive Road).This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15319.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the presentation of the full staff report was not presented.NOTE:The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Chris Payne. 8535 East Baker Hill Road. is the Project Manager for Greystone Homes on the subject site. They have applied to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of Tract 15314 from the unincorporated County area into the City of Orange. The homeowners in the 36-unit single family development will be best served by the services provided in Orange. Their application is for a Medium Density Residential designation; however, staff informed them theirproject at 10.46 units per acre is more compatible with the Low Medium Density Residential designation of 6 to 15 units per acre. They agreed with staff's recommendation and request the General Plan designation be changed to Low Medium Density Residential. In addition, the R-3 zoning classification is compatible with the neighboring land uses and it will accommodate a planned unit development.The public hearing was closed.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 1-98 of Low- Medium Density Residential, and Pre-Zone Change 1194- 98 with a proposed zoning classification of R- 3. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2209-98 - ERNEST SARKISAIN Proposal to establish a nightclub with dancing, live entertainment and the sale of alcoholic beverages with food service. The site is located at Planning Commission Minutes MCI'ch 16, 1998 This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as people were opposed to this project. The nightclub is called the Royal Morocco and it is located at 3500 West Orangewood Avenue. The building was previously occupied by and originally constructed as the Dohyo Restaurant, which was in business for approximately three (3) years before going out of business. The theme of the re~taur~nt was Japanese. The restaurant was permitted as part of KolI Center Orange, a complex of high rise office buildings, a hotel, and commercial uses, including two restaurant pads. The Planning Commission approved another request to sell alcoholic beverages in a restaurant at the site through Conditional Use Pennit 2147. That CUP remains valid through May, 1998. There were many conditions attached that don't allow the kind of business that the applicant is proposing. The Commission is being asked to consider whether the nightclub would detrimentally affect nearby residential uses, with further consideration giv~n towards the hours of operation, proximity to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds and other similar uses, and the proximity to other establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages. There are other restaurants in the vicinity, especially in concentration along State College, mostly oriented to the Anaheim Stadium. And, there are restaurants within the KolI Center itself, including the National Sports Bar & Grill and the Atrium Cafe in the Hilton Suites Hotel, that also sell alcoholic beverages. There are future connections to the arterial system that will link Orangewood across the 1- 5 Freeway, and in a sense make the proposed nightclub more accessible to the residential areas to the west. Otherwise, there is a regional circulation system that in the future will provide freeway access to the site. The site is located in an area is developed primarily as office-commercial and industrial uses. The staff report notes there is adequate parking. The applicant is proposing to convert the main area of the restaurant to a dance floor, approximately 2,000 square feet, for an entertainment area with live or disc jockey type entertainment.NOTE:On March 10, 1998, the City Council approved an urgency ordinance that is requiring applicants to formulate a Business Establishment Alcoholic Management and Education Program. This would be a cooperative agreement between the Police Department and business establishment. There are 13 conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Staff is recommending the Commission modify the limitation quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages being in balance with food sales. Condition 1 refers to the building as being a restaurant because it is a nightclub.Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 7 relative to a public premises license and he wanted to know what that means_ He also wanted to know if they were going to be open for breakfast.Mr. Donovan explained public premises, under ABC regulations, is an establishment that can sell beverages without any food services. Categorically, under ABC standards, this may be considered as a restaurant. Public premises can mean a bar, with no persons under the age of 21 permitted. The proposed hours of operation are 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily and they will serve lunch and dinner, but not breakfast.Sgt. Barry Weinstein, Orange Police Department, did not oppose the project based on the recently approved Business Establishment Alcoholic Management and Education Program. The Police felt the Program will manage any potential problems. And, because the site has been vacant for quite some time, this project could be successful.The public hearing was opened.Bob Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. OranQe, represented the applicant. They've been working on the project for several months and were aware of the proposed Management Plan. They felt this is an ideal location for a nightclub, with a restaurant. This is a typical mixed use situation with