The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 - May 21 ea500.c..cO-3 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: 21 May 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino and Whitaker Commissioner Steiner Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Jacqueline Bateman, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621-06 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to co-locate and operate a wireless telecommunications antenna facility on a non-stealth existing monopole and associated equipment cabinets on a property owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). LOCATION: 4725 E. Chapman Avenue RECOMMENDED ACTION: Applicant is requesting additional time to gather the additional information as requested by the Planning Commission at the April 16, 2007 meeting. Item to be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on June 4,2007. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06 to June 18,2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Bonina, Whitaker & Merino None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 16,2007. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 16, 2007 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino & Bonina None Commissioner Whitaker Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (3) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17088-06, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 451-06, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4120-06, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1781-06 - ROSEWALK A proposal to demolish 40 existing one-bedroom apartment units (Orange Villa Homes) and construct 47 detached town homes. Continued from the March 19,2007 meeting. LOCATION: The site is located at 715-793 North Lemon Street. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1781-06 (Exhibit A) was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 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 PC Resolution No 13-07 recommending City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17088, Major Site Plan Review No. 0451- 06, Design Review Committee No. 4120-06, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1781-06. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Bonina asked staff to clarify that the average price of the attached product is $489 per foot. Staff responded that the amount is based on the research provided by the applicant. Commissioner Bonina asked if, based on a 1500-2000 square foot unit, would the price have a market value of $800,000? Staff deferred that question to the applicant to answer. Page 2 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Commissioner Merino wanted clarification on the parking situation on the access road. Staff responded that the private road originally had parallel parking on both sides of the street and with the new configuration; the parking is only on the northern side of the road, which frees up space. Commissioner Whitaker questioned City Attorney Sheatz regarding the affordable housing and their ability to ask for a waiver. He wanted to know if there is a mandate on the Commission under the density bonus as to what the Commission has to grant versus what is discretionary. City Attorney Sheatz responded that most is discretionary. The guidelines have suggestions and things that they tell you should be considered based on state law, but nothing is mandatory. Each community is unique and the state is not going to tell you what to do, you should be working and developing that with staff. Chair Imboden brought up a question that was discussed during the last Planning Commission meeting. He stated that one of the Commissioners asked if this project was a planned unit development? The applicant responded that sooner or later they end up being that. Chair Imboden stated that in his review, this project does not have the acreage that they require for a planned unit development. He states that it is being called a detached townhouse. When looking at our definition of townhouse, it's quite clear that it is not a detached unit. He states that he is not clear on how we came to this kind of proposal. It appears as more of a single-family residential development, but is using developmental standards that are really for another housing type. Chair Imboden asked for the history of how the staff came up with the definition of detached townhouses. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur responded that based upon what was being proposed, we applied the R-3 standards. While it may seem to function much like a single-family home, it doesn't have the driveway length that would be required in a single-family home or the setbacks, the open space and yard. Chair Imboden stated that the structure itself lends itself to being a single-family home. He wants to know if there is something unique about these buildings that lends them to the townhouse concept of having one or two common walls or are they closer to a single- family residential development in terms of the structure itself? Assistant Planning Manager Ed Knight responded stating that he realizes that the definition of a townhouse is usually viewed as an attached product and has a single lot attached to it. It's usually occupancy by a family on the first floor or second floor as opposed to a condominium which is usually air rights and you might have stacked units and stacked ownership. The closest that this comes to be the 10- Y ear Census Bureau has a town home that is a detached dwelling unit more like an urban unit that is detached and the Census Bureau does acknowledge town homes that are detached. Our Zoning Code has difficulty getting to this type of unit. This type of product does exist in some of our planned communities in East Orange that were adopted as part of the Irvine Company project. I'm not trying to make a comparison between this and the Irvine Company Planned Community because that was a much larger area, but they do have a product that is similar to this. They have their own unique name and we went through that when we looked at the design guidelines for that project, but the closest you can get to this is calling it a town home is the Census Bureau's definition of a detached townhouse which Page 3 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 they do acknowledge as both attached and detached. Commissioner Merino asked a question referring to Page 9 of the Staff Report. Of the 229 calls that are referenced in the staff report, were those calls for service from residents that had some sort of crime impact upon them? Can you amplify what we meant by reports and whether it was being done to the current residents of that area or because of the residents of that area? Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur responded by saying that was not specified within the vicinity of the 600-800 block. She deferred that response to the Orange Police Department. She stated that Sergeant Bird was not in the audience specifically to answer questions regarding Rosewalk, but might be able to answer the Commissioner's questions. Chair Imboden wanted clarification on the difference between a call and an incident and if Sergeant Bird had any indication where those incidents occurred in relation to the Rosewalk area? Commissioner Whitaker also wanted clarification regarding the staff report that stated that there were 229 calls for service, 92 reports taken down and 128 crimes reported. He stated there is a difference in terminology. What's a crime reported versus a report being taken versus a call for service? Commissioner Merino stated that what he is interested in knowing is that one of the positives about this project was that we hoped it would reduce crime in the neighborhood. Is that because the residents of the existing neighborhood are crime causers or whether this project being done is not going to make the crimes go away? Chair Imboden reiterated that the project was not one that Sergeant Bird had reviewed for those kinds of questions. Sergeant Bird answered affirmatively. Chair Imboden stated that we would have to rely on City staff to give us the answers to those specific questions and stick to the terminology questions. Commissioner Merino said that he didn't care who answers the questions, but he would like an answer to his questions. Sergeant Bird stated that reviewing the terminology a call for service is exactly what it is, anything that was called into the Police Department or taken over the desk reporting that there was an incident in the area had occurred. It does not mean that a report was taken or that somebody was taken into custody or that an incident was reviewed later on for investigative needs. They are showing average crimes 99, which must be 2006 statistics, because that was the average for all the reporting districts in the City, 99 crimes per district, those are reported crimes meaning that a report was generated and there was some type of investigation carried out of that particular incident. Also mentioned in the report, there were 128 crimes reported in that particular district which means exactly that there were 128 reports generated for that particular district, 99 being the average for the entire City in each district. As far as the question rose by Commissioner Merino regarding causal factor of those reports, it's across the board. They could be victims or they could be suspects. There are numerous causal factors and without being able to review the reports for each of those crimes, it would be too difficult to say and I'm sure Page 4 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 that we could probably provide a percentage of who were victims and who were suspects and we would have to pull each individual report to see if it was a suspect and did they actually reside in that particular reporting district. Commissioner Merino asked that based on Sergeant Bird's particular experience and knowledge of the community as a whole, if you see crime statistics of this level, 29% over the City average, what would that lead you believe of the neighborhood? Is it a neighborhood that has a larger criminal element issue or not? Sergeant Bird responded that it's pretty average. Commissioner Bonina asked Sonal if she used the in field design standards for the streetscape when the project was created? She responded that we do and we also have the Community Services Department employee Howard Morris, who sits in on the Staff Review Committee and Design Review Committee meetings, review the project as well to be sure that it complies with their landscape standards as far as types of species and location. Commissioner Bonina asked what was the thought process of having two and three story units on Lemon where the adjacent properties are almost exclusively one story? Sonal responded that the houses on Lemon are both one and two story "tower like" homes. Since the homes are fronting an industrial area, the three-story units are more towards the interior so that the impact on the residential surrounding area wouldn't be that great. Commissioner Bonina asked of the 47 units, how many are three story? Sonal responded that Plans 2, 3 and 4 are all potentially 3-story units. Plans 2 and 3 could be construed as 2-1/2 stories and only Plan I is 2-story. Commissioner Bonina reiterated that based on those numbers, there are 33 three-story units and 14 two-story units. One of the arguments for approval of this project is that five of the 33 three-story units are dedicated to moderate income for a period of 45 years. Sonal responded yes. Chair Imboden said that he had a hard time looking at the site plan to determine what the front setback was on Lemon Street. It appears there is a 15' dimension but it doesn't typically go to the sidewalk where we might expect to find it. He would