Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-1998 PC MinutesC- ;) 'J ~ 00 .G. ~ . 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange November 16, 1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED 1. VARIANCE 205&98 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 67-98 - LEASON POMEROY A proposal to redevelop the commercial properties at 152 and 154 North Glassell Street within the Historic Downtown Plaza District. The project requests: 1) partial demolition, and 2nd story addition, to the historic commercial structure at 154 North Glassell Street, and 2) demolition of the non-historic commercial structure at 152 North Glassell Street with the construction of a new commercial building which will create access between Glassell Street and the rear parking lot on Olive Street. NOTE:Mitigated Negative Declaration 1580-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Applicant requests to continue this item to December 7, 1998. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Variance 2056- 98 and Minor Site Plan Review 67-98 to the meeting of December 7, 1998.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15710 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 57- 98 - GEORGE KLIMEK A proposal to subdivide a 6+ acre parcel into residential lots, of which three (3) lots would not have direct access to a public street. The site is located 400 feet south of Santiago Canyon and east of Jamestown Way.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1565-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Applicant requests to continue this item to December 7, 1998.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Tentative Tract Map 15710 and Minor Site Plan Review 57-98 to the meeting of December 7, 1998.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 3. a) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 1998 The Chair stated the Commission received a request from Mr. Zehner by letter, dated November 13, 1998, with regard to the Minutes. Commissioner Pruett noted a correction on Page 5 in which the Minutes state that the motion died from lack of vote; however, it should be noted that: Irfhe motion was replaced by a substitute motion." Mr. Reynolds spoke about Mr. Zehner's request of verbatim statements in the Minutes. It would be within the discretion of the Planning Commission to allow that to be included if the Commission felt it is necessary. However, the official record is not the hard copy of the Minutes, but rather the tapes of the meeting. It is not a legal requirement that there be a verbatim transcript of the Minutes. The Commission did not see a need to have a verbatim transcript of the Minutes. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of October 26, 1998 with a correction to the first motion on Page 5, stating that the motion was replaced by a substitute motion, and deleting the words: Motion died from lack of vote. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 3. b) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1998 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of November 2, 1998, as written. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2246-98 - OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (CAFE GALlLEO) A proposal to allow the on-site sale and service of beer and wine for on-site consumption within a new restaurant. The site is located at The Block at Orange, west of The City Drive between Chapman Avenue and the SR-22 Freeway.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived.The public hearing was opened.Applicant. Jack Church, General Manager of the Cafe Galileo, represented Ogden Entertainment. They asked to serve beer and wine at their establishment. Their hours of operation will be from 10:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. They plan to post signs of public rest rooms at their front door, to let the public Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 share a common restroom within 100 feet of the restaurant. He has read the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval. Chairman Bosch wanted the applicant to be sure of the modification to condition 9, which previously stated that meal service shall be available whenever the restaurant is open to the public. The condition has been modified to say whenever the premises are open to the public. (The applicant concurred with the modification.) The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2246-98, with the conditions listed in the staff report, modifying condition 9 to state premises in lieu of restaurant, and finding that the project will be compatible to the neighborhood, that it is in response to services expected by the community, it will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses, and that it is not being made for anyone's individual welfare, but rather for the general welfare of the entire community. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:NEW HEARING 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-98, ZONE CHANGE 1196-98, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2227-98, VARIANCE 2058-98 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15680 - GREYSTONE HOMES A request to change the land use and zoning designations of the subject property to allow a "planned unit development" comprised of 117 condominium units in a gated community with a private recreation center.Included in the application is a request to waive zoning ordinance requirements for the building setback along Heim Street and the minimum space between two buildings. The site is located at the southeast corner of Heim Avenue and Canal Street, and is presently zoned for commercial development.Negative Declaration 1560-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, reported the property was developed with several single family residential buildings on parcels that were collectively annexed to the City of Orange in 1975. All properties were initially zoned for agricultural uses. In 1979, the City Council denied a proposal to change the zoning and general plan to construct two 14-story senior apartment buildings consisting of 544 units. The revised proposal limited the project to 4 stories and 354 units, and was denied in 1980. In 1986 the City Council approved a zone change to allow commercial development of the property with several other properties along Tustin Street to C-TR.NOTE:The applicant is requesting that the property's general plan designation be changed to Medium Density Residential, and that zoning be changed to R3. The applicant asks the Commission to consider a proposal to build 16. 3-story buildings, comprised of a total number of 117 units. By definition, a planned unit development is intended to encourage an alternative form of residential construction proposed within density ranges established by the general plan. Some flexibility is allowed in assembling units and clusters around an open, outdoor area, permanently dedicated towards preservation of open space or recreation uses. Three story buildings are not permitted by right of zoning. A structure within any residential zone is limited to two stories or 32 feet unless a conditional use permit allowing greater height is authorized by the Planning Commission or City Council. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 stories, but only in portions that vary from 1/6 to 1/3 of each building's total floor area on the ground level. The overall height of each structure would be limited to 34 feet 6 inches, approximately 8% more than the general limit of 32 feet. The applicant has requested a variance to allow a reduction to the required front yard along Heim Avenue, from 20 to 10 feet. The City's general plan and municipal code require that the applicant dedicate propertyandwidenHeimAvenuetofourlanes, east of Canal Street. A 20 foot setback is required by the development standards for a planned unit development; however, it is not required by the basic R3 standards. The applicant also requests a variance to reduce the space required between two buildings nearest to Canal Street, from 25 feet to 16 feet, or an average width of 18 feet. Those two buildings are indicated on the site plan in the lower left corner. The applicant has satisfied all other development standards for the City's planned unit development ordinance and the R3 zone. With the proposal, the applicant submitted a tentative tract map for condominium purposes, thus allowing units to be sold to individual homeowners if the project is approved by the City. The staff report includes an environmental analysis of the project's impacts upon both natural resources and public resources. Staff estimates that a residential development of this size will generate approximately 700 more vehicle trips on local streets each day, which is significantly less than what may be generated by commercial use of the property. In that case, approximately 2,400 trips may be anticipated. The project is not considered significant under guidelines published by the Southcoast Air Quality Management District. The City has received a request submitted by the County of Orange to add one condition of approval to ensure protection of water quality. The Commission has been provided with written comments submitted by Orange Unified School District. Staff found no evidence that with the adoption of the mitigation measures contained in the draft Negative Declaration, the proposed projectwouldhaveanysignificantadverseimpactsontheenvironmentorwildliferesources. The applicant has been an active participant in the staff review process and cooperative in revising the proposal to satisfy minimum development requirements. By satisfying the street widening requirement, the proposed number of dwelling units has been reduced from 123 to 117; however, some further refinement of plans will be required if the Planning Commission recommends, and the City Council approves, the development proposal. Namely, there are some dimensional standards that need to be increased for drive aisles and parking spaces. And, more private open space needs to be defined on the plans. Chairman Bosch noted for the record the Commission received a letter dated November 10, from the County of Orange relative to water quality and CEQA impacts; a letter dated November 5, from the OrangeUnifiedSchoolDistrict; and a letter dated November 12, from Pastor Ronald Martin of St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School. Chairman Bosch briefly reviewed the rules of order for the hearing. The public hearing was opened. Applicant, Douqlas Woodward. Grevstone Homes. 26 Executive Park #100, Irvine. thanked staff for their help and input into their project. He mentioned Greystone Homes' other projects and explained their new proposed project at this site. They will offer four plans, featuring one bedroom, two bedroom and two bedroom plus a loft, which will range from 931 to 1405 square feet. All the homes will have a two car garage with direct access into the homes. The site is currently zoned commercial. With the recent construction of Wal Mart and the existing retail building at the east side of the property, it's an unlikelycandidateforretail, in terms of its exposure to the retail corridor of Tustin. A change to residential seems like an appropriate use for the site. The owners of the property have owned the land for the past 16 years.The site is surrounded by retail uses on the east and south side. The area to the north is residential, and to the west