2009 - June 15
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2009
1 of 27
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
APPROVED
June 15,2009
Monday-7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:45 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Item No.1, Approval of the minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting on
May 18,2009. Chair Steiner noted a correction to page 5. Commissioner Imboden was
not present for the May 18, 2009 Planning Commissioner Meeting and would abstain
from the vote for the approval of the minutes.
Item No.2, ND & MSPR, Wimbleton Court, Chair Steiner noted this was a consent item
for approval of an extension on an existing project.
Item No.3, DRC, & AA, Rust Residence. Assistant Community Development Director,
Ed Knight, stated Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, would present the item. Chair Steiner asked
if there were any questions. There were none.
Item No.4, MND, ZC, CUP, MSPR & DRC, ATC Development (Jack in the Box).
Chair Steiner stated he wanted to disclose that the applicant's representative had
contributed to his judicial campaign. Commissioner Whitaker stated the actual property
owner had contributed to the proposed Levine Act Limits in his bid to City Council.
Commissioners Cunningham and Merino stated they both had e-mail contact with the
applicant.
Item No.5, CUP, Platz Residence. Chair Steiner stated the project was o.k. and there
were no other questions or problems presented.
Item No. 6 CUP & DRC, Stadium Promenade Sign Program. Commissioner Merino
stated he had received an e-mail from Staff with some recent changes. The
Commissioners discussed receipt of the document. Chair Steiner asked Staff what the
supplemental information was in reference to. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb stated the
supplement was some applicant corrected changes that were submitted after the Staff
Page 1 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
2 of 27
Report had been completed. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Ortlieb if he would have copies of
the document for the Commissioners before the start of the meeting. Mr. Ortlieb stated
he would have those copies which were changes that had been requested of the applicant
by the DRC.
Commissioner Whitaker stated on Item No.6, in reviewing his GIS map he thought that
there might be a conflict for him in hearing the item. There appeared to be an overlap in
the address 1635 where the Extended Stay Hotel was located and he asked if the
Extended Stay Hotel was part of the proposed project? Mr. Ortlieb stated the Extended
Stay Hotel was included in the sign program. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated
if any part of the proposed project touched a parcel within the conflict area,
Commissioner Whitaker would be recused from the presentation. Commissioner
Whitaker confirmed that he would be recused from the presentation on Item No.6.
Chair Steiner stated on Item No.4, there was a term defensible landscape and he would
ask for clarification on that term upon the items presentation.
Commissioner Merino asked Staff if they anticipated any public input on any of the items
being presented. Ms. Thakur stated she had not anticipated any on her project and had
not received any public input. Mr. Ryan stated he would anticipate that a representative
from the OTP A would be present. On the Rust Residence there had been a concern
regarding demolition by neglect and he felt that would be addressed through public
comment. Commissioner Merino asked if the issue that had been heard before and he
asked if damage to the Rust garage had been created by neglect. Mr. Ryan stated it was
demolished due to the severity of the condition of the property and a matter of safety.
Mr. Knight stated the General Plan would be presented in some of the upcoming
meetings and he asked if the Commissioners would be present on the following dates:
7/20,8/3,8/17, and 9/7?
The Commissioners checked their calendars. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would
not be available 8/17. Commissioner Cunningham stated he was not certain on the
August dates and would need to check his vacation dates. Chair Steiner, Commissioner
Imboden and Commissioner Merino had no conflict with those dates. Commissioner
Merino asked ifthere would be a conflict of interest presented as there were a number of
various parcels involved in the General Plan presentation. Mr. Sheatz stated he had
presented that situation and he was awaiting further clarification on that issue.
Commissioner Merino stated there could be a problem with areas of Old Towne. Mr.
Sheatz stated if there was a focus area that created too great a conflict, on those issues,
the Planning Commission might not be able to make recommendations on.
Mr. Knight stated he had no additional information.
Commissioner Merino asked Staff if there would be a representative from the Orange
Police Department present.
Mr. Knight stated no.
Page 2 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15,2009
3 of 27
Administrative Session closed at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
May 18,2009.
Commissioner made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Planning
Commission Meeting of May 18, 2009, with the correction noted during the
Administrative Session.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
Commissioner Imboden
None
MOTION CARRIED
(2) NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1775-06 AND MINOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW 407-05 - WIMBLETON COURT (JOHN NGUYEN)
A request to extend the entitlements to subdivide a remnant parcel (1.57 acres) into four
R -1- 7 lots and site plan review to allow four lots that will not have direct access to a
public street, and variance to permit retaining wall and safety fence that together will
exceed the 10' high wall height in the residential district.
LOCATION:
200' East of Old Chapman Road on the North Side of
Wimbleton Court
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve one-year time extension with no changes to the
approved plans or entitlements.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve extension for ND 1775-06 and MNSP
407-05-Wimbleton Court (John Nguyen), subject to the conditions contained in the Staff
Report.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 3 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15,2009
4 of 27
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
(3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4417-09 AND ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT NO. 172-09 - RUST RESIDENCE
A proposal to construct a new 513 square foot two-car detached garage to replace a 306
square foot one-car garage that was deemed unsafe by the City's Building Official. A
demolition permit was issued and the garage was demolished on April 29, 2009. The
new garage is of a similar design, roof pitch and gable roof orientation as the original
garage. The project includes administrative adjustments for side, rear yard setbacks and
parking back-up distance.
LOCATION:
493 S. Grand Street
NOTE:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15331 (Class 31 - Historical Resource
Restoration or Reconstruction) and Section 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction). The demolition of the unsafe garage to remedy
conditions determined to be dangerous to life, health or property by
the City's Building Official is exempt from the provisions of the
City's Old Towne Demolition Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve DRC No. 4417-09 for a new replacement garage and
approve Administrative Adjustment No. 172-09 for a reduction in
required side/rear setbacks and parking back-up distance for a
contributing residence.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing with any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Merino asked in Mr. Ryan's professional opinion in surveying the garage,
if Mr. Ryan thought the condition of the garage was due to natural wear and tear due to
the age of the building or had it displayed purposeful neglect? He stated he was asking
the question as the preservation of historical elements in Old Towne was very contentious
in some cases with owners, and what he had not wanted to happen was that a stealth
methodology would be created, wherein a property owner let their property get to a
dilapidated state and they would contact the City and get the building condemned, only to
turn around with new construction. He wanted Mr. Ryan's opinion if the condition was
due to neglect or was it due to the age of the existing garage?