more than adequate parking.They reviewed all of the conditions and he referred to the memo staff gave the Commission. They also suggested adding a couple of other conditions. Condition 3 says no more than three (3) coin operated games shall be installed. They do not want coin operated games and request the condition be changed to state no coin-operated games shall be installed. Condition 7 needs to have the word breakfast deleted. Condition 12 says the CUP shall be reviewed in one year. They su~gested the business be reviewed in six months and then annually thereafter, to be more in accordance With the urgency ordinance that was adopted. They realize there is a history to the site and know about the problems with the Red Onion. They're not in the same building, but further over off of the Orangewood frontage instead of Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1998 Chairman Bosch stated that the CUP runs with the property and the Commission is concerned with the initial operation if a CUP is approved. He asked for some of the history and demonstration of operational and management style that would be appropriate for this location that is possessed by the applicant. Mr. Mickelson replied the owner is a businessman who has had several different businesses over the years, and does not claim to have expertise in running a ni~htclub other than from a business standpoint. They do plan to hire a gentleman who has been promoting clubs for the last five years and who has managerial experience. They also want to hire a general manager and assistant managers who are experienced in nightclubs. Public comments: Barbara Baian. is the General Manaaer of the Anaheim-Qranae Hilton Suites. 400 North State Colleae.They cater to corporate travelers and leisure families. She witnessed what happens when an establishment of this type is close to their hotel. The Red Onion caused many problems for the hotel and a nightclub in the area sends a negative message to their customers. She strongly opposed the nightclublrestaurant being approved.Kevin Curtis. General Manaaer for the Soorts Bar & Grill. 450 North State Colleae. had many of the same concerns as the Hilton Suites. The prior business has created a negative, very hostile environment.His business caters to families and he does not want to see a nightclub in the area. A 2,000 square foot dance floor and live entertainment does not cater to a strong restaurant use.Michael Palladino. Eauitv Office. 500 North State Colleae. #1160. manages the 14-story office building adjacent to the proposed restaurant site. They also manage the common area for the entire Center.They strongly oppose the proposed use_ They want a restaurant as it will add to the Center, but not a bar or nightclub. He believes the nightclub will give them the same problems as when the Red Onion was at the site.Jack Anderson. California Commercial Brokers. use to work in the building a couple of years ago. He was there when Red Onion was there. Yes, there were problems, but the problems were with the management of Red Onion. That same facility does not have the same problems now that National Sports Bar & Grill is there. The nightclub is being set up in such a way with six-month or annual reviews that if there is a problem, it can be handled quickly_ The nightclub is on the other side of the complex from the Hilton Suites. Most of the parking and noise will be in front of the nightclub and the people will not be associating with the hotel guests. The nightclub will provide securityso there shouldn' t be too many problems. Resoonse from aoolicant Mr. Mickelson thought there was a difference in the fact the City now has a tool that it didn' t have when the Red Onion was in operation. They're not in the same building as the Red Onion, but are on the other side of the complex. They are willing to cooperate with the City and have offered even tighter conditions.Commissioner Smith asked if there is going to be an entrance fee.Mr. Mickelson replied yes. Each time the customer enters the building, an entrance feeisrequired. They have not targeted an age group, but hope to appeal to all different ages over 21. The dance floor area can be negotiated with the Police Department to keep it within a reasonable size. He would not mind another condition requiring security guards be provided both inside and outside the building during the first year.Commissioner Carlton asked what type of food would be served at this restaurant.Mr. Mickelson said they plan to serve American and Mexican foods because it isinexpensiveandreadilyavailable, and easy to serve. The name of the restaurant does not reflect the type of food being served.Chairman Bosch said the staff report had several concerns that need to be addressed with the relationship of the building within the overall complex. There is a master planned Planning Commission Minutes MCM"ch 16, 1998 with a variety of uses. On Page 3 of the staff report it expresses concern about the lighting, adjacent to the building and also to the parking structure and the security risks associated with the dim lighting. He asked about the obligations under the master agreement for the entire property for the building itself. Mr. Mickelson said with the Police Department's review, if they find deficiencies in that area, they could be improved. Mr. Anderson stated this is a separate parcel under separate ownership with CC&R's. There will also be reciprocal parking and easement agreements. Maintenance, such as hghting, should be included in the CC&R's. He understands there are only two property owners. To install additional lighting is not a problem, nor