Loading...
2007 - October 15 Cd. '5 00 . G ....Q~ PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION 6:30 P.M. OCTOBER 15, 2007 Chair Imboden opened the administrative session @ 6:30. Discussion ensued regarding calls the Commissioners had received during the week and they noted to Staff the best phone number that they could be reached at: Imboden, Merino and Steiner on their cell phones Bonina and Whitaker on their office phones Chair Imboden requested that each Commissioner have stated for the record if they had spoken to anyone when the item was being heard. There were no questions regarding the minutes to be approved. The following items were reviewed: Best Buy/Starbucks: Chair Imboden asked Staff about the justification for their sign in using a comparison to Krispy Kreme's signage. Mr. Knight stated that he did not know the history behind the issue. There was also clarification needed for the change from the DRC conditions of approval as they had asked for a complete set of plans prior to the PC review. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would be recused from this item as he had a client within 500' of the location. Commissioner Merino asked if Staff would have additional information on the homeowners documents, Staff responded that they would as well as information on the Signage. Mr. Knight referred to Mr. Sheatz who explained that they had received sufficient information for this item to be heard and that City Attorney Ted Reynolds would also be present to lend additional support. Mr. Reynolds added that the attorney for the Bill Board company was requesting that Planning Commission add a condition regarding the utility easement, and that the packet contained information on the relationship between the developer, sign company and entity that owned the property. He felt clear on the project and would be able to provide clarification if needed. Walgreen's: Staffwas asked if the Police Department would be present to make a statement. It was confirmed that they would be present. Espe Residence: Chair Imboden stated he would have questions on this item as he needed some clarification on the plans. Chair Imboden asked Commissioners' if they were comfortable to hear all items as some of the materials had been given to them late. Commissioners agreed that they could hear all items. Chair Imboden asked the Commissioners if there was any further business to discuss. There was none. Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:47. Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 1 of 21 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 15 October 2007 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Robert Garcia, Assistant Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Laura Thomas 7211 Clydesdale Orange, CA Ms. Thomas wanted to express her concern about the proposed zoning change of Ridgeline Golf Course from recreational open space to residential. She was opposed to the zone change as it was not in compliance with the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan and was not the first attempt to change the zoning. Past owner Dave Freeman heard very clear from the community of Orange Park Acres - No on houses. The project was the same as Mr. Freeman's proposal for approximately 30 houses, but was different in that Mr. Martin had purchased the golf course and closed it; there was now no golf course in Orange. It had become an eye sore in the community of Orange Park Acres he had also purchased the 7 acres of land where the arena sat and the Sully Miller 110 acres. The developer has a monopoly on land holdings and was planning the Orange Park Acres Community which could disintegrate OP A. Ridgeline had been marketed and given a done deal kind of feel, creating a no hope feeling for residents of the Community. They felt intimidated if they disapproved the Ridgeline proj ect. When the issue was before the Planning Commission she would hope they would not approve it. CONSENT ITEMS (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 5,2007 AND SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the September 5, 2007 minutes. SECOND: Commissioner Merino Page 1 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 2 of 21 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the September 17, 2007 minutes. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Merino, and Steiner None Imboden and Whitaker None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (2) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1783-06; MAJOR SITE ,PLAN 0480-06; TRACT PARCEL MAP 2007-118; AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4178-06 - TOWN AND COUNTRY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING STRUCTURE A proposal to construct a three-story 65,370 square foot medical office building, three story parking structure, and landscaping improvements on a site with an existing 98,236 square foot office building. LOCATION: NOTE: 999 Town and Country Road Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 4178-06 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 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.42-07. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification on Page 7 of the Staff Report regarding the loading zone and the drop off area which showed 70' linear feet, and 80' required. Later in the report it showed a 60' long loading zone. He also asked if the reference to smaller vehicles using the loading zone was anecdotal. Mr. Ortlieb stated that the loading zone was between 60' and 70'and yes the vehicle reference was based on anecdotal evidence. Page 2 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2007 3 of 21 Chair Imboden opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Scott Barnard, 5100 Birch St., Newport Beach representing TA Associates Realty came forward to address the Commission. He stated that they have worked very hard on the Town & Country pedestrian objectives and have reduced the height from a 4- story to a 3-story building, added pedestrian enhancements to link the two buildings and parking structure together and were able to keep quite a number of the existing trees. It had taken considerable work to get the storm drains to work properly with bio-swells. As these were new techniques on an existing project it was a challenge. Commissioner Steiner asked about the smaller loading zone and could the applicant confirm the Staffs finding that this location would be having smaller vehicles being used to make deliveries. Mr. Barnard stated that it would be smaller step van type vehicles during business hours. Commissioner Whitaker asked how many parking spaces would be provided for the site in reviewing Condition No. 75. Mr. Barnard stated that all the parking today was provided on a surface level and the parking on-site exceeds code, when the parking structure is added in the back this took away parking stalls used in the tenancy of the 999 building. We took away more than what was allowed to be on the remainder of the lot, however we felt that we had enough spaces to meet the tenant demand based on occupancy of the building. A follow up review would be done for future needs and arrangements for shuttle surface if needed. Chair Imboden clarified that the Applicant was familiar with the language and agreed with the condition. Mr. Barnard stated yes. Commissioner Merino stated that he had a concern in a packet that was received that stated that the project would significantly increase the traffic in the area where this project was being constructed. The issue