Mr. Ryan stated he had researched and found in 2001 the property had been cited due to
its poor condition and approximately 9 months later the building had been covered with a
blue tarp that had been there for approximately a year to a year and a half. The tarp was
removed and the code case was closed. Back in 1992, Mr. Ryan stated that he had
written a code revision, demolition by neglect, which had never been adopted that
Page 4 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
5 of 27
addressed that particular issue. It was part of the new zoning update as far as the Old
Towne design standards were concerned. There had been several cases of buildings that
had deferred maintenance over time but had not gotten to the same point as the
applicant's property. He felt the deferred maintenance on the applicant's property had a
lot to do with what had occurred.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Applicant, Angie Rust, address on file, stated she had been delinquent in maintaining
some of the garage, however, the garage had been hit by a drunk driver a number of years
ago and she had not been able to trace the driver. She was now retired and had the
money to build the garage. She had wanted to rebuild the original garage. They had
looked at several settings and no matter what plan they came up with there was a safety
issue when backing up onto La Veta or backing into the garage. She only had the width
of the easement of the grass and sidewalk, which was not enough space to exit onto La
Veta. They had worked with a number of footprints to come up with something,
however, since the front of the garage had already been removed and replaced with
plywood, which was prior to when she had moved in, they could not come up with a
solution. She was available to answer any further questions the Commissioners might
have.
Commissioner Imboden stated he had reviewed the DRC minutes and one thing he was
surprised about, that had been left out of the conversation, was that the recently
demolished garage had extended rafter tails and a rolled roof detail. Those were details
that were quite unique to the time the home had been built; it was unique to the style and
region. He noticed that the extended rafter tails had also been cut off on the house with
fascia board applied. There had been a lot of discussion about windows and siding and
he was interested in the particular detail of the rafter tails and roof that had not been
maintained. His concern, when reviewing photos of the garage prior to demolition, was
that there had been information that had indications of those original details and would
have assisted in the reconstruction of the garage. He was concerned, in not requiring
those details, they would be completely lost. Understanding where his concern was
coming from, he asked Mr. Ryan if those elements had been discussed from a planning
point of view or with the DRC.
Mr. Ryan asked in determining whether or not the original building had exposed rafter
tails?
Commissioner Imboden stated it was fairly easy to recognize that the ends of the rafters
had been sawn off as the ends had not been painted and clearly in the photos there was
the existence of that detail. He asked if that detail had been overlooked, discussed and a
reason that those elements had not been suggested?
Mr. Ryan stated he believed that Committee Member Wheeler had discussed the eave
treatment at length. Having the standard barge treatment and eave detail was as far as
that discussion went. He thought that there had been discussion that the exposed rafters
should be a part of that, and more attention had been paid to other issues.
Page 5 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2009
6 of 27
Commissioner Imboden stated he was not certain how the other Commissioners would
feel if they were to move forward with the application. It was something that he would
want to suggest as he felt it was very important to the preservation of the historic site, in
keeping that information there and if it would be agreeable to the applicant.
Commissioner Whitaker stated, on the eastern and western elevations, he noticed there
were dotted lines on the plans along the roof and he asked if there should be exposed
rafter tails in an area he pointed to on the plans.
Commissioner Imboden stated there were two different issues. He was referring to the
photos of the original garage. In reviewing the proposed design, it appeared that the roof
sheathing or starter boards went to the end of the rafters and they would not be exposed.
There was not an edge detail. A rolled roof would have been present and he was also
suggesting that feature. The plans called out for a composition tile roof to match the
existing roof. It would be a question for the architect or property owner to clarify what
was being suggested in the plans.
Chair Steiner asked Ms. Rust if she had understood the nature of the discussion the
Commissioners were having.
Ms. Rust stated her son was quietly attempting to explain it to her.
Commissioner Imboden stated the issue he was raising was that the original garage had a
unique roof and rafter tails that were unique to California and Craftsman bungalows in
Southern California during the time the property owner's home had been built. Those
details had apparently been removed from the house, as often times the wood deteriorated
and they would be sawn off. His concern was that while the garage had been standing,
there were indicators of what the building once was. If the garage would be built without
that detail, that detail would be lost forever. He asked if research had been completed in
the use of details that had existed on the original garage and if it was not, was it
something the applicant would be willing to do?
Ms. Rust asked if she could have a minute to discuss that with her architect. Ms. Rust
consulted with her architect and stated it would not be a problem to add that detail. She
asked about the rolled roof and she wanted some clarification on what that was.
Chair Steiner asked the applicant's architect to step forward to assist with information on
the construction of the garage.
Architect, Arnie Valenti, address on file, stated as far as including the exposed rafter tails
that would not be a problem.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was suggesting extending the rafter tails not only
exposing them.
Mr. Valenti stated he understood and they would be extended past the roof. They could
accommodate that and it would not be an issue. As far as a rolled roof, they preferred to
have the roof match the main residence.
Page 6 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
7 of 27
Commissioner Imboden asked Mr. Valenti if he understood the nature of his questions as
those two things went together. There was a distinct reason to use that type of roof for
water collection so the water would not just run off onto the exposed rafter tails. A rolled
roof and the exposed rafters were treatments that went hand in hand with each other.
Mr. Valenti stated he would consider that, as well as other options, which he would
discuss with Staff.
Chair Steiner stated the architect was not under any obligation to agree to anything. The
applicant could have the project that was submitted voted on; or if the architect was in
agreement with constructing the extended rafter tails, he could add that to the project and
lastly if the architect was not comfortable with the roof suggestion, consistent or not, it
was not something that he was under any obligation to agree with. Chair Steiner stated
he wanted to ensure that the applicant and applicant's representative were aware of their
options.
Mr. Valenti stated he would look into the use of the roof.
~~e","
Chair Steiner stated the issues were before them and for the Commission to review and
discuss, if the applicant wanted to gain more information that could extend the review
process and he wanted the applicants to understand that they had a right to a decision. He
had not wanted the applicant to agree because they had thought it would be their only
shot. It was up to the applicant to decide and if the applicants needed a moment to confer
with each other he would provide that opportunity. He suggested that the architect and
property owner take a few minutes to discuss the matter.
Commissioner Merino stated he understood the particular detail issue and what jumped
out at him was the garage door which stated in the Staff Report match period and style.