is a church. Beyond the church is an area that is predominantly single family homes. Their 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 project will provide a proper transition between residential areas to the west and the retail-commercial to the east and south. Based on a traffic study, a commercial center under the current zoning would create traffic of two to three times more than their 117 units. There are currently 13 vacant, single family homes on the site that were built many years ago. Those homes will be demolished in conjunction with the development of their project.Commissioner Romero was concerned with the open space requirements and the tandem parking.Mr. Woodward said they have the ability to add a deck on Plan "D" to provide open space. Plan "B" can accommodate some private space to exceed the open space requirement. The CC&R's will require that cars be parked in the tandem parking spaces. Guest spaces are only for guest parking. The homeowner' s association board will have the right to enforce the rules of the CC&R' s.Commissioner Carlton said the staff report notes there were two meetings with the neighbors. She wanted to know how many people showed up and if there were suggestions made at those meetings that were incorporated into their plans.Mr. Woodward could not speak about the first meeting because he was unable to attend. The second meeting was not well attended -- only 6 or 8 people. There were concerns about traffic, but nothing specific. Mr. Rios had some concerns, but they were able to come to an agreement about sewer hookup, and curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Chairman Bosch's concern is their request for the variance. He wanted to know the reason for reducing the required yard depth in more detail and why there is a hardship that accrues to the property not caused by the proposed development. Robert Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. Oranae. handed out prepared findings for the conditional use permit, planned unit development, tentative tract and for the variance. The property does have special circumstances to justify a reduction of the 20 foot front yard setback from the public right-of-way, and the minimum distance between buildings. The site is very unique and irregular in size and shape. The widening of Heim will take property from the south side of the center line, thus reducing the north side dimensions. The site is located adjacent to commercial development. Both the commercial and church properties have minimal front yard setbacks. The planned unit development standards were created for such a residential environment further away from commercial. There are 10 to 15 foot setbacks for the multi-family residential homes in the area as well. Staff is recommending conditions that require the south side of Heim to be posted for no parking and to allow no direct pedestrian access. This creates a situation where there isn't the normal planned development where the homes fronting on and relating to the street frontage, and thus the 20 foot front yard setback. But, rather a side yard more consistent with the R3 zoning.Chairman Bosch also had concerns relative to private open space. He asked if there was an exhibit that demonstrates the private open spaces and patios. He was concerned about the effect the decks might have on the design in terms of privacy for other units, encroachments on setbacks, or building separations.Mr. Woodward replied they did have an exhibit. The one plan would be at ground level to create an outdoor patio vs. a deck on the other plans. But, every home will have private open space.Chairman Bosch had deep concerns about the tandem parking. With the tandem parking taken into account, there is a surplus of parking, but if they are not available, there will be a deficit. He is also concerned about the quantity of guest parking available and accessibility to the units.Mr. Woodward explained the concept of the tandem garages. There has to be cooperation of the tandem parking in terms of who is going to get out and who is going to get in. The market has proven Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 home buyer favors the tandem parking. Regarding buildings 10 and 11, they have taken building 10 and flipped it over. They have also added three (3) guest parking spaces adjacent to building 11. Chairman Bosch referred to the area at the northeastern portion of the site, buildings 3, 4 and 5. There appears to be guest parking in front of the garages. He wanted to know if the spaces met the code requirements, and how many of those units have tandem parking. Mr. Woodward stated they have not counted those spaces as guest parking spaces. They view them as flex-guest parking spaces. In each of the six-unit buildings, four of the homes have tandem garage parking. The spaces are considered to be a standard parking bay dimension.Mr. Mickelson added that the tandem garages are much deeper than one might expect, so there is area provided in the front even if two cars were parked in the garages. The parking calculations were based on the 3-bedroom unit, which is really a 2-bedroom and loft.Commissioner Smith wanted to know where the children will play in this type of configuration. She didn't see any open space for running.Mr. Woodward addressed the question by stating with the 1- and 2-bedroom homes. they don't expect to have many children. The project is not designedfor children, but that doesn' t preclude them from the development.1 person spoke in favor of the project:Joseph Padilla, 703 East Cumberland Road. said his father-in-law is Eddie Rios. They have met with the staff, and they feel that Greystone has been cooperative through the process. They do not oppose the plan. They hope