seemed to be clearly and well mitigated, did they feel that there was anything additional that could be done to address traffic. From the public's perspective there is another big building being added with more people. Mr. Barnard answered that he felt there was nothing more to be done and that the letters stated some frustration on things that had happened in that region over the years for those residents. They could not take responsibility for past issues. He stated that he did drive the area and tried exiting the parking lot and was not dramatically impacted and did not deny that it was busier than it may have been before, but that there was nothing they could do to change the impact in this area. He felt they had done all they could do with keeping consistency in the General Plan. Commissioner Bonina stated that there was an exterior area on the existing building that the occupants enjoyed to sit outside on the backside of the building. Through this redevelopment were there plans to keep the area. Mr. Barnard stated they were not using it that way today, and it was more of a backdoor for equipment. They had proposed to make the area more of a pedestrian area with seating and landscaping to be used by both buildings. Commissioner Merino stated that the Mitigated Declaration Document stated that in Page 3 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 4 of 21 order for the shared parking to work a CUP was required and should this application have a CUP for shared parking. Mr. Ortlieb stated that to provide a reciprocal parking agreement it would require a CUP, therefore, the environmental document was correct in that regard. Commissioner Merino asked if this would require a CUP. Mr. Sheatz stated that it could not be added as part of this hearing as it had not been noticed. Trying to go back if one was required would piece meal the issue; approving a portion and then coming back with the need to renotice the item. Commissioner Merino wanted to make sure the City and applicant were well protected as the project required the CUP to meet the parking obligation. Mr. Sheatz responded that if the CUP were required they could not, from a legal stand point, move forward. Mr. Knight stated that if the CUP was required as a comprehensive consideration of the project, Staff would need to renotice for the item and bring it back to have it considered as part of the item. If this would be the direction the Commission would like to move in they would have 3 weeks to the next hearing, which would be the first meeting in November. He added that this would be sufficient time to recirculate, and bring on the same Staff Report with an analysis of the CUP. He stated that the second meeting in November was quite crowded. Commissioner Merino stated that he wanted it to be looked at properly and was there another way to move forward on the project with the missing CUP. Mr. Knight stated that it had been studied in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, from the stand point of project approval the project would not be moved forward to get building permits. Mr. Sheatz brought up the question of continuity and a comprehensive package, to bring it back would mean it would be comprehensively dealt with and would not have to come back for the CUP. If the Commission chose to approve, it had been studied in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and it would be another thing the applicant would need to apply for at a later date prior to receiving permits. Mr. Barnard stated that he could speculate that it was covered in the environmental documentation and addressed in the Staff Report and could the same action be taken through the major site plan review approval as it could under a CUP. Commissioner Merino felt the only issue was that it could not meet the parking requirements in and of itself without the shared parking agreement. The only way to do that would be with the CUP. Mr. Barnard stated that there was a condition that required the shared parking agreement, and the CUP required the parking agreement be implemented. Mr. Knight agreed with the applicant that it would only be a paper process to insure that all the entitlements had been described in the resolution covered in the Staff Report. Chair Imboden asked if the resolution would need modification and if it would need to come back to the Commission for approval of the modified resolution. Mr. Knight stated that yes that would be correct. Page 4 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2007 5 of 21 Commissioner Bonina asked the applicant if they had an urgent reason for approval at the meeting. Mr. Barnard stated that each time they came back something else came up. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. He wanted it to be clear to everyone that if they moved forward on the item there would still be required modifications to the resolution, and that resolution would come back to the Commission. The project could not be finalized until the future meeting. Commissioner Steiner stated that there were some 75 odd conditions that would need to be decided on. If a decision was made, knowing the applicant would need to return regarding the CUP, would they be looking at a resolution with 75 odd conditions on it as the only issue that would need to come back would be the CUP. Mr. Knight stated that if they filed for a separate CUP for a shared parking program the only thing they would look at would be those issue related to the shared parking program. Commissioner Steiner stated that they could rule on what they had before them, knowing it would be returning for the CUP. At least there would not be 75 chances for questions. He felt they could decide on the item tonight and look at the CUP when it came before them. Mr. Knight stated that they could do that and only look at the CUP at a future meeting. Mr. Sheatz was concerned that there was a predetermination issued by the Commission, if they were to approve what was before them and take the applicant all the way through to issue of the entitlements with the exception of the one item, this one item is an integral part of the project and it would seem that the approval was almost predetermined. The project should be looked at as a whole. Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Sheatz if a condition could be added that a Reciprocal Parking Agreement would be part of this approval and issuance of the permits. Mr. Sheatz stated that that could be done and that the Reciprocal Parking Agreement would require a CUP. Commissioner Steiner stated that he agreed with Mr. Sheatz that when the applicant came back before the Commission there would be a possibility that the CUP would not be approved. Chair Imboden looked to the applicant for his understanding of this statement and the applicant acknowledged his understanding. Commissioner Merino stated he was not adverse to the project and wanted to make sure everything was correct from a process stand point. Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Sheatz if the project could be approved with the Reciprocal Parking condition and the need for a CUP. Mr. Sheatz stated that the Commission could move forward on approval and acknowledged that the applicant was aware of the process. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Planning Commission Mitigated Page 5 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 6 of 21 Negative Declaration 1783-06; Major Site Plan 0480-06; Tract Parcel Map 2007-118; and Design Review Committee 4178-06 - Town and Country Medical Office Building and Parking Structure with the following conditions: . Striking of sentence #2 in condition # 15. . Prior to final approval a Parcel Map to be submitted on the shared package program. . Applicant had knowledge that a CUP was required and that the application could not move forward without it. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1791-07; MAJOR SITE PLAN 0526-07; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2673-07; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4273-07 AND VARIANCE 2181-07 - BEST BUY AND STARBUCKS A proposal to demolish a 30,000 square foot building formerly occupied by a bowling alley and a 7,250 square foot car wash in order to construct a 45,750 square foot retail building and a 1,700 square foot drive through coffee dispensary for Starbucks. LOCATION: 2355 & 2375 N. Tustin NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1793-07 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 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.40-07 and 41-07. Commissioners Bonina, Merino and Steiner stated that they had met or spoken over the phone with the applicant or applicant's representative. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner asked how long the existing building had been vacant and what was the size of the lot. Mr. Knight stated that it had been vacant possibly two years. Mr. Ortlieb stated that the lot size was 5.11 acres, after dedication it would be 4.99. Page 6 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 7 of 21 Commissioner Steiner asked in regard to the wall height he understood that there was not a requirement for a variance related to the 6' wall height, however the DRC recommended that the Planning Commission impose the requirement for the applicant to seek a variance. In reviewing the plans the fence is 6' on one side and due to grading it would be perceived to be higher on the other side. Mr. Ortlieb stated that this was correct. Commissioner Merino asked the Traffic Engineer if the deceleration lane and the alignment issues were appropriate for the addition on the street of this project. City of Orange Traffic Engineer stated that he felt there was an optimum access plan on the proj ect and the right turn lane was maximized in length. They did go over the traffic signalization and found a pit fall in making a four way signal to align the signal with Walmart, they developed a 3-way signal with no pedestrian crossing that would accommodate the addition of the project. Much of what is done in Traffic Engineering revolves around a judgment call and in their judgment they felt that this was safe and there was an offset between the Walmart shopping center and the proposed access way and they could restrict left turns out of the Walmart driveway. The thinking behind that was for those wishing to go northbound could go to Hind and make a left turn. Commissioner Bonina asked if the proposed 25 X 16 monument sign caused any concern. Traffic Engineer stated no, that on those signs there were height restrictions in the City Standard Plan. Commissioner Bonina stated that on the trash compacter variance for no walls was there any criteria on how far the trash compactor needed to be from residential walls. Mr. Ortlieb stated that there was nothing in the code. Commissioner Steiner stated that the trash compacter was located 50' from the property line of the mobile home park according to page 3-74 of the Mitigated Declaration, Mr. Ortlieb agreed that the residences were some distance away. Commissioner Steiner stated that earlier Mr. Ortlieb had stated that the residences were 100' away from the proposed stereo installation bays, but looking at the same page the report indicated that the residences were 150' from the proposed installation bays. Mr. Ortlieb reviewed the Staff Report and stated that it could be looked at two ways; property line vs. where physical residences occur. Commissioner Bonina asked Staff to clarify the lighting and the spillage to the residential. Mr. Ortlieb stated that it would be up to the Applicant to come up with a solution of their choosing and show it to Staff and verify it was beneath the Municipal Code threshold of .5 ft. candles, they could use blinders or other type of screening devices to meet the criteria. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing and asked the Applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Applicant, Brian Ward, address on file, representing the property owners as a General Partner. Stated they had reviewed the conditions and agreed with them. Page 7 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2007 8 of 21 Commissioner Steiner asked if the light pole height had been brought down from 30'. Mr. Ward stated that it had. They looked at lowering the pole height from 30' to 25' through a photometric study, and the result was undetectable. They also conducted a visual simulation study in the neighborhood, the study revealed that with the new lighting plan and placement of the lights they would not been seen from the neighboring property. The poles would be moved to the interior areas of the property. Commissioner Merino asked if their ownership team was associated with the other Best Buy in the area. Mr. Ward answered yes. Commissioner Merino stated that one of the conditions of approval was that the installation bays were to remain closed during business hours and there had been concerns from community members that this was not being done at the other location. Did the applicant clearly understand this condition would be part of the approval process? Mr. Ward stated that he was aware of the condition and it was a corporate policy of Best Buy to have the doors closed. They would accept as a mandate the condition and make sure it was followed. Chair Imboden stated that regarding the public comments, there were concerns on light height and spacing as well as landscaping. One of the DRC recommendations was that there be a section cut that showed trees at a 4-year maturity in relationship to the light fixtures. He did not find this in his Staff Report and asked if one was available. Mr. Ward stated that one of the DRC's concerns was a compromise, as you reduced the light pole height there would be a need to add more lights and this would reduce the landscaping and compromising the number of trees. We did our study based on the lower light pole height and what was found was that they were able to increase the tree numbers and reduce the light pole height. Commissioner Steiner asked what their position was in regards to the elimination of the four parking spaces. Mr. Ward stated that they reviewed the condition and were prepared to accept it. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing. Dan Slater, 278 Pine Street, Orange came forward in support of the project. He felt that Best Buy would generate sales tax revenue and was a much better choice than residential for the area. He stated that if you create too high of a wall was created it sometimes gave a negative effect and to consider the aesthetics and appeal of the site. John Erskine, 18101 Yon Karman, Irvine, legal counsel representing the Sliver property that was in the back eastern portion of the property. He had just been retained and had been getting the relevant documents together in the last few days. They had not received or their client received a notice of the Certificate of Compliance Hearing that occurred on June 26,2007, they had no notice ofthe DRC proceedings and they did get notice of the October 15 proceeding last week. Mr. Erskine stated that this was a very convoluted presentation on the project. On the Mitigated Negative Declaration they questioned Page 8 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 9 of 21 regarding the traffic and shade and shadow issues. He stated that the Commission was proceeding on a 20 day review period that ended today, October 15, 2007 and holding a hearing on the day that it ended. He also questioned how Staff could provide responses to comments including the comments they would raise. There were numerous items that W. Hollywood properties would like to evaluate, which included the photo metric and view analysis. From a legal stand point the Commission does not have the findings to justify the variance; State Law requires very specific findings for a variance. On the landscape variance it states because the Staff Coordinator believed it was justified, without any facts or evidence in the record. He suggested that they slow down the process and asked for a 30 day continuance. Brenda Vasquez, 2295 N. Tustin, Ste. #35, Orange came forward to address the Commission. As a property owner she had asked for the higher wall due to the noise level as trucks with merchandise would come up on that area and having a 6' wall does not reduce much noise. I had asked for an 8' wall, based on the grading it would be lower on the store side. She had concerns regarding the lighting and floodlights, which she thought were brighter. When the bowling alley was there they had very soft lighting. On the landscaping on the perimeter wall, she had heard suggestions to have the trees planted closer to obscure the building. Ms. Vasquez felt the elevation drawings were deceiving as they did not show the actual true drawing and the rear height of the building as it only showed the front dimensions and there was no monument sign in the drawings. Chair Imboden asked for clarification from Staff regarding the information shared by Mr. Erskine regarding the review process of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and if it met the requirements. Mr. Ortlieb stated that usually Staff would provide some additional time, although on the project the applicant had requested that the project proceed directly from DRC to PC that coincided with the 20 day time frame period. Mr. Sheatz added that they were within the requirements, as the review period ended today. You would not have the benefit of the review of those comments if some were turned in today, if there were any. Chair Imboden asked if there were any comments turned in that the Commission had not received. Mr. Ortlieb stated that every comment that Staff had received in writing or verbally and at the DRC had been presented to the Planning Commission. They had received an October 15, 2007 memo with this information. Chair Imboden invited the applicant to return to the podium for comments or any further questions from the Commission. Mr. Ward came forward to provide further clarification on the wall. They had their civil engineer perform a cross section of the existing retention wall that fell below the grade of the property and the above grade wall. The height of the wall if they were to erect a single wall between the two properties would vary in size. The wall that was there was much lower than the 6' that was being contemplated by Staff. Mr. Ward stated that due to the grade differential the new wall would be 6' on their property but would go as high as 13'. Ifit were to become an issue we could go to 8', we could build it at 6' and if it would need to be raised that could be done after the fact. Page 9 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 10 of 21 Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Steiner stated that he disagreed with Counsel, and he believed that there were abundant facts in the record that justified the findings that were proposed to be made by virtue of the Draft Resolution. The project seemed well designed and he had lived in Orange for over 34 years and there was a need for this. The proposed change was in a redevelopment area. He also stated that the reduction of the light poles from 30' to 25' would be a good thing. On page 3-46 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding trucks there was the contemplated one delivery per day and this was a legitimate concern of the possibility of trucks coming through in the middle of the night; however that does not appear to be the case. The requirement to have the installation doors closed was also a good one, and the plans do list the types of tools that would be used and none of them would be considered heavy machinery. He felt the elimination of the 4 parking spaces would be a good idea. Chair Imboden looked to Staff for clarification regarding the doors, and the wording of the condition from the DRC minutes as he did not feel comfortable with the language. In looking at Condition No.83 he questioned if that was the condition that referred to music on the site listed to cover the installation doors. Mr. Ortlieb stated that there was not a condition attached in the Staff Report it was addressed in an Environmental Document on page 3-74, it was not a mitigation measure. If the Planning Commission chose they could implement that as a condition of approval. Commissioner Merino stated that with the stereo installation a properly worded condition would mitigate the issue. In terms of the review period that was brought up, because there was a review period that had gone up to the last minute it had provided the ability for the public to voice their concern and adequately provided an opportunity to raise concerns. In regards to the lighting whether it was at 20' or 25'it would help with crime prevention. He also stated that the Applicant had expressed their willingness regarding the wall height and he stood in support of the project. Commissioner Bonina stated that it was good to see the project and Best Buy was a great sales tax generator. The Applicant has suggested that if the 6' wall would not be adequate that they would readdress it. On the lighting issue they had addressed this with a study and the parking stalls appeared to be a non-issue. He stated that he was in support of the project. Chair Imboden agreed with most of what was stated, the redevelopment area needed a project like the one before them. The applicant was willing to make concessions to mitigate the potential or perceived impacts where possible. In terms of the review process adequate time was given and all responses the City had received had been forwarded to the Commission. He supported the project and wanted to adopt a language that specifically addressed the installation doors. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 10 of2l Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 11 of 21 1493-07; Major Site Plan 0526-07; Conditional Use Permit 2673-07; Design Review Committee 4273-07 and variance 2181-07 - Best Buy and Starbucks with the added Conditions: . No installation of stereo, audio components would not occur outside the building and any installation that would take place, would take place with the bay doors closed prior to installation, and to include language that would indicate this condition would prevent disturbances to the neighboring properties. He drew this language from page 3-74 under the subheading Best Buy Outdoor Stereo Installation. . There should be subsequent evaluation by Staff on the wall to determine if additional height should be needed. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None None Whitaker Commissioner Whitaker recused himself from this item as he had a client within 500' of the project. MOTION CARRIED. (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2677-07; VARIANCE 2180-07 MINOR SITE PLAN 491-07; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4189-07 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 151-07 - WALGREENS A proposal to demolish the existing 26,228 sq. ft. Drug Emporium and replace it with two new buildings totaling 23,068 sq. ft. One building would be for the 24-hour Walgreens with a drive-up window and the second building would contain retail and restaurants. LOCATION: 1538 E. Chapman NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State Guidelines 15302 (Class 2 - Replacement or Reconstruction) because the project will replace a structure with a new structure of substantially the same size. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 41-07. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Page 11 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2007 120f 21 Commissioner Whitaker asked for clarification on Condition No. 23 and what measures the applicant had taken to comply with crime prevention through environmental design. Mr. Garcia stated the condition related to Attachment No. 9 and would be better answered by the Police Department representative in attendance. Commissioner Bonina asked about the landscape numbers on the site plan and was the number prior to proposed dedication or net of dedication or will they see much less. Mr. Garcia referred to the site plan AI, and stated that the landscape numbers were the current numbers and there would be less on the proposed dedication. Commissioner Bonina clarified that the proposal would be with development in that area and at some future point it would be taken. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. Chair Imboden asked if the request for a variance did not take in the future loss. Mr. Garcia stated correct and some of the areas were below requirement and the current variance was for that. Commissioner Whitaker asked what condition was related to the proposed dedication for future street improvements. Mr. Garcia asked for a moment to locate the information. Crime Prevention Specialist, Brad Beyer came forward to answer questions from Staff. Commissioner Merino wanted to hear the Police Department's perspective on the previously discussed crime prevention condition. Officer Beyer stated that the Police Department did want the project to proceed and make it as safe as possible. Where you had more visibility you had less crime. Offenders tend to feel safer in a less lit area. He stated that other pharmacy locations around the city had their drive-thrus' in a much more visible location. As his job was strictly crime prevention that was the only thing he looked at on these projects and wanted to make it as safe as possible for the citizens. Commissioner Merino asked ifhe was applying the same standards and no more stringent for any other project that he had or would review. Officer Beyer stated that was correct and noted that the City of Orange was unique in having the Police Department sit in on the design process. Commissioner Merino stated that there were other Walgreens in the City that dispensed pharmaceutical products and they had complied. Officer Beyer state that was correct. Commissioner Whitaker stated that generally they asked the applicant if they understood the condition that they had to comply with. Officer Beyer stated that if it would be kept with the current design, we would want them to open up as much site line from Chapman as possible. To make sure that landscaping would not cover the drive-thru and that the lighting would be adequate. If it was not a prefect design we would want the applicant to make the design as good as they could. Page 12 of2l Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 13 of 21 Chair Imboden asked for any further questions for staff, there were none. He asked the applicant to come forward. Commissioner Bonina and Commissioner Merino stated that they both had a phone conversation with the applicant. Applicant, Sharon Douglas, address on file, representing Walgreens' developers came forward to address the Commission. She stated that currently on the site was a closed and abandoned Drug Emporium. Walgreens entered into an agreement with the property owner that stipulated that the resulting new construction could not be less than 23,000 square feet, if they had been able to reduce the square footage and were not obligated by code in regards to the landscaping they would have been able to meet the parking code. If they had less parking they could meet the landscaping code. We were proposing a balance between the two. Additionally, they had to balance these with the WQMP requirements. She stated that Walgreens does not sell alcohol, they had one 45' non-refrigerated truck delivery per week, they do not use the loading dock to stock the store and would use the roll up doors at the back of the building, and pharmacy and photo's would be delivered through the front doors. With regard to the south and west property line walls, it became apparent at the DRC Meeting that the neighbors were desirous of a higher wall than what would be required per code. They had not initially requested a higher wall as the applicant's experience was one of neighbors not wanting higher walls and they had already asked for a variance on the landscaping. There was not a variance on the wall as time did not allow, however, they would be willing to consider a higher wall with conditions required. On September 11, 2007 Ms. Douglas met with the neighbors, discussed the various options and wanted to keep the various walls in place. It did become apparent that the Drug Emporium building wall could not remain and she returned and met with the neighbors on October 13, 2007. The wall behind Mr. Petz's property could be kept, however, the Drug Emporium tilt up wall would not survive demolition. The applicant would be willing to provide a higher wall with the Commission's recommendation and she asked the Commission to consider approval with an immediate return for a variance on the wall. Ms. Douglas stated that they needed the drive-thru to be a 24-hour drive-thru. As part of Walgreens successful history, as convenience for the customer with hours of operation for the store and drive-thru to be 24-hours. Customers who frequent the drive-thru late at night were in need of prescriptions in a convenient manner. The 24-hour drive-thru would fill the need of those seeking medication during the night. She stated that in the Staff Report it was noted that the drive-up created an entrapment area where persons could become blocked. Per the same Staff Report, one of the major findings for the Major Site Plan reads: The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation both on and off site. The Police Department also provided select crime statistics for a 2 year period for the Rite Aid store across the street. Ms. Douglas called the store to find out the hours that the crimes had occurred and was unable to obtain this information. Rite Aid does not have a drive-thru and the crimes would not be associated with a drive-thru. There was also a concern regarding criminal activity at a drive-thru that is less than visible. She had driven through all of the Walgreens 24-hour drive-thru locations in Orange; there are two that would be identical in site layout and Page 13 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2007 14 of 21 adjacent to residential with the