Loading...
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