to be included alongwith the zone change because they don' t want to be an island. The only concern they have is the access to the back lot. Mr. Rios stores his equipment back there.2 people were neutral:Stan Hartman, OUSD. 1401 North Handv Street, said the District does not oppose the project; however,the project will have a significant adverse impact on district facilities. Not withstanding the recent passage of SB 50, the District believes the full mitigation cost to be $ 4,083.00 for each multi-family attached dwelling unit. The District requests that the Planning Commission exercise its discretion and make, as a condition for approval, a mitigation agreement between the District and Greystone Homes, calling for mitigation in the amount of $477,711.00. Greystone has indicated a willingness to pay the District pursuant to such a mitigation agreement. The District further proposes the mitigation agreement contain a provision that the agreement is to be brought into compliance with the recently passed SB 50, and as soon as SB 50 rules are established in detail, if the rules call for a refund or credit to Greystone Homes, the District will be happy to do so. If, the rules call for an increased mitigation, then Greystone Homes would make the additional payment to the District.Bob Bennvhoff, 10652 Morada Drive, Oranae Park Acres, stated the new project does not appear to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. He wanted to know if this has a bearing on the Commission's findings.20 people were opposed to the proiect:Pastor Ron Martin, 1895 North Shattuck Place David Riley, 2339 North Glenwood Doug Matthews, 2580 North Canal Jan Myers. 2560 North Canal Derek Hinkle, 1223 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 Mark Manning, 2710 North Gaff Street Mary Woodhouse, 2530 North Bortz Street Diane Nowak, 2541 North Bortz Street Kathryn O'Rourke, 2520 North Bortz Street Gary Nowak, 2541 North Bortz Street Stephen Rhode, 2505 North Bortz Street John Rhode, 2505 North Bortz Street Helen Annis, 2511 Canal Street Barbara DeNiro, address on file Vern Brierly, 903 East St. James Avenue Aaron Hirschy, 1233 East Glendora Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer Street Chris Kelly, 2508 North Canal Sharon Roguemore, 2621 North Canal The speakers were opposed to the project because high density housing will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Three story buildings are not compatible with the surrounding area; there are no three story homes now. A gated housing project makes a negative statement to the neighbors. There will be a problem enforcing the rules in this part of town. Big rig trucks are using Canal every day. Packing more people into this neighborhood will only compound problems and lead to the deterioration of a very nice area. There will be increased traffic on Canal Street, and when Heim is widened, the street will invite more traffic. There are concerns about the children's safety; children also need a place to play. School is an issue as the schools are already over crowded. One hundred seventeen (117) units is too many for such a small area. Many who spoke did not oppose development at the site, but the density needs to be lowered. Tandem parking will definitely present problems; it will be impossible to enforce. People will park in the church parking lot, at the mall, or in the neighborhood to handle the overflow parking. There was concern about only one entry into the site. Fire, life and safety concerns were also voiced. It's not necessary to take the first proposal that comes along if it doesn't fit within the community. Several people did not receive notification of the community meetings. RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.Applicant's response Mr. Woodward was surprised with the community's opposition. The list they used to notify the people of the community meetings is the same list provided to the City. He heard their concerns to be: security gates, CC& R issues, 3-story element of the houses, potential visual intrusion, and traffic. A 20 foot setback is not appropriate at this site when looking at other adjacent properties and their setbacks. The City is requiring Greystone Homes to make improvements to Heim, and also posting no parking signs.Commissioner Carlton said Mr. Padilla mentioned the property that is not included. She wanted to know where the access to the back of the property would be. She asked if Greystone had a first right of refusal on that property. She also wanted to know what will happen to the trees on Heim.Mr. Woodward explained Mr. Rios has put in a request to Greystone for access to the rear of the property.However, they have not agreed to an access point. They plan to meet with him to discuss the issues in order to mitigate his concerns. Greystone has no agreement with Mr. Rios regarding a first right of refusal.The Rios' rejected Greystone Homes' offer to purchase their home. It is their plan to leave the trees on Heim, if it is feasible, but a study will need to be done.Commissioner Carlton's concerns pertained to the open space issues and the lack of a tot lot.Commissioner Pruett questioned the planter and fencing on the south side of the south entry in terms of the line of sight issues for cars exiting the development.7 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 Mr. Woodward said they only have a conceptual landscape plan. As they move forward to engineering plans, a line of sight study will be required by the City. Commissioner Smith spoke to the driveways and guest parking, which Mr. Woodward pointed out on the exhibit and explained. He also explained the rationale of the variance request for the two buildings. Chairman Bosch had a number of questions. The School