The original garage had a slab door and the picture appeared to indicate they would be
using a roll up door and his question was would the garage door not be a larger impact as
far as the appearance of the garage. He asked Mr. Ryan for his input?
Commissioner Imboden stated he recalled there had been discussion about the garage
door in reviewing the DRC minutes.
Ms. Rust stated the door in the photo was not the original garage door as that had been
taken down about 30-35 years ago and had been replaced with plywood.
Commissioner Merino stated he was asking if the design included in the plans had been
consistent with the period of the garage.
Mr. Ryan stated it was consistent and many times the garage doors were of a very simple
design. If the applicant wanted to propose a roll up door that was wood, that was fine.
Commissioner Merino stated there had been other projects before them and several of the
Commissioners had been very particular about that and he just wanted to ask the
question.
Page 7 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
8 of 27
Chair Steiner asked the applicant's architect to step forward once again and asked if he
had a chance to confer with his client?
Mr. Valenti stated no, not really.
Chair Steiner stated he could have a moment to do that while he spoke with Staff. He
stated there had been discussion regarding a rolled roof and he asked if Mr. Ryan had
heard Commissioner Imboden's discussion about the absence of a rolled roof and the
extended rafter tails?
Mr. Ryan stated he had. Many times on the exposed rafter tails there was an eave stop or
a barge board with rolled roofing over it that created a channel to avoid the water runoff
on the top of the rafters and it was a typical application. He directed them to a photo
which showed, on the end where it jogged up on the gable ends, it had evidence of a
typical rolled roof where the water would not drop over the edge. There was sometimes a
built in gutter that worked in unison with a rolled roof with an eave stop; which worked
very well and many of the buildings in Old Towne still maintained that type of treatment.
It was a treatment that worked well and kept the rafters from aging and weathering.
Commissioner Merino stated the existing house had a tile roof and would there be a
larger issue created by having the existing home having such a difference in appearance
from the garage that no longer existed. He could understand the argument being made
that a larger problem could be created as, with the suggestions, a different type of roofing
would be created causing a larger difference in the properties.
Mr. Ryan stated as it had previously been mentioned; the City wanted to go in the
direction of how the building originally appeared. The photos in the survey indicated that
the front house had a similar roof design, although it may have been re-roofed. There
were higher barge eave stops and there was evidence of having a rolled roof. It might be
feasible at some point when removing all the roof surfaces that they could use an original
rolled roof treatment with built in gutters, which he believed the home once had. If
having two different roofs being an issue was the question, he thought it was not a
problem. When the home needed to be re-roofed, that would be an opportunity to match
the garage.
Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant was to re-roof the house was a permit
required and at that time could Staff engage in a conversation with the applicant to
influence that decision?
Mr. Ryan stated that would be correct. One of the issues Staff had run into in the past
was when a roofing permit had been issued and the work had been stopped because Staff
found out the roof had built in gutters and a rolled roof should have been used. To avoid
that situation, they had decided to inventory the buildings in the City and identify the
properties with built in gutters and rolled roofing. They could then identify those
buildings on a survey and when permits would be issued for roofs, that information
would be available and the applicant's property would be included in that information.
Commissioner Merino stated that alleviated his concern.
Page 8 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2009
9 of 27
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the replacement garage
design looked good and the OTP A agreed with Staff as to the design and materials being
used. They had an issue with the orientation of the garage door but understood the safety
issues involved in keeping the door facing La Veta. The demolition of the historic garage
was very disappointing and it was the OTPA's opinion that the demolition was
inappropriate action by the City. It seemed as if the individuals that were involved with
the decision making were a little hasty and might not have been aware of the City's and
the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation. There was no reason that the City
could not have adhered to policy; that the structure be reviewed to determine that
demolition was the solution and, if so, a replacement structure be reviewed and approved
prior to demolition. The existing structure should have been restored to stabilize the
walls and roof to eliminate any safety hazards. The structure could have been accessed
and reviewed by the DRC to determine if, in fact, it could have been restored, as many
garages in the district had. There were examples of structures in Old Towne that had
been in severe disrepair and had been rehabilitated. If the DRC had the opportunity to
review the property prior to demolition, the structure might have been saved in a cost
effective manner. The DRC was of the same opinion and it was always greener to restore
rather than rebuild. The project was a perfect example of a demolition by neglect; in
which the City assisted the homeowner. There had been numerous code violation
citations attached to the structure over a number of years and the City was well aware of
the deteriorating condition and should have stepped in sooner before the structure had
gotten so severe.
Chair Steiner closed the public comment portion of the meeting and asked the applicant
to step forward to address the Commission. He asked the applicant if she wanted the
Commission to move forward with the application as presented, to go forward with the
suggestion for extended rafter tails and the roof as proposed or the use of the extended
rafter tails with the rolled roof; or some other treatment.
Mr. Valenti stated they preferred to submit the application as initially proposed as it
matched the existing main house and evidently it might have had exposed rafter tails but
they had since been removed. He felt it would create an imbalance between the two
structures.
Chair Steiner stated that was fine and it was the applicant's right to have made that
request.
Ms. Rust stated the original house, as far as she knew, had not had a rolled roof.
Commissioner Merino stated if the Commission approved the proposed project as
presented, the home and garage would match. Based on the program Mr. Ryan had
described and if the homeowner wanted to re-roof the home, how would the City handle
that situation. Would the City ask the applicant to install an historic roof at that time to
be in line with the Old Towne historic standards? Would it be prudent to force the issue
now or to postpone it so it would be addressed at a later Planning Commission Meeting?
Page 9 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
10 of 27
Mr. Ryan stated it would be beneficial to get to that decision prior to construction. He
felt it was important to maintain the features as Commissioner Imboden had described.
He believed that the original rolled roof had been removed and the home had been re-
roofed. The evidence from the photo documentation indicated there was a lip at the barge
end and that was very typical of a rolled roof. That characteristic would be significant
enough to document in the survey and when building permits were issued, it would be
something that would present itself. His suggestion would be to go with a rolled roof on
the residence to maintain that feature and that it should be carried over to the garage.
Commissioner Merino asked what type of an enforcement issue would the City have if a
permit was being applied for in requesting that the applicant install a particular type of
roof.
Mr. Ryan stated the only enforcement they had was to require the roofs matched in color
and there was not something that required the same roofing material.
