Loading...
_06042018-352Planning Commission June 4, 2018 1 Final Minutes Planning Commission June 4, 2018 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Willits, Correa STAFF PRESENT: William Crouch, Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Jennifer Scudellari, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Glasgow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Willits led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: Commissioner Simpson absent 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF MAY 21, 2018. Motion was made to approve the minutes as written: MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 2.2 ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 20-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0937-18, DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4937-18, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0264-18 TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 306 GUEST ROOM, 5-STORY, 195,000 SF DUAL BRAND MARRIOTT HOTEL ON A 4.555 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 3000 WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE Planning Commission June 4, 2018 2 The item was pulled by Commissioner Glasgow to receive a staff presentation. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff report. Dennis Constranco, representative for the project, described the project objectives to be a high quality urban resort that would differentiate it from other hotels in the area. Tom Bergerson with Architects Orange provided a visual presentation of the project's site plan, recreational amenities, circulation, parking and sound mitigation measures. He explained that due to the increased use of Uber and Lyft as well as hotel shuttles, the use of rental cars by patrons is declining. The administrative adjustment for parking should not result in parking problems at the hotel. Commissioner Gladson asked questions about the nature of the proposed hotel shuttle and area destinations. Commissioner Willits inquired about the height of the sound wall and adequacy of noise buffering. Commissioner Correa asked if the Denny’s would be reestablished in the new hotel, and expressed concerns about the loss of jobs by restaurant workers. He also inquired about the number and capacity of the hotel shuttles, the operational hours of the shuttles, and requested more information about the proposed bike rental. Mr. Constranco stated they had reached out to the Denny's owner to see if they can incorporate th e business on site; however, Denny’s does not fit with the concept of the Marriott brand. They will try to absorb the Denny's employees in the Marriott project. Chairman Glasgow opened the public hearing; there were no speakers. Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Willits and Chair Glasgow all agreed it was a good project and felt the parking would be sufficient. A motion was made to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 20-18, Major Site Plan Review No. 0937-18, Design Review No. 4937-18, and Administrative Adjustment No. 0264-18 to allow for the construction of a new 306 guest room, 5-story, 195,000 SF dual brand Marriott Hotel on a 4.555 acre site located at 3000 West Chapman Avenue. MOTION: Commissioner Correa SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 3. NEW HEARING: 3.1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 1288-18 NUTWOOD TRACT The City of Orange is proposing to rezone properties on the 500 block of S. Orange Street and S. Grand Street between E. La Veta Avenue and E. River Avenue from Duplex Residential (R-2-6) to Single Family Residential (R-1-6). These properties have a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (2-6 units/acre) (LDR). The zoning that is consistent with the LDR designation is Single Family Residential. The property located at 503 S. Glassell Street is also Planning Commission June 4, 2018 3 proposed to be rezoned from General Business (C-2) to Office Professional (O-P). The property presently has a General Plan designation of Neighborhood Office Professional (NOP). The zoning that is consistent with the NOP designation is Office Professional (OP). Both State planning law and Program I-1 of the General Plan Implementation Plan require consistency between General Plan and zoning designations. LOCATION: NUTWOOD TRACT-503 S. GLASSELL & 500 BLOCK OF S. ORANGE STREET AND S. GRAND STREET BETWEEN E. LA VETA AVENUE AND E. RIVER AVENUE NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1815-09 for the Comprehensive City of Orange General Plan Update was certified on March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed activity is within the scope of the previously approved General Plan and is adequately described in the previously certified General Plan Program EIR for the purposes of CEQA. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 19-18 a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending the City Council approve Zone Change No. 1288 -18 and adopt an ordinance rezoning certain properties in the Nutwood Tract to single family residential (R-1-6) and office professional (O-P) to establish consistency with the low density residential and neighborhood office professional general plan land use designations in accordance with state law. Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff report and noted that the proposal was brought forth at the request of the City Council in order to bring the Nutwood Tract zoning into conformance with General Plan designations in order to implement the General Plan, and as required by State law. Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney stated that oftentimes inconsistencies in other areas of the city are addressed when people come in with a development project. Before they can proceed, as part of the development process, a zone change is necessary. This tract was identified by City Council and they directed staff to make it consistent per State law. Commissioner Gladson noted the distinctive character and features of the Nutwood Tract and asked staff to provide a review of its history and significance within Old Towne. Ms. Ribuffo provided a history of the tract that was developed in the early 20th century. She stated the historic stone monuments that mark the entrances to the neighborhood are part of the neighborhood's character and ties it to Hart Park. Commissioner Willits asked whether the zone change affect the historic district boundary or Mills Act program. In response, Kelly Ribuffo stated the zone change will not have a direct impact on the Mills Act Program, nor will the zone change affect the historic designations or its boundaries. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing. Dan Slater; Jeff Frankel, representative for the Old Towne Preservation Association; Tony Trabuco of the 400 block S. Orange; and Lorna Deshane of 205 and 215 E. River, all spoke in support of the zone change and would like to see the remainder of the Nutwood tract rezoned to R-1. Mr. Slater also suggested that rezoning be pursued Planning Commission June 4, 2018 4 in the Cypress Barrio neighborhood. John Aust and Kitty Juniper Aust, 225 E. River, spoke in opposition of the change and feel they were targeted because of the large size of their property. They feel that the zone change would cause a decrease in property values. They also believe that properties with multiple units have not been captured in the records. Bonnie Byrom, 552 S. Grand, also spoke in opposition of the zone change. Her property has multiple units and is shown as having only one in City records, and she agreed that proper records on the homes were needed. She wants to maintain her right to rent her home. Chair Glasgow closed the public hearing. Commissioner Willits asked for clarification about why the number of units on properties conflicts with the information presented in the staff report. He expressed concern about impacting property owners. Ms. Ribuffo clarified that when staff conducted their initial assessment of the tract, they looked at the number of units on the property, square footage that was noted in the assessor records, addresses that are reflected in City records, and past and recent building permits. Staff would be happy to receive information from anyone who has more details on the properties because they are limited to their records. Commissioner Willits asked if the units mentioned in the public comment are legal nonconforming. Mr. Sheatz, stated to be legal nonconforming, the City would need to determine that the units were legal when built; therefore, staff need to determine when it was built. Commissioner Correa asked staff why they are not making the zone change to all of the properties in the Nutwood tract. Ms. Ribuffo stated the 13 properties that have been identified as part of the zone change are being addressed now because only a zone change is required in order to bring consistency between the General Plan designation and the zoning. This particular zone change was coming at the request of the Council to address what can be changed more easily now, without having to go through an 8 to 12 month General Plan Amendment process. Commissioner Gladson asked whether staff could identify the parcels that would become legal non -conforming, and clarified that she did not intend for possible illegal units to be investigated. In response to Commissioner Gladson's question, Ms. Ribuffo stated that based on City records available to staff, those properties were illegal multi-family units and nobody is compelled to remove anything. Ms. Pehoushek added that even if there are illegal units, staff will not actively go out and look for them. Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Willits and Glasgow stated they support the zone change and noted that they wished the entire tract could be addressed at one time. A motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 19-18 titled a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending the City Council approve Zone Change No. 1288-18 and adopt an ordinance rezoning certain properties in the Nutwood Tract to single family residential (R-1-6) and office professional (O-P) to establish consistency with the Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Office Professional General Plan land use designations in accordance with state law. MOTION: Commissioner Correa SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson Planning Commission June 4, 2018 5 ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Recess taken 9:40 - 9:50 3.2 General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the subject property’s existing General Plan designation from Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR, 6-15 du/acre) to allow a 24 unit multi-family residential development with surface parking and residential amenities on a 1.7 acre site. The projec t includes adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the historic Killefer Elementary School. Six residential units will be located in the historic school building. Eighteen units will be located in a new three -story building. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit to request additional building height (three stories) in the R-3 zone and a Variance to request the elimination of covers/carports for required parking spaces and private outdoor space for the six units in the historic school. LOCATION: 541 N. LEMON NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1844-15 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. MND No. 1844-15 finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1844-15 AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET AND 2) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0046-17, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0850-15, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3064-17, VARIANCE NO. 2248-17, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4870-15 FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET Planning Commission June 4, 2018 6 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. She pointed out the existing site is a vacant school campus owned by the Orange Unified School District which contains the historic Killefer Elementary School. The school is listed in the National Register of Historic Places for its architecture and cultural significance as a site of school desegregation. Chair Glasgow and Commissioners Gladson, Willits and Correa disclosed they met with the applicant. Commissioner Correa stated this was desegregation at this school occurred years prior to landmark court cases of Mendez v. Westminster, and 12 to 10 years prior to Brown v. Board of Education. This building is very significant to the State of California and possibly the whole United States. Commissioner Gladson asked staff to review the General Plan and zoning situation at the site and how it related to the surrounding neighborhood. She also asked staff to explain how the City ensures that the applicant is adhering to the mitigation measures and conditions of approval for building rehabilitation and restoration. Ms. Moshier stated one of the critical components of the project is that the historic school will be rehabilitated in conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The construction documents need to provide detail about the specific materials used for the historic school, how the individual features on the interior of the school will be treated, and identify what the historic features are and how they will be treated during construction. The construction will need to be monitored by staff and a historic preservation consultant to ensure that it conforms to the Standards at every stage of construction. Commissioner Gladson