drive-thru areas fully hidden. She then contacted law enforcement to ascertain if there had been criminal activity associated with these specific drive-thru locations and she found that there had been none. She reiterated the reasons that crime would not be a factor with the proposed project. Ms. Douglas asked that if the Commission still had concerns regarding the 24-hour drive-thru they would request a condition to allow the drive-thru to be open 24 hours for one year with the option of the City to revisit the condition and make adjustments accordingly. She restated the importance for a 24-hour drive-thru and they had read through all the conditions and agreed with all but Condition No. 19 restricting the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Architect, John Peruzzi, 8800 Venice, Los Angeles came forward and stated that on the site plan there were some very unique restrictions, and as an architect, if they could have met every desire of every entity they would have. He felt that they came up with a good solution for parking and landscaping. On the landscape variance all of the landscape numbers were post dedication and the only non-compliance area was the set back along an area with 5 parking spaces (he referred to the drawings). On the site fence they were surprised that the neighbors wanted a higher fence. The Walgreens would be 30 12 feet away from the property line and there would be a possibility that they could put the fence on the neighbor's height of the property, which would help. The restricted turning movement was also brought up prior to the meeting and that area was not the desire of their team and it was something that was asked of them from the Planning Department and they added this to keep the proj ect moving forward. Commissioner Whitaker asked if there was any thought in flipping the building so the drive-thru component would be on the east and more visible. Mr. Peruzzi stated that they tried many ways for it to work, most of them reduced parking, and in doing this it would create a larger dead zone. Chair Imboden stated that the parking and landscape are restricted by the square footage of the building and the Commission had heard that the project was balanced. However, it is not, as there are variances needed. As much as it was studied, did they know how much square footage would have to be removed to meet the parking and landscape requirements. Mr. Peruzzi stated that the property owner's lease agreement states that they cannot build less than a 23,000 square foot building on the site and they could meet the parking requirements if there were no restaurants on the project. Chair Imboden asked if he knew the square footage needed to comply with parking/landscape requirement? Mr. Peruzzi stated no, he did not as they could not go below 23,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Merino asked if the plan was a site adaptation of a standard Walgreens design or was it a custom design? Mr. Peruzzi stated it was a custom design and unique to the site, that some of the Walgreens have the drive-thru on one side vs. the other and this was not a prototypical plan. Ms. Douglas stated that the stores generally have the front door on one side of the building with the drive-thru at the opposite end. Commissioner Merino stated that they are requesting to run the 24-hour drive-thru for a year and then they could come back and evaluate. What if they proposed to have the drive-thru open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. then they could come back and request the Page 14 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 15 of 21 24-hour drive-thru. This would allow time to analyze any crime issues. Applicant, Amy Ciolek from the Deerfield, IL Walgreens office came forward to address the Commission. Regarding the hours and consideration, she did not understand what that would show and they believed having the drive-thru open 24 hours created less of an opportunity for crime. Commissioner Merino asked if they believed because the drive-thru would be open at 2:00 in the morning that there would be someone in the store to monitor the crime. Ms. Ciolek stated that they looked at other similarly designed Walgreens and studied if there were crime issues. She went to their crime prevention people and looked through reports and data and did not find any issues. What they found from local Police Departments was the statement that their drive-thrus were in areas that crime was deterred because the locations were well lit and there was a presence that deterred crime. Commissioner Merino asked if there would be someone at the drive-thru window monitoring the area. Ms. Ciolek stated that there would not be someone standing at the window but there would be people working in the area. They would provide adequate lighting and video surveillance, and that the 24-hour drive-thru was a valuable and necessary component of the project. Commissioner Steiner stated that more darkness, less activity, more crime. In a well lit area with people working in the location, coming and going to the window that this could assist in crime prevention. He was concerned about the 24-hour drive-thru as it related to the neighbors and having the drive-thru activity be a concern for them. Ms. Ciolek stated that the type of activity they would expect would be 4-5 cars per hour at peak times, during the night the average drops down to 2-3 cars per hour. Although that may seem insignificant it would offer a type of service that kept customer loyalty. Chair Imboden stated that Ms. Ciolek mentioned that the area would be well lit, but not so that it would have an impact on the neighboring properties. With a proposed fence of 6' he did not understand how this could happen. Mr. Peruzzi stated that there would be photo metrics for the project and in a situation like that they would have light standards in the planter and would comply with zero foot candles at the property line. In his experience he had dealt with neighbor complaints and they worked with the contractor to work out any lighting issues. On the back of the building there would be wall packs above the doors and light poles in the parking lot. Chair Imboden expressed his concern on having adequate lighting and how they would accomplish this without disturbing the neighboring property owners. Mr. Peruzzi stated that they could place light shields and they did understand that this was a neighborhood store and they would work with them to amend any issues. Commissioner Whitaker asked that on Condition No. 8 the drive-up window would be used for pharmacy services only. As Walgreens sells other convenience items does this mean that if someone came through the drive through that they could not purchase other Page 15 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15,2007 16 of 21 items. Ms. Ciolek stated that it was correct and the drive-thru is for the convenient drop off and pick up of pharmaceutical products only. Commissioner Whitaker, regarding the walls, asked if the Commission had a consensus and adhered to the DRC's recommendation to replace the existing 12' with a new 12' wall would they be willing to do this upon the Commissions draft of a condition. Mr. Peruzzi stated that there were some issues with building that. The existing building is a tilt up building and once the roof was removed the wall would fall over. There was a portion of the wall that shields the highest condition as the residences are higher in grade then the proposed proj ect. They had looked at keeping that wall, however when creating