District represented that Greystone Homes had stipulated to payment of fees subject to SB 50 regulations. Mr. Woodward replied that was not correct. They have been talking to the School District about how to handle this situation. With the passage of SB 50, there are new rules and they both need to work together to satisfy the District's concerns. Chairman Bosch had a hard time identifying usable public and private outdoor open space, not within setback areas of the project. There has been mention of decks and patios. but he didn't see a clear exhibit to demonstrate that Greystone Homes is meeting the intent, let alone the actuality of the ordinance with regard to usable open space per unit. Mr. Woodward believed they were meeting the intent of the ordinance for open space by having a pool, spa and recreational building rather than a tot lot that may only attract two children. They are not discouraging children, but are trying to meet the market's demand. Chairman Bosch didn't see how tandem parking was going to work, particularly in the case of the units towards the northeast area of the site, which have the potential guest parking in front of the garages. He wanted to know what is driving the tandem parking. Mr. Woodward explained this similar product has been built in Anaheim Hills and in Irvine. Buyers have received the tandem parking very well. To be able to provide endosed, direct access parking, is a benefit. The tandem parking is driven in order to get the density that is appropriate. Chairman Bosch discussed variances and the necessary findings for the hardship that is created by others rather than the developer. The widening of Heim is a pre-existing condition on the site. Units can be designed to fit and don't require the variances to be applied.Mr. Mickelson addressed the variance findings and reasons to request a variance from the code. They are stretching the classic text book requirement for variances and weighing it against the desirability of the living environment within the project.Chairman Bosch noted that traffic is also a critical issue. He was interested in the rationale that drove the choice of putting the one and only vehicular access onto Canal Street, rather than onto Heim.Mr. Woodward responded it was driven by a couple of factors. One, by putting the entry next to the Rios'property, it could better buffer the property from some residential units. Also from a stacking point, it made some logical sense in terms of being able to properly fit the community together. They thought vehicular travel of getting in and out of the development, would be more easily accomplished on Canal with its two lanes vs. a busier street on Heim.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Romero was not enthused with the project because of his concerns about open space, the lack of grass area. The number of units that are being proposed is what is causing the request for a variance. He had a real problem with the tandem parking. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 Commissioner Pruett did not see an issue of hardship to approve a variance. He was concerned about the sound wall along the arterial frontages, and how they are going to be treated as they relate to the street. He wanted to know if there is going to be a buffer between the block wall and the sidewalk area in terms of vegetation to soften the visual impact of the block wall. There is legitimate concern of the community with regard to the proposed project in terms of a gated community and security issues. The 3- story development is inappropriate for the area. The building mass and density is inconsistent and is not compatible with the neighborhood. Also, he felt tandem parking is unacceptable. He cautioned against creating a community that someone will invest in and then turn around and rent it, which turns into rental property.Commissioner Carlton thought this was an exciting design, its innovative and very attractive; however,there is just too much of it. She was not as concerned with the tandem parking. By adding the three ( 3)parking spaces takes away from the landscaping. A deck or patio is not enough open space. The issues with Mr. Rios needs to be resolved prior to any action being taken.Commissioner Smith brought up an issue about the presence of large trucks on Canal. She requested Code Enforcement staff investigate these complaints. It was a condition of the Wal Mart project that there would not be large trucks on Canal. That should be enforced. The big trucks will affect the sale of these homes. She was not prepared to take action on the application as it is. She would like to see some revisions/modifications made to the project. The buildings are incompatible; too big for the neighborhood and too close together. She is not in favor of reduced setbacks. Setbacks buffer the residents from traffic and outside noises. She is opposed to the tandem parking. More open space and more green area is needed. Housing also needs to be family oriented and child friendly. She wanted to see a tot lot or play area for children. She believed the hardship on the property is self-imposed. Accommodations need to be made around the original property owner, who chooses to stay.Chairman Bosch's key concern is that a planned unit development is a tool that has been put in place where the plan can create a better living environment and a better relationship to the community than one could accommodate by utilizing the strict development standards under a specific zone. Tandem parking has been allowed in some developments in the City where the parking exceeded that which was required by code. In this case, if the tandem parking were taken away, parking would not meet code requirements.The problems with tandem