will it be a financial burden to satisfy the City's requirements. Commissioner Smith didn't have a clear enough picture of what business is going to go on here. She is already confused by the concept of the business, Royal Morocco, serving Mexican food. She wanted to know more about the entertainment, the hours of operation, cover fees on specific nights, and security guards and their training and management plans. She wanted to know if they had a towing plan for the removal of cars left overnight. She wants the assurance that this proposed use will fit in with the well established businesses and the high standards. Chairman Bosch said the Commission cannot approve this application tonight because of the urgency ordinance adopted by the City Council. He understands the agreement has not been negotiated yet and it needs to be in place prior to the Commission taking action. He had some concerns about the appropriateness of the use on the site. This is a master plan integrated property and it may have several ownerships. It may be more difficult to resolve the potential problems and contain them than it would be on an independent parcel. Commissioner Pruett thought the way the agreement is going to be structured is between the applicant and City, yet there are some issues that relate to the common area of the property and the management of that. This brings in a third party and it may be difficult to deal with some of those issues. His concern is with the use and how it goes With the property. It gets back to the compatibility with the development itself. He also wanted to make clear this applicant is making a request for a different use of the property; it's not the same activity and it is not similar at all with the previous uses. The public hearing was dosed. Mr. Reynolds said in light of the ordinance adopted last week by City Council, the applicant needs to reach an agreement on the Business Establishment Alcoholic Management and Education Program with the Police Department prior to taking action. He recommended this item be continued to a date certain that is agreeable to the applicant. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2209-98 to the meeting of April 6, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 6. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-98 - CITY OF ORANGE The City is proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance & Old Towne Design Standards as follows:1) Modify Section 17.17.030 (Historic Districts) of the Orange Municipal Code (OMC) and Exhibit 1 of the Old Towne Design Standards, regarding the boundaries of Old Towne, to include the additional properties listed on the National Register.2) Modify OMC Chapters 17_08 General Administrative Procedures and 17.10 Specific Administrative Procedures, and Old Towne Design Standards, Part II, Chapters 1 & 2 (Processing Requirements), to cla~ify the types of projects requiring environmental review, and to more fully describe the environmental review process. Planning Commission Minutes Mard116, 1998 NOTE:This amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. Joan Wolff, Senior Planner, presented the full staff report. The Ordinance Amendment has two parts. The first is to amend the boundaries of Old Towne and the second is to modify the review process for projects in Old Towne to incorporate environmental review, in addition to design review. The first part of the amendment proposes to expand the Old Towne boundaries to encompass properties that are outside the current boundaries, but within the National Register Historic District. Ms. Wolff referred to the map on the wall that indicates the current boundaries of Old Towne and the projections at the northern boundary and the eastern boundary that are the additional areas proposed to be added to the Old Towne District. The reason this change is recommended is so that the rules and regulations for all parts of the Historic Old Towne area are the same. So, the Old Towne Design Standards would apply throughout. Because of the National Register listing, these areas that are outside the current Old Towne boundaries are clearly subject to CEQA, and the projects, therefore, will require environmental review. The application of the Old Towne Design Standards would assist the City in reviewing these projects, and will also assist project applicants in knowing exactly what the standards to which they need to build are. It's important to remember that regardless of whether or not the boundaries are changed, all projects within the National Register District will need to undergo environmental review. The second aspect of the amendment is to modify the zoning ordinance in the Old Towne Design Standards to reflect both the design and environmental review processes that have been implemented in the past year. State law and City ordinance plus the City's environmental review guidelines require environmental review of all projects, except those projects which are either categorically or statutorily exempt. Within the past year, the City modified the review process for most projects in Old Towne to incorporate the required environmental review. Where, in the past, Old Towne projects were previously acted upon by the Design Review Board as the final reviewing authority, based on design considerations only, the City now looks at both design review and environmental review. The DRB now generally makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission has become the final acting authority. There will be some cases when the City Council will need to be the final reviewing authority, and that would be when an