a 12' from which side would this be created. We were being conditioned to have a significant planter between the wall and Walgreens. He presented pictures which showed the analysis of the proposed higher wall and what that would look like. Ms. Ciolek stated that they looked at providing vegetative screening to the neighbors between the palms that could grow a number of feet and address the landscape requirement as well. Mr. Peruzzi stated that the with the 6' wall height from the neighbors' side they could plant trees and a mature hedge that in 2 years could be 12' tall with the potential of becoming 30' tall. Chair Imboden stated that in reviewing the diagrams there was an eccentric footing with a foot on top of that, clearly the diagrams would not show the proposed landscaping and if this was being proposed the footing would need to be lower. Mr. Peruzzi stated that there was a retaining wall on the neighbors' side and one property had a pool that was 4' away from the property line. They wanted to keep the neighbors as undisturbed as possible. Chair Imboden stated that it appeared by the diagrams provided that if the Commission wanted to see landscaping at the rear of the property they would propose a 6' wall, if the wall height was increased the landscaping would go away, and did the building foundation cross the property lines as noted in the diagrams. Mr. Peruzzi stated that if they went to a 12' wall they would ask that there be no landscaping along that wall. Regarding the property line they did have a testing agency saw cut and dig and they did see a footing that came out 12" and goes down 33" and it would be symmetrical and would cross the property line. Commissioner Merino stated that what is limiting your ability to provide more landscape was that the applicant did not want to interfere with the drive-thru lane. Mr. Peruzzi stated that was correct. Commissioner Bonina asked what type of stacking would normally be at the drive-thru window. Ms. Ciolek answered that there was generally 4-5 cars per hour during peak hours. Commissioner Bonina stated that the concern of the Police Department was that the drive-thru window was buried in a corner, and looking at the site plan was there an opportunity to shift the drive-thru to the front of the building. This would alleviate some Page 16 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 17 of 21 of the light and noise for the neighbors. You might lose some landscaping and possibly in shifting add landscaping to the back. Ms. Ciolek had brought this up to Staff, and was told that even moving it up would not help with that issue. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for public comment. Nathan Petz, 161 S. Shattuck Place, Orange, came forward to address the Commission and stated he was directly behind the drive-up area and his property had a pool. He had concerns with the 24 hr drive-thru window with speakers and lights this would be a problem for his property. The wall was a huge concern, with the current grading he was 3' higher than the commercial property below him. If the existing 15' wall would stay that would be good, but a 6' wall would be too low and he did not understand how they could leave one portion of the wall and take down other portions. He had a two-story home and he would get the noise from Chapman, he showed where his property was on the aerial photo. He stated that he had met with Sharon Douglas to voice their concerns. Wendy Casada, 162 S. Shadduck, Orange, came forward to address the Commission. She was concerned with asbestos in the building. She also had an issue with the wall, they bought the house in 1978 because of the 20' wall, to take it down would leave her wide open to Chapman, I have a dog, and then there is the security issue and a 6' wall would not work. The drive-thru and lighting would not be acceptable, the Applicant is stating that they would only have 3-4 cars coming through; however with the lighting and landscaping you still have the dead corner. The Police Department is correct. She was also concerned with the restaurant and additional retail. When the demolition begins she would have no privacy. Most Walgreens are not adjacent to residential area; they are open to main streets or commercial buildings. James Faydock, 127 S. Lincoln St. Orange, came forward to address the Commission. He stated that they couldn't ask for a better buffer than the wall. I was not aware that there would be a drive-thru and even a single car during the night would disrupt his sleep. The building would create a long dark tunnel, if someone wants to get into his backyard they would just need to go over the wall. He felt this was a good plan for Walgreens, and asked if the City really needed another one. Ms. Ciolek stated that in regard to the noise of the drive-thru, they are bound by HIP A laws and the noise is kept to a minimum. Walgreens are adjacent to residential areas quite often. Regarding asbestos there was some found at the roof and during demo all EP A Guidelines would be followed. Mr. Peruzzi stated that in taking down the current building and the comment about opening up the residents all the way down to Chapman; this would not be the case as the Walgreens building would still provide a buffer. Chair Imboden felt that what the public had referred to was the openness during demolition and construction of the building and he asked if there were any plans in place. Mr. Peruzzi stated that there would be screening for dust and noise control. That would be done by the contractor. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission. Page 17 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 18 of 21 Commissioner Merino had a question for the Police Department, and how they would respond to the applicant's claim of adequate lighting, surveillance and openness of the plan. Officer Beyer came forward and stated that they did attempt to work with Walgreens prior to DRC. There was some contradiction in that it was stated that there would be minimal vehicle traffic in the drive-thru, but then stated that the activity in the drive-thru would reduce criminal activity. There is a tunnel effect and there would be lighting required in the area and having zero light spillage would not be possible. He stated that the robberies that happened at Rite Aid, all occurred at their pharmacy. Commissioner Merino stated that this was a good plan, but a good plan for Walgreens. He felt he represented the community and what would be good for the community. If the building was flipped it would be better for the neighbors. There were contradictions made on the surveillance of the area, in having people at the drive-thru, but then stating that the traffic would be minimal so there would not be anyone there. In regards to lighting, there would be lighting in the area, but it would not spill over to the neighbors. The interaction in the drive-thru would disturb the neighbors. He felt that it was a good project and if the Walgreens representatives allowed the architects to come up with alternate designs it could be a good project for the community. Commissioner Bonina agreed with Commissioner Merino, and felt that it was a good Walgreens site. The only way the site plan would work is to relocate the drive-thru to the front of the building. That would take all of the traffic away from the back and alleviate the 2:00 a.m. traffic to the neighbors. In regards to the wall issue, the neighbors need an adequate wall height with lighting and security. As the project stands he could not support