Commissioner Imboden stated one of the reasons why he had made an issue of the
historic elements was that during that era garages were built with the intent to match the
home. There had been some inference made that perhaps the house had never had the
type of roof on it that they had been discussing and he would argue that point. For the
garage to be a grander expression than the house would not have been the case. Mr.
Ryan had stated that the lip of the barge rafter was still present and there were exposed
rafter tails that had evidence of the tips of those rafters being sawn off. His concern was
that character defining feature of that style, period and region was being removed and
once that was gone it was gone. He felt restoring the home later was not an option as it
might not happen. He was not indicating that' the homeowner go to any additional
expense; but to keep in mind there had been some discussion of mis-match and the home
had stood there for the last approximately 30 years in that exact scenario where the
existing garage had a rolled roof with extended rafter tails and the difference in the two
would not be an issue. The property was a contributing property and it was not an issue
for him.
Mr. Ryan pointed out a photo of the front house which was a survey photograph that
showed a raised gable end which was typical of a rolled roof.
Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he sympathized with the homeowner and wanted to allow
the garage to be re-built. He found Commissioner Imboden's comments persuasive. In
re-building an historic property, it should include the same characteristic features of the
original structure. Extending the rafter tails and adding the rolled roof treatment would
be justified and he would be pleased to move the item with those amendments. He was
not certain what the applicant wanted to do.
Commissioner Merino stated he sympathized with the owner as well, but in light of the
fact that the project and the garage had been neglected for a period of time and in going
back to attempt to do the right thing, a roof was required no matter what. They were not
Page 10 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2009
11 of 27
speaking of a large cost differential between the two roof types. To err on the side of
historic preservation was the right answer and that being said, he felt that the issue of
neglect needed to be addressed. He had discussed the issue with the Assistant City
Attorney and it had not been included as part of the ordinance section and they needed
that as a tool in the City. He would be in support of Commissioner Whitaker's motion.
Chair Steiner stated, based on the comments made by the Commissioners, he asked Ms.
Rust to step forward. He stated that she had heard the comments from 3 members of the
Commission and their opinions on the proposed project. It appeared that there were 3
Commissioners that would not be in support of the project as presented, however, would
be in support of the project if it contained the architectural features that had been
discussed. The applicant had the option to return to allow her time to discuss the project
with her architect and come back at a later date, or she could have them vote on the
project as presented, or she could have them vote on the project with the proposed
architectural changes as discussed.
Ms. Rust stated if she asked them to vote on the project as submitted it would be voted
down. Her contractor was not qualified to install the rolled roof with the City
requirements and the City would need to provide her with a short list. She stated she
would want to go with the suggestion for exposed rafters and a rolled roof.
Chair Steiner stated he had not wanted the applicant to feel that she had no other choice.
It was up to the applicant to decide and it appeared that she was willing to make those
changes that residents living in Old Towne had to occasionally make when it involved
historic preservation.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he was prepared to support the Staffs
recommendation and the applicant was willing to accept the request for exposed rafter
tails. He had not seen clear evidence that the house had a rolled roof; there had been
arguments and supposition, but to force the applicant in that direction based on a lack of
evidence he could not support that. It would be one thing if there was clear evidence that
the home had that feature but there had not been any presented. He felt they were strong
arming the applicant into doing something they had no evidence to support - no positive
evidence.
Commissioner Merino stated he wanted Commissioner Cunningham to consider that they
had two qualified architectural professionals and the City Staff that would lean towards
the fact that the feature had existed.
Commissioner Cunningham stated it was a good educated guess and there was a
difference between evidence and an educated guess.
Ms. Rust stated it was something that should have been discussed during the Design
Review Committee presentation rather than the Planning Commission.
Chair Steiner stated he never claimed to be an architectural expert, far from it, and he
certainly agreed with her that the place for that discussion should have been elsewhere.
He sympathized with her situation and rather than waste time talking about how he would
have voted, he was very sympathetic to her situation and that homeowners should be
Page 11 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15,2009
12 of 27
permitted to do to their homes what they pleased within certain guidelines.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt DRC No. 4417-09 and Administrative
Adjustment 172-09 with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the
modifications to those conditions to include the addition of exposed rafter tails and a
rolled roof treatment as shown on the original garage, noting the item was categorically
exempt from CEQA.
Commissioner Imboden stated some issues had been raised about demolition by neglect
and demolition by neglect was a very serious and a very specific issue and it was not the
same as a homeowner just not getting around to maintaining their property. There had
been a strong expression initially at the DRC, at the Planning Commission and by the
OTP A that the City Council examine the issue and consider it. He wanted the minutes to
be forwarded to the City Council for that purpose and that the minutes be circulated back
down to the DRC. He agreed that the discussion regarding the design should have taken
place at the DRC level. With that being said, it was part of the approval process and was
not anything above and beyond what was required and was not necessarily out of place,
but wished it would have happened at the DRC level.
Chair Steiner stated he would not be supportive of the motion and with respect to the
comments regarding the DRC, he felt they would be the body with the qualifications to
review the issues discussed as the Planning Commission was more of an appellate review
body and that the DRC had recommended the project to the Planning Commission. He
wanted the homeowner to proceed with their project and it appeared that there were 3
votes for the project that the applicant had agreed to and he wanted his position to be
clearly noted.
Commissioner Merino stated he fully supported homeowner's rights. When a
homeowner or a person purchases a property in Old Towne they assumed a greater level
of responsibility and it was important for that homeowner to educate themselves and
understand the responsibility that came with an Old Towne project. That oftentimes
meant a higher burden other than just homeowner's rights. He would be in support of the
motion.
Chair Steiner stated he would respectfully receive the comments, however, he could not
get around the fact that the DRC approved the project as presented and without the
modifications that he was not comfortable with.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker
Commissioners Cunningham and Steiner
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
NEW HEARINGS:
Page 12 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15,2009
13 of 27
(4) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1804-08; ZONE CHANGE
1251-08; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2724-08; MAJOR SITE
PLAN REVIEW 0557-08 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO.
4368-08 - ATC DEVELOPMENT (ORANGE GATEWAY-JACK IN THE
BOX)
A proposal to develop a new commercial center on property that is currently un-zoned.