requested more information about the public access to the history walk and historical exhibit in the lobby of the building. Ms. Moshier stated the history walk is intended to be in the landscaped area and the front yard of the school which will be accessible to anyone who was walking by the property. The Design Review Committee will approve the interpretive elements prior to building permits. Commissioner Gladson asked staff to explain the concept of adaptive reuse and identify any examples of projects in the area. Ms. Mosher stated that the first of the Secretary of Interior’s standards refers to rehabilitation as being either maintaining the existing use of the property or finding compatible uses that require minimal change to the historic features of the property. It anticipates that the buildings and uses will change over time; what is important from the preservation standpoint is to make sure that the new use fits the features, materials and design of the historic building. The Anaheim Packing House and the Digital Media Arts Center at Chapman University are examples of adaptive reuses. Leason Pomeroy, representing the project on behalf of Western States Housing, provided a history of the purchase and evolution of the design of the property. Commissioner Correa asked Mr. Pomeroy if Chapman University had been notified about the project. He also asked for more information about public access to the building and historical displays. Mr. Pomeroy responded that Chapman University students will likely be occupying the units given the proximity of the apartments to the university. Commissioner Correa stated he did not see how any changes had been made to consider the project apartments rather than a dorm and reviewed project features, which were not conducive family occupancy of the units; the project it geared toward students. He was also concerned about the lack of parking. Mr. Pomeroy stated they changed the nature of the project from dormitories to apartments, which meet the standards for R-3 zone. The project also exceeds the City’s parking requirements. Planning Commission June 4, 2018 7 Commissioner Gladson clarified that the applicant's proposal is for 24 apartments and will not be a dormitory. She asked Mr. Pomeroy to walk them through the access to the school, school site's history, and the history walk. She also inquired about how the parking would be managed, and which of the existing trees would be retained. Mr. Pomeroy stated that when the project team met with the Barrio Historical Society for historical exhibits, they discussed how they could preserve the history of the school. There will be a 24/7 security, and the history walk will contain monuments along the pathway of the school. The vestibule will be given to the Orange Barrio Association for historical exhibits. He added that all of the existing trees would be preserved and there would be assigned parking. Commissioner Correa asked how many community meetings there had been other than the March 19, 2018 meeting? In response to Commissioner Correa's question on neighborhood meetings, Mr. Pomeroy stated they had several meetings with the neighbors who originally thought it was going to be owned by Chapman University; once they realized it would be privately owned, they were in favor of the project. Chair Glasgow discussed the reduction in the number of units since the original project concept. Donson Liu, Traffic Engineer with LSA, provided an explanation of the traffic study and circulation at Lemon and Walnut. Chair Glasgow asked for more information about potential impacts to the intersection of Lemon Street and Walnut Avenue. Mr. Liu indicated that project traffic does not result in a change in level of service to the intersection, and that traffic counts are concentrated on Lemon since that is the location of the vehicular access to the project. Commissioner Correa asked how the anticipated number of cars compares to the anticipated number of residents. He wanted to know where people would park if there are more residents than spaces. Commissioner Correa also expressed concerns about potential inadequate emergency access. In response to Commissioner Correa's question regarding overflow parking, Frank Haselton, Managing Principal with LSA stated there is no variance being requested for a reduction in parking; the Orange Municipal Code requires 52 spaces and the site is providing 62 spaces. The Fire Department had also approved the circulation plans which will allow emergency vehicles onto the property. Commissioner Willits asked for clarification of the total parking court referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing. Jeff Frankel, representing Old Towne Preservation Association, stated they met with the applicant multiple times and attended three years of DRC hearings. The fact that the project requires two variances and a CUP, is a good indication that the three-story project is not a good fit in the predominantly single-story neighborhood. It creates adverse impacts on the adjacent historic district. Many of the impacts have not been mitigated to less than significant levels; the massing, size and scale of the infill building is not compatible with the size and scale of the historic building as required by the Secretary of Interior Standards and parking is not sufficient. OTPA wanted to make sure that covered parking is not added in the future to obscure the building. He noted that DRC had reservations on recommending approval to the Planning Commission and made suggestions for changes that have Planning Commission June 4, 2018 8 not been incorporated. Mr. Frankel expressed OTPA’s concerns about vandalism at the vacant school. He acknowledged that the building is deteriorating and needs to be restored. Richard Cruz, 592 N. Lemon Street, spoke about parking and safety concerns, as well as anticipated occupancy levels of the apartments. Jerome Ryan, 429 N. Lemon Street, stated his belief that the project is a dormitory and will impact the neighborhood's density, parking and traffic; it does not belong in a single family area. Robert Baca, former Vice President of the Orange Barrio Historical Society, was on the 711 Committee and Chapman University Neighborhood Advisory Committee, stated there is no need for this project to accommodate Chapman students. The overall consensus at the March 11 community meeting was opposition and a feeling that the City does not care about the Barrio. The situation is no longer segregation of Mexicans, but segregation of students. Mark Colin, Orange Barrio Historical Society board member, stated the Society objects to the project and continually attended the DRC meetings to voice their objections. The dorm-like structure is detrimental to the environment and negative to the community. PJ Jahangiri, owner of 557 N. Olive Street, felt the project does not fit in the