like clarification on that and told Sonal she could answer at a later time. Before calling up the applicant, Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz wanted to be more precise on the reading of the City's ordinance in answer to Commissioner Whitaker's question. He stated that Ordinance 1714370 talks about the development incentives on the affordable housing and it says "The project proponent may propose the particular incentive or desire but the reviewing body shall determine which incentive or concession is most appropriate considering the economic feasibility of the development project and the impacts on the City's budget, public health, safety and well fair of surrounding properties". That's the standard of criteria that's in the Ordinance. Commissioner Whitaker stated that he wanted to know if it is discretionary as to which concession? Is there a mandate that a concession has to be made because of the proposal for the affordable housing? Assistant City Attorney Sheatz said if you are accepting the project with an affordable housing component, you must have a concession. That's the only way it will work. You would move on to that concession to try to come to resolution. Page 5 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Chair Imboden asked was anyone in the audience that wished to comment either in favor of or against the project to bring up their speaker's cards at this time. The only two speakers were the applicant, Telford Walker and his architect, Mike Woodley. Mr. Walker said that Mr. Woodley was there to address the issues that the Planning Commission had at their previous meeting. Mr. Walker then introduced Mr. Woodley. Mr. Woodley stated that from the questions the Commissioners were asking he wanted to give the Commissioners a history of the project. His company started looking at a number of solutions: · Increase the value ofthe area · Enhance the area in a single-family fee The values that were quoted were based on comps done previously. Single-family is the right thing to do for a project like this. Although there is no property line, which is the distinction between townhouses, condominiums and single-family homes, the project is single-family like. One of the objectives for this community was not to create a walled community. They wanted it to be open on Lemon Street and that's the reason why they created the Paseo lane houses. The traditional single-family homes have a garage in the front with a front door. We separated the garage door and the front so we have lanes and Paseos, and we think that's a good solution that has been done for a number of years dated back to the 1920's or 1930's. These areas live well, wear well and are very pedestrian friendly. They created a main boulevard down the center of the project and that become the spine of the project and off that the lanes and the paseos feed off that boulevard. It makes it conducive to residential and guest parking and the guest parking is way over what they were required to provide. The way that these houses are set up there is a private side and an active side to the house. There is light coming in from both sides, but they are really focusing on the privacy issue. The private spaces may be small, but they are very private unlike traditional single family houses where the house is in the center of the lot and windows would align, yet you have traditional setbacks. There really is no more privacy, so what we have done is create very private outdoor spaces, even though they are smaller than some single family houses, they are very private. We think we have addressed all the issues that were brought up at the last meeting and I know that you have gone over them a bit, but just to understand what we have done, we're over our common space requirement. It should be noted that the idea of use able is 20', but we're at 19', we don't meet the definition but it's still usable in our mind. That's why we added the numbers together because the paseos actually vary and they're not continuous. They have porches and elements that project in and, in some cases, they get narrower than 20' and we don't count those into our calculations because your definition requires 20' clear. But if you look at the plan you can see we have movement and really it is usable outdoor space. It may not meet the definition of 20', but it is usable so we're over on our common open space requirement. Page 6 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 The parking I believe was explained very well. How we were able to add parking spaces by turning them perpendicular. We have .7 parking for guests, 2 covered and .7 for guests. I believe anyone would say that is a very high guest-parking ratio. The entry has been opened up so it gives a little wider feel and space when you enter the project. There were some particular questions regarding storage within the units so we've shown where we have provided the cubic storage that is required. The clearance in the garages has 6' underneath the stairs as it's sloping up so it really should accommodate most cars. Regarding the windows, we carefully composed the houses so they don't line up and so the windows really do offer that privacy that we were looking for. I'm here to answer any questions and we are very excited about the project. We believe it will be a real asset to the neighborhood. There are a lot of examples throughout Orange County where these kinds of paseo lane projects have been built, one being the Irvine Company. We think that this idea of not having single-family, garage in the front, is an interesting solution that will increase in value and hold its value long term. I'm here if you have any questions or need clarification on anything. Chair Imboden asked Mr. Walker ifhe had any further comments before they asked their questions? Mr. Walker stated that he just wanted Mr. Woodley there so that he could zero in on any questions