The request is to establish a C-2 (General Commercial) zone classification on the
property and to construct two commercial buildings. A new 2,510 square foot Jack in
the Box restaurant with drive thru is proposed at the southern portion of the subject
parcel and a 7,000 square foot multi-tenant commercial building is proposed on the
northwest portion of the site.
LOCATION:
Southeast Comer of Chapman Avenue & the 1-5 Freeway
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1804-08 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. The MND finds that the project will have less than
significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation
of standard conditions and mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 28-09 recommending that
the City Council classify the un-zoned property as C-2 General
Commercial) and permit the construction of two buildings on the
property.
Chair Steiner stated he wanted to disclose that the applicant's representative had made a
contribution to his judicial campaign. Commissioner Whitaker stated that the property
owner had made a contribution under the Levine Act Limits for his bid to City Council.
Commissioner Merino and Commissioner Cunningham stated they had both had contact
with the applicant.
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Steiner asked for
further information on what issues Staff was requesting further input on?
Ms. Thakur stated issue No.6 and No.7 as contained in the Staff Report. Issue No.6
was in regard to removal of 2 parking spaces in front of the non-functional fireplace
element in front of the Jack in the Box restaurant and issue No.7 which was the
screening of a few of the parking spaces east of the entrance drive and realigning the
pedestrian walk way.
Page 13 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
14 of 27
Commissioner Imboden stated on the fireplace, it was described as non-functional. He
asked was it useable or was it equipment that was only aesthetic or would it contain fire?
Ms. Thakur stated both. From the exterior and interior of the restaurant there would not
be a fireplace where the patrons would be able to use it by feeling heat, there was fire
glass that gave the appearance of fire. The unit would be closed off.
Commissioner Merino stated he had a question for the Assistant City Attorney. He stated
a positive recommendation, a yes vote to City Council on the project, should in no way
shape or form influence the negotiations for the acquisition of property that was
contingent on the proj ect moving forward, and he asked if that was correct?
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated theoretically, yes.
Commissioner Merino stated he thought that would be a yes or no. His concern was that
he had not wanted to put the City in a position where it would be somehow forcing the
issue where they would not have the same leverage that they had previously in
negotiations with the applicant.
Mr. Sheatz stated, in other words, with the Planning Commission's recommendation,
would that bind the City Council's hands, no.
Chair Steiner stated on No. 28, could Staff describe what defensible landscape was?
Ms. Thakur stated that was a condition generated from the City's Crime Prevention
Division, specifically in regards to the detention basin located at the southern part of the
property. Defensible landscape would be anything that was thorny or bristly that would
deter vagrants or people from congregating in an area. It was an additional security
measure.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if defensible landscape was a term that was known in the
landscape community and if that condition was written in the requirements that the
applicant's landscape architect would know what to use?
Chair Steiner asked if it was a City term.
Ms. Thakur stated it was a term used in the Crime Prevention profession and she felt
landscape architects were familiar with the term. If the Commissioners wanted to change
the term and provide clarification that could be done.
Chair Steiner stated he had experience in that area and he had not heard the term
defensible landscape. It might be better to provide the purpose for its use.
Commissioner Merino stated Staff might want to add that the landscape needed defense
from somebody else rather than providing defense.
Chair Steiner stated they could eliminate the word defensible and that would work.
Page 14 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
150f27
Commissioner Imboden stated he believed the individual that would review the landscape
plans would understand the term defensible.
Ms. Thakur stated she agreed and again that verbiage had come specifically from the
Crime Prevention Bureau.
Commissioner Whitaker stated currently the General Plan called the property single
commercial and the applicant referred to it as C-2. The proposal in the General Plan was
for a mixed use and how would that affect the project?
Ms. Thakur stated the new General Plan proposal called for a mixed use. If the
Commission and City Council ultimately approved the project as zoned prior to the
adoption of the General Plan Update, the property would be consistent as legal non-
conforming.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated currently the purpose of
the General Plan has an urban mixed use element. Currently the Staff was reviewing a
mixed use zoning district that would eventually be brought forward to the Commission
and City Council. The mixed use district permitted exclusively commercial districts, and
it was currently a proposal; it would be subject to policy and the Commission and City
Council review. The thought was that urban mixed use would encompass a project that
was residential and commercial and it could also be an exclusive project. The proposed
project would remain within the four comers of the mixed use/land use designation and
the proposed ordinance that was under consideration.
Chair Steiner stated all they could review was what was being presented before them.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the problem was with current zoning as a C-2 and that
was before them, if zoning was changed it could place the applicant in a situation of legal
non-conforming and he had a concern with that.
Mr. Sheatz stated legally they were not getting sideways; they would have those
situations as they went through the different focus and study areas where there would be
properties that the same situation would occur. He understood that with the current
application, it would appear that was what would be created. From a legal standpoint, it
would be defensible and the applicant would have that benefit of enjoying the legal non-
conforming status. He would need to defer to planning to ask why that recommendation
had been made rather than having a zoning recommendation that would conform to the
General Plan proposed amendment.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz to what extent could the Commission consider a proposed
change in ruling on a matter that was before them?
Mr. Sheatz stated they had to have a best guess and they had been through that process
with the General Plan update long enough to know the ballpark where they were going to
be with that General Plan designation. He had not known whether it was worth splitting
hairs over the difference in designation between the commercial designation or the mixed
use designation from a zoning standpoint.
Page 15 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2009
160f27
Chair Steiner asked if it was really a fly in the ointment or not?
Mr. Knight stated he had not believed it was. There was a land use designation of
general commercial and the appropriate district was being applied to the project that
existed today. It would allow the project to move forward with both the General Plan and
the zoning in place. If and when the General Plan would be ultimately adopted, he
wanted to stress the issue that all the changes were proposed, including the land use
designation on the property, as a result of the General Plan public hearings. The Planning
Commission and City Council might corne to a decision that they would not want the
urban mixed use designation on the property. It was too hard to predict and what they
needed to do was to consider what the General Plan was currently and apply those
requirements. There was not a mixed use zoning district that could be applied as that was
currently in the development stages that was currently at the Staff level.
Commissioner Merino stated it was up to the applicant if that was potentially acceptable
to be legal non-conforming and if it was acceptable they would have the ability, through
the public process, to request a change of land use designation.