environmental impact report is involved in a project. These processing changes were made to bring the City review processes into strict compliance with CEQA. Staff proposes to follow up the changes in procedure with corresponding changes to the ordinance. This will mean the zoning ordinance and Old Towne Design Standards accurately describe the actual review process. Although the City has the authority to modify the review process to comply with the State law requirement, staff feels it is important to come back with this amendment to eliminate the inconsistencies between the written text document as described in the zoning ordinance and the processes actually implemented. With this change, anyone reading the ordinance or Old Towne Design Standards, would have a clearer, more accurate understanding of what the actual review process is. It is also important to understand that even if the proposed chan~es are not adopted, the review process will continue to include both the environmenta and design reView, with the DRB generally having an advisory role to the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff would like the Commission to consider the proposed changes and whether they adequately incorporate the environmental review requirements of CEQA, whether they provide for the appropriate level of project review for the various types of Old Towne projects, and whether they are internally consistent. This is a change that is intended to assure the maintenance and protection of the environment, as and such, it is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15308. Chairman Bosch said they have the current Old Towne District boundaries with the Design Standards for Old Towne that apply to new construction and modification of existing buildings. Now, there is imposed on the area outside the boundaries of the original Old Towne District, the National Historic District to which the environmental process applies. He asked if there are design standards that apply to the National Historic District regardless of whether it is inside or outside the Old Towne District, or historically contributing buildings. Ms. Wolff said there are the Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines, but they are not very specific requirements, whereas the City's Design Standards are much more specific. There are many non- contributing structures in the Old Towne proper boundaries at this point, and the Design Standards reflect that there is a different level of review for those types of existing properties that are non- contributing. The Old Towne Standards require that the additions or modifications to the non- contributing Planning Commission Minutes Ma-ch 16, 1998 structures be in proportion and scale with that existing structure and also be in proportion and scale with the surrounding properties. Shedidn't think there are any other problems associated with it. The tax structure should not change, although if the City is able to adopt some of the Mills Act kind of changes,that would be a benefit for these properties. As far as development standards, it would change the standards from the basic R-1, R-2, R-3 standards that exist now to those additional standards that are under the Old Towne Design Standards. It would still be the same zones and same uses permitted; the design factors would be different.Commissioner Smith said the original outline of Old Towne was drawn to include both sides of the boundary streets. However, politics put that boundary at the mid-line of the street. She asked what it would take to include both sides of the street and when will it be the appropriate time to put the boundaries back.Ms. Wolff said that was specifically deleted as a provision when the Old Towne Design Standards were adopted. It would require an ordinance amendment to expand those boundaries out, and could be done when staff is so directed to do that. The public hearing was opened.Anne Siebert. 340 South Olive. is very pleased to see Orange is accommodating the National Register Districtinto the boundaries. She wasn't real sure if both sides of Batavia were included in Old Towne.The document will provide a clear understanding of where the process goes and it helps the applicant from the very start of the process what to expect. She asked who decides what cumulative adverse effect is and when does it happen. Is it written down somewhere those things that will trigger cumulative adverse effect. When reading through the CEOA stuff, it is very subjective. Is there a guideline that is given to applicants at the counter so that they know what the standard is for CEOA. Because Culver Street is foremost in everyone's minds, the scary part is in that small area, over 100 units could be built there. There needs to be a limit as to what can happen.Gilbert Lerman. 181 South Cambridae. objected to their property being included in the Historic District.In 1997 the Office of Historic Preservation sent them a notice under Federal law, a privately owned property may not be listed in the National Register over the objection of the property owner. He wanted to know if his residence is not listed since they objected.Mr. Jones understood a survey was done of all the properties that would be eligible for the National Register District.Mr. Godlewski said the information the owner was quoting from has to do with individual properties. If a person owns an individual property and that property is nominated for listing and the person did not want his property nominated, a letter opposing the nomination can be written. In this particular case, it was not an individual property, but rather a group of properties taken as a District. At the time Orange made their original nomination, it would take 51% of the property owners to void the application for the National Register designation. If the owner's property is included within the boundaries of the map, he is included in the District, but the individual structure itself is not necessarily listed. That decision was made on February 14.Aleta Brvant. 