community due to the parking problems. Chapman students already park on the street because it is a non-permitted street. The majority of the people who live in the neighborhood are Hispanic, but are afraid to come forward and speak even though they are in opposition. Mr. Jahangiri expressed his frustration that the school district has completely neglected the school. Paul Turek, 536 N. Glassell Street, resides on Glassell and spoke in opposition due to the traffic and student pedestrian traffic, and the three story structure being too tall for the neighborhood. He commented about the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Glassell. He expressed concerns about the building height, as a tall building would block his view of the Disneyland fireworks. Doug Westfall, national historian, spoke about the history and significance of the school. He would like to see public access to the property and that it remains an educational facility. Brian Weitz, 400 N. Olive Street, displayed images of the neighborhood on an iPad, and spoke in opposition because the structure is not compatible with the neighborhood, referencing the objective of the City’s design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding development, and LSA's studies are not valid. Gerardo Rodriguez, 486 N. Olive Street, is a longtime resident within half a block of the school and stated none of his neighbors are in support of the project because a three-story building does not belong in the neighborhood. He did not believe the density was appropriate for the neighborhood and expressed a concern about parking for Killefer Park. Paul Guzman, member of the Orange Barrio Historical Society, stated the school should be preserved and he was not in support of the project. He discussed the negative impacts the neighborhood had experienced overtime due to City land use changes. There were no other speakers; therefore, Chair Glasgow close the public hearing. Mr. Pomeroy approached and stated the plan had changed from the original concept of developing a 300 bed dormitory building to a 24 unit apartment project. The project team had met the City codes, addressed the comments of the SMART Committee, developed a Mitigated Negative Declaration, received a recommendation Planning Commission June 4, 2018 9 approval from the Design Review Committee, and were now asking for a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission to move forward to the City Council. Commissioner Correa commented that he feels Chapman may eventually own the property; residents are not present because they do not feel empowered and feel that they have been discriminated against over time . This project is a dormitory and not an apartment complex. As Commissioners, they have a moral and ethical obligation to not allow it in the community. The size and scale does not belong in the community. He was also concerned about Chapman buying the historic buildings and impacting the community. Commissioner Correa noted that in February 2018, Mayor Tita Smith made it clear that she would like to see the Cypress Barrio designated its own a historic district. He feels that a private person or organization should be allowed to move forward and see if they can obtain funds from the State of California in order to save the building. Commissioner Willits did not share Commissioner Correa’s feeling that Chapman has any affiliation with this project; it was purchased by a company who wants to provide a good project . The building has been vacant for five years and is being destroyed; something needs to be done now and even though this may not be the project that the community wants, something needs to be done with such a historic building. Commissioner Gladson stated that she could support the project because it restored the school, which is the most important and paramount aspect of the project. It tells the entire story of people who live in this neighborhood and who went to Killefer School. Considering the environmental document that was prepared, the traffic study, the parking discussion, the sensitivity to the design being visible on Olive and Lemon, there is a balance and trade-off. She would like to move up the priority of the restoration of the school in the project implementation. Chair Glasgow agreed it was a difficult decision; he did not want to see the degradation of this property. Orange Unified had it on the market for several years, Chapman University did not step up to take over the property when it came on the market and other school districts were not interested in it. He felt that the project fits because there is an organization willing to spend a lot of money to restore the building which will be beyond repair if it is not taken care of soon. As Commissioners they look at land use, what the zoning is, does it meet the parking requirements, does it fit within the realm of what the zone says it does and this project meets all of them. The neighborhood has had the option to put funds together to buy the building and restore it; but nobody has done that. Commissioner Gladson stated she would make a motion; however, she would like to condition the project so that the school building is the top priority and prohibit any future addition of carports that may obstruct views of the school from the street. Mr. Pomeroy stated they would put a full-time guard on the property as soon as they closed escrow in order to preserve and secure the building. A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. PC 17-18 titled A Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for a new 24 unit multi-family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction of a new three -story building at 541 North Lemon Street and Resolution No. PC 18-18 titled a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 for a new 24 unit multi-family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction Planning Commission June 4, 2018 10 of a new three-story building at 541 North Lemon Street. The project has been cleared from CEQA pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, including additional conditions prohibiting future installation of solar panels or covered parking on the west side of the building to maintain sightlines for the historic school; and encouraging communication and a plan for securing the building with Orange Unified School District as quickly as possible after final action by City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Chair Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson and Willits NOES: Commissioner Correa ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 4. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, July 2, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION: Chair Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held on July 2, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room.