Mr. Knight stated that was a good point and the applicant was aware of the proposed
General Plan and would participate in that process with the opportunity when the urban
mixed use zoning district went forward to review and determine if any changes would
result in that. He was attempting to relay his best guess on how it would all pan out, but
the bottom line was that the action before them was based on current General Plan and
the corresponding zoning district which would place the proposed proj ect in conformance
with the current General Plan.
Mr. Sheatz stated regardless of what occurs, the Government code spoke to specific
issues where there would be a discrepancy between the General Plan and zoning in the
event it would change. After the General Plan would be changed on a specific parcel, the
City would have reasonable time to change the zoning on that parcel. The City was clear
on that and there were no current cases that discussed what a reasonable amount of time
for that change would be. If the zoning was changed to match the changes to the General
Plan, the property owner would still enjoy the legal non-conforming use. It was basically
a non Issue.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Applicant, Steve Sheldon, address on file, stated he was representing the applicant. He
thanked Ms. Thakur for her work on the project; she had been very professional and had
been in contact with them through email and he wanted to recognize the hard work she
had done. He was in support of all the 48 Conditions of Approval with the exception of
one and also they would like to speak to the landscape issue and parking spaces. On
Condition of Approval No. 5 which addressed the west bound turn pocket. The plans
before them were signed off by Traffic reflecting a 100' turn pocket, Standard No. 112
was a 120' standard not a 100' standard. He wanted to suggest some language possibly
adding; shall meet the City Standard No. 112 or the current plan that was deemed
appropriate by the Director of Planning or Public Works, whichever would be the
appropriate approving body.
Page 16 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15,2009
17 of 27
Chair Steiner stated it was the applicant's representation that the 100' distance had been
approved by the City.
Mr. Sheldon stated yes, that was what was noted in the MND.
Mr. Sheldon stated on the landscape plan, issue No.7, they wanted to go with the
solution that was presented in attachment No.6. On issue No.6 they wanted to keep the
2 parking spaces at the front of the restaurant. The current plan was for 72 spaces and the
code was 67 and they were over parked, however, it was always good to have more
parking and those two spaces were adjacent to the building for close parking. He referred
to Condition No.6 which spoke to the 2 parking spaces in front of the fireplace.
Chair Steiner stated it was one of the areas Ms. Thakur had requested input on.
Ms. Thakur stated Staffs recommendation would be to retain those two parking spaces.
Mr. Sheldon stated he concurred with that.
Commissioner Merino clarified that Staff and the applicant were in agreement to keep the
two parking spaces?
Mr. Sheldon stated yes, that was correct. The DRC had asked that those two spaces be
eliminated.
Commissioner Whitaker stated were those Conditions included in the draft resolution?
Ms. Thakur stated those were not included as Staff had wanted to wait for the Planning
Commission's input.
Commissioner Merino asked if Staff was in agreement with Condition No.7 as well.
Ms. Thakur stated yes.
Chair Steiner stated Mr. Sheldon's request as it related to No. 7 was contained III
attachment No.6.
Mr. Sheldon stated yes. The Commission would need to take action to apply Conditions
No.6 and 7 as presented. Their only issue was to have a few lines added to Condition of
Approval No.5.
Chair Steiner asked Ms. Thakur if she understood the request to that condition.
Ms. Thakur stated that condition had come from a memo or notation from the City's
Traffic Engineer when working with the applicant and applicant's representative. Was it
an oversight in regard to the 100' vs. the 120'.
Page 17 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2009
180f27
Chair Steiner stated it appeared the distance had been 100' and he was prepared to accept
that representation.
Ms. Thakur stated the statement was from the Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Division
had reviewed the plans on multiple occasions and had signed off on those plans. It may
no longer be an issue, without the Traffic Engineer being present she could not confirm
that.
Commissioner Merino stated again, to make things absolutely clear, the applicant had a
current set of Traffic Engineering approved documents that showed the 100'.
Ms. Thakur stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner stated specifically to Condition No.5, it was his impression that the
reference to Standard No. 112 was an error and that was apparently the only condition
needing to be concerned with.
Mr. Sheldon stated that was correct. Regarding the General Plan Update, they had
submitted a letter to request maintenance of their current designation. They would work
through City Staff and they understood that their commercial use would be encompassed
in the mixed use designation. He had not thought that the General Plan Update was an
issue for the proposed project.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment, there were none. He brought the
item back to the Commission for further discussion.
Commissioner Merino stated his primary concern on the project was through the
redevelopment agency that public property was being used. He was all for bringing new
businesses into the community and he wanted to ensure the taxpayer was absolutely
maximized for any involvement in the project. With Staff and the City Attorney's
assurance, he would be in support of the project.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if there would be a change to Condition No.5 prior to
the adoption of the proposed project. Chair Steiner had mentioned previously that
Standard No. 112 was in error and before a motion was presented would they need to
make that change?
Chair Steiner stated the maker of the motion could add that change, they would not be
bound by his concern regarding Condition No.5; he believed that the applicant's request
was to change the language regarding the westbound turn pocket to be consistent with the
Traffic Engineer's recommendation.
Commissioner Whitaker stated plans had been submitted with approval of the 100'. He
would agree with modification to the language of Condition No. 5 to read that the
condition shall conform to the plans submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Imboden asked if there was a reason that the language should read "plans
submitted by the applicant" rather than "plans approved by the City".
Page 18 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2009
19 of 27
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt Resolution 28-09, recommending
approval to the City Council, MND 1804-08, ZC 1251-08, CUP 2724-08, MSPR 0557-
08, and DRC 4368-08, ATC Development (Orange Gateway-Jack in the Box), subject to
the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with modification to the language in
Condition No.5 to state the condition was based on plans approved by the City's Traffic
Engineer.
Ms. Thakur asked if the Commission wanted to amend the language in Condition No. 28
which referred to defensible landscape.
Chair Steiner stated he had not heard it in a motion and the subsequent inquiry lead him
to believe that the parties responsible for the implementation of the plan would know
what that meant.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2747-09 AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4414-09 - PLATZ RESIDENCE
The applicant proposes to demolish a non-contributing 207 sq. foot. shed, construct a new
detached 441 sq. ft. two-car garage and install a full bathroom/laundry in a detached
accessory structure (recreation room). The proposed garage will have similar design
elements and exterior treatments as the existing contributing one-story 1922 bungalow
residence.
LOCATION:
456 N. Shaffer Street
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2 - Replacement or
Reconstruction) and Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction).