148 North Waverlv, asked what, if any. benefits might accrue to property owners in the area that is under consideration for inclusion. She understood the point of the ordinance is to subject owners to the additional design standards, as well as the environmental review process.Ms. Wolff heard the question about the true boundary line of the street. According to the ordinance, it is down the center line of the streets Walnut, Cambridge, LaVeta and Batavia. The new boundary line to be established will be established as per the Exhibit. Regarding cumulative adverse effect, that is something that the Planning Commission/City Council have to determine. If thresholds were set, it would have to be set through a comprehensive study and public hearings. It's very difficult to say how many homes can be lost or how many facades can be altered.Mr. Jones had the CEOA definition of cumulative impacts, but it is a fairly subjective determination.There is never enough information to help staff feel comfortable in making Planning Commission Minutes Mard116, 1998 Chairman Bosch thought it would be appropriate to request staff to come forward with a report on a periodic basis to give the Commission the current interpretations of that definition and how it has been legally applied in the State. and what staff recommends with regard to identifying that threshold. Ms. Wolff said the last question was what benefits might accrue to properties by being incorporated in the Old Towne District. The benefits may be tax credits and there is a certain benefit in knowing that the environment will remain more or less intact and be protected. One benefit that is put forward by the Old Towne Standards is the maintenance of the existing neighborhood character. Mr. Hohnbaum addressed the infrastructure in Old Towne. There is currently an Old Towne lighting study being done and the area is being studied differently than other areas of the City. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 1- 98. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith also wanted staff to discuss demolitions, alterations, additions of second units,additions of second stories, consolidation of parcels -- anything that changes the look, feel, ambiance and street scape of the Historic District. Staff will come back to the Commission in 30 days with a report. IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 7. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL #01-98 . WELLS FARGO BANK An appeal of the Design Review Board decision to deny the project based on the finding that the proposal does not conform to the Old Towne Design Standards. The site is 101 East Chapman Avenue.Mr. Godlewski reported the applicant is appealing the decision of the Design Review Board for denying their sign request primarily on the reasons of location of the sign on the building, the method of lighting for the letters and the style of letters that are proposed in the sign. Included in the Commissioners'packet are some very small drawings of the location for the sign. The applicant has brought samples of the lettering style and samples of the letters themselves. The Design Review Board is of the opinion that the location of the signs above and across the top of the building is inappropriate and inconsistent with the Old Towne Design Standards. The letter itself is a letter that stands off from the face of the building and is lit from behind the letter, giving it a shadow effect. The Design Review Board feels this is not in keeping with the period of the historic building and that the lighting should be more of a goose-neck type direct lighting of the letters, as opposed to a shadow effect_ The style of letters is not one that is included in the Design Standards, and is not very well described on the information before the Commission.Commissioner Smith wanted to know if the Design Review Board made any specific recommendations of what type of lettering would be appropriate or other positioning of the words.Mr. Godlewski responded the DRB recommended relocating the letters from a very high portion of the building to one of the areas where a window area previously was, an inset on the building that the letters could be located in, or gold leaf on the glass of the building itself.The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1998 Aoolicant. Warren Decree. 2808 North Stoddard. San Bernardino, represented Wells Fargo. The DRB made several suggestions on what to do with their signage. He set up exhibits of their signage for the Commission's review. There are five tenants that will be located in the building. The signage standards allows each tenant be allowed a sign for elevation. Taking that into consideration, the proposal they have really is the most logical place for the signage. The code also states siQns shall be placed on continuous flat surfaces on the building. The DRB wanted to see more histone looking Sign age and external illumination be used that is more in keeping with the period and character of the building. Part of their proposal, too, is to trim the trees so that the letters can be seen. Commissioner Smith asked for Mr. Degree's rationale that pedestrian traffic will see those signs way up at the