from the previous meeting and answer any questions that the Commission would have. Commission Imboden said that there are some questions that needed to be addressed. He asked Mr. Woodley about the storage. He wanted to know how they derived with the concept of the storage? A lot of the storage is coming out of the garage space and some of it is being tucked under what would otherwise be attic space. Before you comment, I would like to share with you my concern when it gets tucked under the attic space. Once it gets below a certain height, because that is a sloping roof, I have concerns whether that is really usable storage space or not. Mr. Woodley responded that they have mixed it up. Sometimes it's underneath the stairs and sometimes it's in that attic space. The way we understand it, it's asking for cubic space not really saying a maximum height and so we thought that would be usable space. It's clearly storage although it might not be storage for tall items such as refrigerators, but as we understood it was a cubic space requirement not a certain height so we thought that was a smart way of using that space. One thing that I forgot to add that I think is important for all of us to understand and that is the idea that we asked for some kind of a height limit increase. We really didn't ask for a height limit increase. The only thing we're doing is asking to have three stories, but the height is under the allowable height and what we've done is actually lower the plate height within the units. We could easily have done 10' plates, pitch roofs that are higher and actually had the exact same massing as these 3-story units. Sometimes we get hung up on this idea of 3 stories, but we're within the 32' height limit. We just are doing it under roof and that's why we have the attic solution. We only have one unit that really have 3 floors expressed in the building. Page 7 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 The other 3-story, as we're calling it, is within the attic, but all of them are within the height limit of the area that is allowed. We've just done it, we think, in a creative way that we're getting the three usable floors under that height limit. We're not really asking for a height increase, we're just asking for three stories versus two stories. We can have the exact same mass. In fact, if you look at the two-story, it's not significantly lower than the so-called three-story unit, so I think that's an important distinction. Chair Imboden asked regarding the stairs if they had reworked them and they now have a 6' clearance? I'm looking specifically at Plan 3. I'm seeing 9 risers that enter the garage and I'm baffled how you can get 9 risers to become 6'? Mr. Woodley responded that 9 times 7 is 63". Chair Imboden states that we are still considerably short of 6'. Mr. Woodley responds that he believed it was 6', but maybe not on that particular plan. If that's what we need to hit is 6', I know we can do it because we can project the stairs out slightly. If you were to condition us and say we want 6' or 5', we can meet that condition. The idea is that we can get space even if we need to add a couple more risers coming out. I propose you tell us what you think is a comfortable level. We thought 6' and we're comfortable making that requirement to be 6'. Chair Imboden asked regarding the private open space. He stated if you look at the sheet labeled "Site Data" that has a typical module on it. I realize there is space being shared. When you get down to the end units where you have Plan I, nearly half the length of that patio is 2-1/2 feet wide with a wall around it? Do I understand that correctly? Mr. Woodley responds yes and my understanding is that's a requirement that staff wanted to have that space. I personally feel like the fence should go up against that property line, so I agree with you. Ifwe could bring that fence to the property line, we would add 2-1/2 feet to that private outdoor space. Chair Imboden said he would ask City staff to clarify whether they did require that. Chair Imboden stated that Mr. Woodley provided a proposal of how the trash would be collected from this project. I don't know if that came from your office or not and this might require some input from staff as well. Typically in Orange we have three cans, it appears that you've only accommodated for two in this proposal and also I'm not quite clear how it works that those are placed in the parking spaces themselves. Clearly if someone leaves early for work, they have to take their trash out, there's a car parked there and they're not going to be able to do that. Vice versa, they don't get home until 7:00 in the evening and their trashcans are sitting there blocking the guest parking. That's my perception of it. Can you elaborate on that a little bit for me? Mr. Woodley responded that he would try although he didn't personally address the trash. Mr. Woodley asks for some clarification from Mr. Walker. Chair Imboden pulls out the Waste Removal Exhibit. Mr. Woodley does not have a copy of that exhibit so Chair Imboden hands him his copy. Mr. Woodley responds that he doesn't think that's a great solution to him. Chair Imboden responds, enough said. He says that he will have more questions for staff, but that was all he had for now. Mr. Woodley explains how trash is typically handled in projects like this. The trash is Page 8 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 outside someone' s garage and not in a guest parking space. He states that he is not as familiar with the trash as he should be. Commissioner Whitaker's question concerns the 26 units in the plans that have a 4th bedroom with an optional bonus room. Basically you are seeking to use the parking standards for multi-family housing, R-3, but with 4 bedrooms and a detached structure, you're probably going to have to use a single-family home that would normally have the large driveway and