The project is exempt under the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines
as the demolition is for a non-contributing structure over 120 sq. ft.
in area and that the replacement structure meets the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards and the Old Towne Design Standards for
new in-fill construction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26-09 approving the
installation of a full bathroom in a detached non-contributing
accessory structure, demolition of a non-historic shed over 120 sq.
ft. and the construction of a new two-car detached garage for a
contributing residence.
Page 19 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
20 of 27
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Imboden asked if an applicant would come forward to apply for an
accessory structure as guest quarters, would the process be any different or would it be
handled in the same manner.
Mr. Ryan asked ifhe was speaking about an accessory second unit, a granny flat.
Commissioner Imboden stated not for rental. Not that it would be intended as a separate
living area. If someone wanted to simply build a guest cottage with sleeping space would
the process be the same?
Mr. Ryan stated yes, the same process would apply, probably with some type of a deed
restriction.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Applicant, Daphne Aberdel, address on file, stated she thought the project was very
straight forward and she had nothing further to add.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment, there were none. Chair Steiner
closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further
discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve Resolution No. 26-09, CUP 2747-09
and DRC No. 4419-09, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and that
the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. If the applicant should, at a later date,
wish to upgrade the non-contributing structure, the proposal would be handled over the
counter with City Staff.
Commissioner Imboden stated there had been an issue raised by Mr. Ryan about the
garage door and he was not quite clear on that. He understood that Mr. Ryan's
recommendation was that they should not have the arch and that had been discussed with
the applicant.
Mr. Ryan stated he had discussed that with the applicant and the applicant had asked if
the Commission would have an issue with the garage doors. Possibly, the ORe had not
commented on the doors, however, the doors were somewhat contemporary in design and
he had asked the applicant to consider a cross buck carriage style wood door and the
applicant had agreed with that.
Commissioner Merino stated the maker of the motion would need to add language to
include that.
Mr. Ryan stated that was correct.
Page 20 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
21 of 27
Commissioner Whitaker amended his motion to include a recommendation to add more
period style doors to be determined by the applicant.
Chair Steiner stated they had a motion with the amendment and asked for a vote.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2750-09 AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4418-09 STADIUM PROMENADE SIGN
PROGRAM
A proposal to establish a new sign program for the Stadium Promenade and Extended
Stay America sites. The new sign program would replace an existing sign program. The
sign program proposes deviations from the standards in the sign code which may be
permitted via a Conditional Use Permit due to the size of the property.
LOCATION:
1411, 1521, 1623, 1635, & 1701 W. Katella Avenue
NOTE:
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per
State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing
Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 27-09 approving
a new sign program for the Stadium Promenade and
Extended Stay America.
Commissioner Whitaker stated, per his GIS Map, the property at 1635 presented a
conflict of interest for him and he would be recused from the presentation.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Merino commented the merge that had taken place that made the sign
program acceptable, was that completed in some legally enforceable manner. He asked if
Extended Stay America was to be sold, would the new owner still be responsible for
participating in the sign program or could that new owner essentially pull out and they
would potentially be approving something that could be under the required square
footage at some future date?
Page 21 of27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2009
22 0[27
Mr. Ortlieb stated Stadium Promenade and Extended Stay America were co-applicants
and regarding the transfer of ownership and the legal ramifications, that would need to be
deferred to their legal council.
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Sheatz ifhe saw where he was going with that.
Mr. Sheatz stated no he had not.
Commissioner Merino stated what allowed the sign program was that the Extended Stay
American became part of the application and put the square footage over the required
threshold for the program. If Extended Stay America was sold and there was not a
legally binding agreement, could the new owner pull out of the sign program and
therefore, the program would not be legal or conforming. Had that made sense?
Mr. Sheatz stated no, because they were participating in the sign program.
Commissioner Merino stated if there was a change in ownership for one of the particular
tenants in the program would the agreement be abrogated?
Mr. Sheatz stated no, that would not be the case as the agreement would bind any
successor.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was confused by the language that referred to
architectural iconic elements. When he read what was proposed, it stated iconic imagery
would require a 3 dimensional look and rectilinear signage shall not be considered iconic
elements.
Mr. Ortlieb stated the intent was to implement 3 dimensional sign concepts, other than
anything that would be rectilinear, in order to avoid a loophole to add additional
standards for freestanding monument signage. The intent was to add characters such as
Bob's Big Boy and Chili's, or something of that nature, that would have more of a bulk.
Commissioner Imboden stated supposing the proposed project were to be approved and a
tenant wanted to add an iconic element what would be the approval process?
Mr. Ortlieb stated the applicant would need to gain approval at the counter with the
property owner's signature and the approval would be consistent with the conditions of
the sign program.
Commissioner Merino asked if the person came to the counter, as there were tandem
applicants, would they require signatures from both property owners, from both the
Stadium Promenade and Extended Stay?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it would be the signature of the respective center or property that the
sign would be located on.
Commissioner Merino stated the way he understood the project had reached the threshold
to create a uniform signage program. Was the square footage of both properties included;
Page 22 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
23 of 27
from what he could tell there were not two completely separate sign programs and how
would that work if it was being differentiated as two property owners? How was the
applicant still compliant within the extent of the law? Commissioner Merino stated that
Staff had provided information that both the Extended Stay America and the Stadium
Promenade had to work together in order for the program to be prepared and presented
and to him if a sign was brought forward, it should require an agreement by both property
owners and he asked Mr. Sheatz ifhe agreed with that?
Mr. Sheatz stated the property owners were bound together under the program and they
were bound by what was allocated in that program. The applicant or any future successor
would be bound by that. What Commissioner Merino was stating was that both property
owners would need to agree on tenant signage.
Chair Steiner stated if a tenant wanted to place a large chili pepper out in front of their
business would that require consent from Extended Stay America?
Commissioner Merino stated they would need to get that approval as it was a tandem
agreement. What Staff had stated was that an applicant could bring one signature to the
counter and be done.
Mr. Ortlieb stated he believed that Staff could make the application be the joint
entitlement that would allow the sign program to occur and after that have each
respective sign owner be responsible for their own signage being compliant within the
SIgn program.