it. Commissioner Whitaker stated that he could support the project with conditions. He felt the 12' wall would not be high enough, possibly building a 15' wall with imbedded lighting. There would need to be conditions regarding the sound as it pertained to the neighbors. A variance would be needed for the wall and the item would need to come back to the Commission. He felt the area was an abandoned site and a crime hazard as it stood and a Walgreens would be a good development. He hesitated to make conditions to get the project to be approved. Commissioner Steiner was concerned with the impact on the residences and if he lived adjacent to a project he would be very concerned in light of the wall modifications. He stated that he would hope the project would come back and meet the needs of the neighbors. The public comment that was heard was reasonable and he hoped the Applicant would come up with something more palatable. Chair Imboden agreed with the Commissioners and felt the plans did not address the neighbors concerns. He felt the drive-thru window was in the worst place possible and to think that 3-4 cars an hour would not have an effect on those residences is not true. It is not relating to the existing neighbors. Because this was a complete demo and rebuild he was less interested in entertaining deficiencies on the parking, the fact that the applicant would create a building larger that what would be parked is not a unique site situation and he was more attached to parking than to landscape. He would be willing to making a finding that dealt with variances that dealt with proposed dedications on the property ande Page 18 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 19 of 21 not just that there would not be enough room on the site. He stated that he would not be pressured to move ahead on a project that would have a serious effect on the neighbors. Chair Imboden asked if the applicant was willing to continue the project to a date uncertain. The applicant and representatives agreed. Commissioner Steiner stated that the 24 hr drive-thru was not out of the question and the applicant should look for an alternate design with regard to the placement of the drive- thru window. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to continue to a date uncertain Conditional Use Permit 2677-07; Variance 2180-07; Minor Site Plan 491-07; Design Review Committee 4189-07 and Administrative Adjustment 151-07 - Walgreens. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2679-07 - ESPE RESIDENCE A proposal to allow the installation of full plumbing facilities within an eXIstmg accessory structure. The single-family residence is located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. LOCATION: 262 N. Cambridge NOTE: The proposed 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 No. 39-07 Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Imboden asked for clarification on the plans that showed new wood siding, roofing material, and fire place changes and were these old plans, and what were existing walls and what would be new. Mr. Knight stated that they may be adding new siding and roofing materials and there would be no expansion on the project. Commissioner Whitaker addressed the City Attorney and stated that there was a Page 19 of21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 20 of 21 condition that required the applicant to record a restriction on the property that under no uncertain circumstances this could not be uses as a second dwelling unit. Legally were they allowed to do that based on the Secondary Unit Law that states that an accessory dwelling unit not exceed 600'. He stated that they were approving just the bathroom but requiring the applicant to record a restriction on their property stating they would not use it as a secondary accessory dwelling unit, and would this prohibit the applicant from coming back later and wanting to add in a kitchenette. Mr. Sheatz stated that in the current condition, as a secondary accessory unit it would need to have a kitchen facility and things such as those. Mr. Sheatz stated no, it would not prohibit the applicant from coming back later. Mr. Knight stated that the condition did not state that they could never have, it would permit them to come back at a later date. Mr. Sheatz stated that the language needed to be changed. Chair Imboden asked if this was permitted space. Mr. Knight assumed that Mr. Ryan had confirmed that. Chair Imboden stated that typically when you do a 572 sq. ft. addition it would be intended for living space a requirement to revise the garage and accommodate for more parking. This had not been done in this case. He did not want to provide a CUP on a non- permitted building. Applicant, Tim V olk, address on file stated that this was a permitted building and it was completed through City Permits. There would be no change to the outside and he apologized for the plans that showed work that had already been completed. He agreed with all the stipulations and would comply with conditions. The resident was a single mom with two grown children and an additional restroom would be warranted. Commissioner Merino asked that if the game room was turned into a bedroom would that require additional permitting. Mr. Sheatz stated that it would not change anything. Chair Imboden stated that he was looking at this space as a guest space, and had concerns this would become living space and that the plans were not clear on the proposed use of the space. Commissioner Merino stated that it was the addition of a bathroom in an existing space and they were being asked to review a very minor project. Mr. Volt stated that the game room is very close to the actual house and was a very small space. It was just a matter of just one bathroom with three adults and a necessary addition. Chair Imboden stated that he would not want to see any walls changed in the home and he would be comfortable to move ahead with a condition that any changes to interior walls would need to come back to the City for review. Mr. Volt agreed with this requirement. Commissioner Bonina asked if they were able to restrict the applicant from building any Page 20 of 21 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2007 21 of 21 interior walls and not over step their bounds. The Commissioners discussed this issue and felt that they needed to review just what was before the Commission and not look at any future possibilities. Mr. Sheatz stated that based on the plans and what was in front of them; that the project needed to be approved on the plan submitted and any deviation would require a CUP. The Commission could approve the plans before them and any conditions they found necessary. Chair Imboden stated that it was a gray area and was not being reviewed under the life safety issues as they would on a full blown living unit. What he was seeing was livable, habitable space and those come to us for our review and input. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution 39- 07; Conditional Use Permit 2679-07 - Espe Residence with the stipulation that Condition No.4, under section one findings, be amended: (1) Acknowledge the existence of the State Accessory Dwelling Unit Code and being applicable to future applicants (2) Any modification to the structure outside off the application presented would require a CUP. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Bonina made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission on Monday, November 5, 2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 11 :06 Page 21 of 21 Pages