top of the building. Wouldn't the letters be more visible at eye level. Mr. Degree showed the Commission pictures with the proposed lettering on the building. He didn't see that much pedestrian traffic when he visited Orange. Diane Miller. works out of the San Francisco Wells Fargo Bank office, and is responsible for the redevelopment of the retail bank. They have the challenge of bringing in five (5) different tenants into one building and they want to give everyone the same look. This is not their corporate sign. Commissioner Smith was not convinced that the proposed signage serves the purpose of identifying what the businesses are. She did not think it was appropriate to put this type of signage on the outside of a historic building in the National Register Distnct. There is a lot of foot traffic, especially on the weekends. Commissioner Carlton asked if the plant for the dry cleaning business will be on site. (It's only a drop off and pick up type service.) Public comments: Joan Crawford. 394 South Oranae. agreed with the DRB's decision. This is a very historical building and a definite landmark in the Plaza. The City must be careful in how the building is adorned. She felt this would set a benchmark for some of the other multiple occupancies in Downtown. Judv Schroeder. 1041 North Elizabeth. is the designer of the Orange Historical Afghan and a member of the Historical Society. Her father in-law was the President of Rrst National Bank and during his tenure there, was President of the California Banker's Association. One reason they chose the building to be on the blanket, one of the criteria was that it was a historic building, representing finance in the community.The merchants in Downtown are not allowed to use neon lighting and it would set a precedent and create problems. She found it distressing that this happens to be one of the first buildings to be done by Wells Fargo. Maybe one of the other bank sites might have been better to try this multiple tenant concept.Aleta Bryant. 148 North Waverlv, didn't have the same ties to the community or bank. She has only been here for five years. The historical Downtown area drew her to Orange. She sees destruction when she goes inside the bank. She asked that the outside of the bank not be destroyed.Aoolicant's resoonse Ms. Miller tried to go to great lengths to maintain the integrity of the architecture. They are trying to revitalize the institution, as well as give their customers something different. The other sites have opened very successfully.Mr. De9ree understands the community's thoughts and they want to work with staff to come up with something acceptable. He read an excerpt from the sign code and believed they met the requirements with their proposed signage.Commissioner Smith asked if back lighting is in the code. She does not recall anything else in the District that is back lit.Mr. Degree responded it was a rather gray area. He sees neon lighting protruding from the windows.He referred to the Lighting Section 6 of the code. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1998 The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Pruett said if he were a tenant in the building, based on what is proposed. he would be very concerned. The sign age is not visible because of the trees. To presume the trees will be trimmed is presumptuous. He's not convinced the signs are compatible for the building, nor are they in keeping with the HIstoric District. The DRB's recommendation was not out of line. Commissioner Smith was in favor of upholding the DRB's decision. The signage is not appropriate for the building. Neon back lighting is not appropriate at all for this building. The lighting should be fancier to enhance the premiere building in the Historic District. The signage, as proposed. is a compromise of the facade and an intrusion to the design and the architectural integrity of the building. She was not sure if the goose neck lighting was appropriate for the building either. She is extremely upset at the handling of the interior remodel of the building. They don't have a code that governs the historical design on the interior. but she takes it as a rather insensitive approach of Wells Fargo to come into one of Orange's premiere structures and to choose the design that was chosen. She felt the exterior needs to be managed and be sensitively adorned. She sees two or three open wall spaces on the building which would be more appropriate for signage. Chairman Bosch thought the signage of Wells Fargo and Starbucks Coffee are appropriate locations for signs. The other signs don't meet the other parts of the intent of the Sign Ordinance under the Old Towne Design Standards. He can't see signs above the entablature at all. He would vote to uphold the findings of the DRB, but encourage the same degree of creativity with regard to the signage in the entablature, in the former window area and related to the doors without damaging the pilasters, the engaged columns or the windows themselves, given the historical integrity of this extremely important building. This building is not only in the District, but is a registered building, there are the Secretary of Interior Guidelines to consider as well. He, also, is distressed at what happened inside and hopes that something will be done to reverse his opinion. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to deny Design Review Board Appeal No. 01-98 regarding DRB No. 3283. Wells Fargo Bank. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 6, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p. m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Isld