Mr. Sheatz stated and limited to what was included in the sign program.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was struggling with language in Section 6.8 regarding
the architectural iconic elements reference. As in the same section, there was a statement
about iconic imagery should not be considered an architectural element. He was not sure,
but perhaps the word sculptural rather than architectural would get them closer. He had a
problem with the conflicting language. The other problem was that the approval process
for those types of signs had no height limit in place and were at the discretion, not at the
counter, of the Community Development Director. He would feel more comfortable if
there was a specific and very reasonable height limit, with anything over the height limit
requiring consideration by the Community Development Director. Commissioner
Imboden read from the requirements, which he stated would only bring additional review
of the signage and it would be at a point where there could already be over concentration.
He struggled with those types of ordinances that sent a confusing message to the property
owner. He had not wanted to restrict those types of elements; however, the language
needed clarification. He was perplexed with the type of approval process which was
being discussed.
Commissioner Merino stated there could be language that spelled out that the City's sign
ordinance would still apply. For example, the City's height ordinance would still be
applicable.
Commissioner Imboden stated it was not written in that manner.
Page 23 of 27 Pages
Commissioner Merino stated would "signage elements" be
"architectural elements"?
June 15,2009
24 of 27
better than stating
Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Imboden stated that would be o.k.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Applicant, Robert Spade, address on file, stated the primary purpose of the sign program
was to define signs that would exist that were specialized for their property and had not
fallen within the parameters of the general sign program that existed in the City. Perhaps
the mixing of the language had not come across clearly and they were attempting to allow
for opportunities for signage such as Bob's Big Boy without going overboard.
Chair Steiner stated there were two concerns; one being the architectural iconic element
language and a suggestion to use the word signage to substitute architectural with respect
to the title of Section 6.8, and he asked the applicant ifhe had any objection to the change
in language?
Mr. Spade stated the iconic signs that they were proposing would not impact the other
signs that would exist for a tenant, such as store front signage and they would not be
related to an additional iconic sign or image. At the DRC meeting, they were suggesting
the description be 3 dimensional signage, however, every sign technically was 3
dimensional.
Chair Steiner asked if sculptural would be a better term?
Mr. Spades stated that would be a better term.
Commissioner Imboden stated that there would be a statement in the ordinance that could
read freestanding sculptural or iconic signage would not count toward the sign area
calculation.
Mr. Spade stated that would alleviate his concern.
Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to clarify that the program would not violate or
supercede current ordinances that were currently in place by the City.
Commissioner Imboden stated that was what they were doing was reviewing issues that
were very specific to the applicant and his concern was that they were leaving the door
wide open for height and he would feel more comfortable if they could draft language
that would include a maximum height limit and anything over that limit would require
review by the Community Development Director.
Chair Steiner stated he was a lawyer and he would not know what a reasonable height
was. He asked Mr. Sheatz if the sign program proposed would mean that other City sign
ordinances would not be applicable, and could a tenant install an Eiffel Tower?
Page 24 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
25 of 27
Mr. Sheatz stated if the sign program was silent as to height, Staff would look to the
current code and enforce that or if the intent was to allow for something taller, it would
be best to include a height limit.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was not suggesting that the section be re-written, but
that a reasonable height limit is included and he was not opposed to providing some
liberties to their signage. He found it peculiar that they were discussing an approval
process that might not work.
Commissioner Merino stated he was suggesting that where the sign program was silent,
the existing sign requirements or ordinances would apply.
Chair Steiner stated a catch all clause would be a better approach.
Mr. Ortlieb stated there was a catch all clause already included on page 3 of the sign
program with regard to the sign code. It spoke to wall sign height that referred to the
limits of signage.
Chair Steiner stated reading from page 3; when the criterion had not addressed specific
sign requirements, the City's zoning code requirements shall apply. He asked
Commissioner Imboden if that would cover his concerns?
Commissioner Imboden stated it would.
Commissioner Merino stated that Mr. Sheatz suggested that they could cite the chapter
that the sign requirements where included in to make it more clear.
Commissioner Imboden stated it was quite clear to him, in reference to the height issue,
that without a height or width limit it would allow a tenant to bring in a sign of any height
or width. In Section 6.8 it was not that there was not a reference addressing the height, it
was that there was no requirement for height.
Mr. Spade stated he believed that specific point was addressed by the DRC and that the
limit was in area a size of 5' x 10'.
Mr. Ortlieb stated it was stated that the intent of the DRC recommendation was that 3
dimensional iconic signs shall not exceed an area of 5' x 10'.
Mr. Spade stated there was reference in an email that had addresses listed and he assumed
the proposed project's approval would apply to the entire center and not limited to the
addresses listed.
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct; it would be interpreted as pertaining to the property.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commissioner for further discussion.
Commissioner Imboden stated the DRC's intent, as he understood, were that the iconic
sculptural elements would fit within a 5' x 10' volume, however, that was not how the
Page 25 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2009
26 of 27
proposal was written and if that was what the DRC truly wanted, they would want to
continue within that same theme and to remove the language that referred to "no limit in
height or width".
Chair Steiner stated he felt they were venturing a bit off kilter and he had not thought
about volume since 8th grade geometry; area and volume meant that now they needed
another number?
Commissioner Imboden stated they were speaking about 3 dimensional signage and that
would include an area of a sign.
Mr. Sheatz stated he was unclear about one of the statements made about being unclear of
where the DRC had been coming from; he was reading from a sentence that was not
ambiguous at all as it read "there shall be no instance where a 3 dimensional iconic sign
shall exceed 10' in height or 5' in width" - there was a limitation. That verbiage was
contained in Section 6.8 on page 9 of the sign program.
Commissioner Merino stated he was looking at something different than what had been
handed to them; as the Commissioners had not had that information.
Commissioner Imboden stated with that information being presented, it appeared that the
DRC had put forward some specific language.
Commissioner Merino stated he felt that was the intent of the DRC and suggested they go
back to using that specific language.
Commissioner Imboden made a motion to adopt Resolution 27-09, CUP 2750-08 and
DRC 4418-09 subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with a change to
revert to the language of the original page 9 of Section 6.8 and to refer to the signage as
freestanding sculptural or iconic signage and that signage shall not exceed 10' in height
and 5' in width, and to strike the previous language that discussed height and width or
lack thereof in Section 6.8, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA and
also noting that the resolution applied to the entire property and not just specific
addresses.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner
None
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED
(7) ADJOURNMENT
Chair Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on Monday, July 6,2009.
Page 26 of 27 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2009
27 of 27
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner
None
None
Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:04 P.M.
Page 27 of27 Pages