a 3-ar garage and I'm wondering if there is any willingness on the part of the applicant to either remove a couple of the units or to restructure this design to get it where you can dedicate a full 3'd reserved parking space for each one of those units, because the reality of usage, especially in a highly congested areas like that, is if you are going to have a four bedroom home, you're going to at least have three vehicles and forget about the guests, but you'll at least have three vehicles. Mr. Woodley states that typically there would be a .5 guest-parking ratio. We feel that we're over what would typically be required for something like this. For a single family a 2-car garage is pretty typical. Commissioner Whitaker states but you have a large driveway and you usually have a large expanse in front of the home and you don't have any of that here. You've got a single family product and you're asking us to apply the requirements for attached multi-family housing, which has typically got less bedrooms and less usage, so are you as the applicant willing to make efforts in the design to get to more parking that you would normally have in a single family residential. In other words, on those 26 units where you are going to get up to 4 bedrooms, get that third reserved parking space for that unit. Mr. Woodley responds that if it's Plan 4 with 4 bedrooms or Plan 3 with 3 bedrooms and a bonus room, there are 26 units that have that option. In reality, I'm not sure that all your single-family guidelines require a driveway. I know that oftentimes that is typically the case, but I'm saying that typically a two-car garage with a .5 guest with these kinds of projects, whether they are 4 bedrooms with bonus or 3 bedrooms, is a typical kind of ratio and we're over that. If there's some kind of criteria that you have that we don't know about, then we can address that, but to just say that we need to give you more parking, I don't know what that means. You need to tell us with a 4 bedrooms we need to have a driveway. Commissioner Whitaker responds that you are putting a type of product on that is different from a multi-family attached product and you are asking for particular waivers of the design standards in other areas. What I'm saying is that I have a lot of trouble with the parking because I think that the product is really more like a single family home, it's going to get used like a single family home, you're going to have vehicles like a single family home, and so if we're going to put this in a more condensed area, yes, maybe our standard for single family housing says that we're only supposed to have 2.5 spaces per unit, but you're asking for other waivers. This is a different type of product so I think the reality of how it is functionally going to be used requires more parking in exchange for us, as a Commission, giving that type of waiver. Mr. Woodley responds that I think you have approved similar requests and would like to know what the requirements were on those projects? What is the target he needs to hit? Commissioner Whitaker responds that he is merely giving him the opinion of one Commissioner that on your 26 4-bedroom units, he thinks, for him to be comfortable in Page 9 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 granting the other waivers, he needs to see at least another reserved parking space for each unit. Commissioner Bonina thanks Mr. Woodley for coming by and for his patience. Commissioner Bonina asks regarding the open space exhibit, mine doesn't have a whole lot of dimensions as he hoped it would, but on the particular modular, could you run from bottom to top on the property line and give me the distances between the property line and the buildings? Chair Imboden wants to add on that when he looks at the exhibit of individual plans, he is seeing property lines around each unit. Mr. Woodley responds those are assumed property lines, not real property lines. Chair Imboden says there are use easements and those types of things that he would like clarification on. Mr. Woodley responds that those are assumed property lines, not real. From a Building and Safety standpoint, you must show a property line, so that's why they are shown that way. There are really no physical defined property lines. Chair Imboden asked that when he goes through the plans, could he be specific in which ones he is speaking of because some show up and some do not. Commissioner Bonina asks if the assumption would be that these are the right dimensions on the site plan. Mr. Woodley answers yes. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Woodley if it is Site Study B that he is speaking of and Mr. Woodley again answers correct. Commissioner Bonina would like Mr. Woodley to read off the dimensions from Site Study B. Mr. Woodley states that starting from the far left up against Lemon Street, I believe it's 15 feet. Your drawings are bigger than mine, so you can see the dimension on the drawing is 15 feet. That is to the right-of-way and there is a dedication beyond that so that's to the property line on the front. Mr. Woodley states that he is going to work from left to right and Commissioner Bonina states that he would then like him to work from side to side. Chair Imboden asks if the sidewalks that he is proposing are in line with the existing sidewalks? He states that it seems a little off to him. Mr. Woodley states that he believes it is because he believes the sidewalk, if anything, could be further away from the houses. I don't believe the sidewalks are into the right-of-way. Chair Imboden says he understands that, but they are looking for continuity in the community and if their sidewalk doesn't line up with the existing sidewalk, Mr. Woodley interrupts by stating that the map does not show the context of the sidewalk, so he cannot say 100% for sure, but he believes it does. We can look at the aerial and see, but he believes it does. Mr. Woodley