parking have been well documented. He also looks for what has been gained with a planned unit development. And, what's been gained is the adoption of a particular type of housing style that required the tandem parking, required the third floor rooms in some of the units, that mandated an absolute minimum of outdoor open space, that mandated an absolute maximum of paved area, and a closure off from the community rather than opening up into the community. A PUD concept cannot be used to justify a reduction in living styles, or a reduction away from the zoning ordinance without gaining some benefit back in return. Based on developments throughout the City, densities of this and higher,this project doesn't have any of those gains. The renderings of the buildings are beautiful, but they don't belong in the neighborhood. The site plan is too dense and too over developed, and doesn't relate to the community that it is designed to focus towards. The site would have been more appropriately approached perhaps as residential rather than as commercial, but not with this high of density. The project is not a benefit to the community given this degree of density and the way the site is laid out with the huge impacts. There is no pedestrian environment that is usable on the site. He hopes the developer would go back and look for a way to apply a lower zoning ordinance level. He encouraged the developer to try again.The Commission asked the applicant if he would like to continue the hearing in order to revise their proposal.Mr. Woodward agreed to a continuance to revise their proposal and to meet with the Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue General Plan Amendment 2-98, Zone Change 1196-98, Conditional Use Permit 2227-98, Tentative Tract Map 15680 and Variance 2058-98 to the meeting of February 1,1999.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED A legal notice will be mailed to owners of record, once again, who live within 300 feet of the project at that time. The developer is encouraged to provide good communication to the neighbors.IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 6. MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 64-98 - SPIEKER PROPERTIES The applicant is proposing to install gates to restrict access to a portion of the parking area for "The Block at Orange". The parking area proposed to be enclosed is for the exclusive use of the tenants of the One-City Office Tower on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Otherwise, the parking will be available for patrons of both the One-City Office Tower and patrons of "The Block at Orange". The parking area proposed to be enclosed is located southwest of the One-City Office Tower. The site is located west of the City Drive between Chapman Avenue and the SR-22 Freeway.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report. Spieker Properties requests to gate off approximately 1200 parking spaces around their office building that is located adjacent to The Block at Orange. The applicant is requesting this so that it will guarantee parking spaces adjacent to the Office Tower for tenants and visitors. There will be seven (7) gates. The existing parking lot has been designed in terms of the placement of planter islands and gating to enclose the parking spaces so that they can control access. The parking lot will be closed during the day, but will be open for use during the evenings and on weekends. The gates will be used from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p. m. on weekdays, but left open on weekends and on holidays. The City's zoning ordinance allows an applicant to propose restrictions to parking lots subject to going through the Minor Site Plan Review process. That process allows the Staff Review Committee to review the proposal for on- site and off-site circulation, emergency access, and safe design.The Staff Review Committee has been reviewing this proposal for the last six (6) months and during a meeting in October, the Committee referred it to the Planning Commission since the Planning Commission in April approved a conditional use permit for shared parking. Staff felt it was appropriate for the Commission to make this determination. After site modifications and after reviewing directional signage, the SRC felt that the proposal does allow emergency services to access the parking lot and Office Tower. Staff also found that the peak parking demand for the commercial uses, excluding the Office Tower is approximately 4,100 parking spaces, and excluding the 1,200 parking spaces being enclosed in the office parking lot, there will be 4,300 parking spaces available. There is substantial parking available when the office component of the shared parking agreement is taken out. There was a concern by the SRC and there is a condition regarding the ability for the applicant to charge for parking. Committee members felt that Spieker Properties should not be allowed to charge for parking unless there was a comprehensive parking plan done to assure that tenants trying to avoid paying for parking don't park on the neighboring parking lots, which would still be free. The existing parking lot has been designed to accommodate the gating. The applicant was allowed to do that "at risk" because it is relatively inexpensive to put the improvements in when the parking lot was redeveloped and repaved as opposed to trying to Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 Commissioner Smith stated it was extremely unusual for the Commission to receive a staff report the day of the hearing. She wondered what the delay has been. Mr. Carnes explained that Spieker Properties, Mills staff and City staff have been meeting for six months to discuss this proposal. Two weeks ago, Spieker Properties requested staff to expedite this request because of the grand opening of The Block at Orange. They were concerned that parking for their people would not be available. Commissioner Pruett asked how people will gain entry into parking lot #2. Sign #2 in the staff report should include directions for visitors to the Office Tower. Mr. Carnes said there were manned gates at the two entry drives. Signage can be changed to include directions for visitors. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant. Mark Valentine. 1 City Blvd. West. thanked the Commission for their consideration. They are trying to preserve the parking nearest the building for those who work and do business out of the Office Tower. There will be no impacts to the surrounding streets. They have worked with the Mills Corporation and both are in agreement with this parking arrangement. Commissioner Romero wanted to know if there was a desire to charge for parking. Mr. Valentine said there would be a desire to pay for parking some time in the future, but they understand from the conditions the reasons for not charging people to park in their lot. They also understand they must go through the appropriate approval process if they choose to charge for parking. The Commission and staff discussed the pay for parking concept in this particular parking lot. Commissioner Carlton saw a potential problem with the parking lot being gated until 6:00 p.m. People will be coming to The Block for an early dinner and might have trouble finding a parking space. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett talked about an employees' parking lot and a visitors' parking lot. Ingress and egress throughout the day is important to tenants. He agreed with Commissioner Carlton and suggested the applicant might want to look at the concept that after 4:00 p.m., to open up the parking lots to people coming to The Block for the evening. Commissioner Romero had a problem with this type of parking because there is no prior history. Commissioner Smith was irritated that this came in so late. Pay for parking is a concern; there must be some monitoring system in place. When that comes up the next time, she will expect those plans to be submitted on time. 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Minor Site Plan Review 64-98, with conditions 1 through 4, finding that the project will not cause a deterioration to neighboring land uses, it conforms to the development standards and meets special criteria. There is clearly no significant negative environmental impact. There are many adequate, alternative site circulation and site parking areas available to support the project, and all of the services in the community and aesthetics are met. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 7. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 04-98 (RE: DRB NO. 3367 - EVERFRESH COFFEE,BAKERY & WATER)The applicant is appealing the Design Review Board's denial of a proposed new awning. The site is located at 3904 East Chapman Avenue.Mr. Godlewski referred to Exhibit A in the staff report which indicates the original proposal that was brought before the DRB. The DRB had specific concerns with the amount of signage that was presented in Exhibit A and recommended that they might take the signage off of the awning and incorporate it with the larger sign that is allowed on the store front itself.The applicant has already undertaken the DRB's recommendation to make an integrated sign that says,Coffee Bakery & Water" and is now proposing to come back with just an awning. The only thing left in the application that the DRB did not approve of was the awning itself. The applicant has complied with DRB' s recommendations and is looking to put up the fabric awning underneath the wood trellis which is on the existing store front.The applicant requested to install a small, burgundy red, awning on their store front. There will not be any sign on the awning. The new awning will enhance the look of the center and provide protection from rain.She provided a letter from the landlord to the Commission.Commissioner Smith wanted to know from staff if the awning is acceptable, or is it out of character for the area, and does it meet code requirements.Mr. Godlewski stated the awning complies with code requirements. The DRB's recommendation was that the awning did not fit with the wood trellis portion of the building that is existing on the site.Commissioner Smith was in favor of installing the awning. She liked the applicant's rationale that the trellis doesn't help protect customers from rain. Awnings give a degree of elegance to a doorway. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to uphold the appeal of DRB No.04-98, and approve the applicant's redesign based upon Exhibit B in the staff report. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1998 IN RE:PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Bennvhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. Oranae Park Acres. suggested that within State law, the City give some thought to the minimum 300 foot radius of notifying property owners. There must be a common sense approach to notify concerned people. He felt it was unfair that some people are not notified of a public hearing. Barbara DeNiro. address on file. was happy to see that the Mills Corporation agreed with the Spieker Properties. She thanked the Commission for their comments and continuance of the Greystone development. IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to a special study session with the City Council on Wednesday, December 2, 1998, at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the Plaza Restoration Project. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED sld 13