states the lane is 30' by 30' garage door to garage door and then a 24' drive isle. Commissioner Bonina asks whether the 30' is from face to face garage? Mr. Woodley answers yes. Commissioner Bonina asks the nodes, are they 3' on either side? Mr. Woodley answers yes. Mr. Woodley then goes on to say that the building depth, the paseo varies anywhere from 16' to 22', it varies narrower to wider, but the narrowest spot, you see building face to building face is like 16' plus a little bit. Commissioner Bonina says, so unit #9 is a Plan 3, which is a 3-story building, Mr. Woodley states 2-1/2, Page 10 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 #20 is also a 3-story building, or 2-1/2, and between those two buildings we have 16' feet, 16' 19", engineering scale. Is there anything protruding into that area? There are some little porch posts that look like they project out slightly, so we're building face to building face that dimension. Are those patios or porches; are they the ones that someone mentioned were 2' in width? Two foot in width is Plan I up against the property line at the bottom. So what is the dimension of that patio? It's like a front porch or entry porch and it sticks out I' at the most. Chair Imboden wants a clarification about the front porch being I' deep. He asks Mr. Woodley to clarify and Mr. Woodley states it projects beyond the building I'. Commissioner Bonina states that he wanted to get an idea of where the porch projects and gets clarification that it is I foot beyond the building face, side to side, so it would be 14' essentially porch to porch. Unit #10 and Unit #19, what's that distance? Mr. Woodley states that he doesn't have a dimension on the distance between the two of those units. Commissioner Bonina states that it appears to be much closer. Mr. Woodley states that he believes it is 15' and doesn't appear to him as being closer. Mr. Woodley is projecting the line down and he says it could be 14' but he doesn't think so. We then go to another drive lane and they are the same dimensions, 30' and 24' curb to curb. Commissioner Bonina states that it seems that the distance is narrower than the space they just spoke about on the left. Is that just my eyes? Mr. Woodley states that he could put a scale on it, but they set it up based on 30' face to face and 24'6" knoll to knoll. Then we would come to buildings 23 and 32 and at that point what was 16' in the previous block, is now 20' and so it widens out in an area to 26' from building face to building face, 20' to 26' within there. And then we would repeat the same lane dimension of 30 and 24 and then we have a similar paseo lane as the first one we went through and then the 22 as it widens out in spots. That is repeated on the opposite side so the dimensions are very similar across. Commissioner Bonina asks if these are just mirrored? Mr. Woodley states yes. Commissioner Bonina adds with an additional unit added? Mr. Woodley states correct. Mr. Woodley goes on to say working vertically, I think what happens is it shows best on each individual plan. He states that he is looking at the plans because he can see the dimensions that are on the floor plans. Commissioner Bonina asks aren't those imaginary property lines as you suggest? Mr. Woodley responds, no they are assumed, not imaginary. Commissioner Bonina asks if they are assumed, are they accurate? Mr. Woodley states yes they are accurate. That's what we based then on so as you work vertically down the page, each one of these units have this kind of open space as you see and we set that up as a criteria as a minimum and I believe that's what we have all the way through. We have nothing less than that, there may be slightly more than that, but I believe that's what it is. Plan I has a 2'6" from the relief to the property line that is a little bit of a strange area because I'm not sure how it's maintained. Our preference would be to bring the fence right on out to that property line and that would give us almost 8' plus, between the garage and fence, in our private outdoor space. Commissioner Bonina asks what is the distance between the building and the property line? Mr. Woodley responds it varies. At Page 11 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 the minimum it's 5' and then it picks up and it's 8'. Commissioner Bonina states that Plan I is a 2-story and Mr. Woodley agrees. Plan 3 has the width of the building and it would have 9'4" to the adjacent building at its widest spot and then it would be 6' from building to building. Commissioner Bonina asks between Unit 7 and Unit 6, are those dimensions you are suggesting, 9' and then 6'? Mr. Woodley responds yes and that would be similar to unit 5 and 6. Chair Imboden asks when you are talking about distance from building to building; are you talking about face of building to face of building? The eaves would project into that. Do you have any idea how the plans are drawn? The eaves are 12". Commissioner Bonina asks about the other side of unit 5. Do you have a significant amount of open space of I,OOO'? Mr. Woodley answers yes. Commissioner Bonina wants to know the dimension of that space from face to the street? Mr. Woodley states that there is not a dimension, he can scale it, but it won't be precise. It's 18' plus the sidewalk that comes to about 22' at minimum. We have a 25' drive lane and then we would essentially mirror. Commissioner Bonina asked what is the distance was between the street and unit #4? Mr. Woodley responds that the walk is at least 4' and he believes the total distance is 6'. Commissioner Bonina says then we repeat the 9 and the 6. Mr. Woodley responds correct. Commissioner Bonina asks if the recreation area has a dimension of 36-1/2' face to building? Mr. Woodley responds correct. Is there a net area that one would allocate to the open space when you take away the sidewalks? Mr. Woodley responds that they haven't calculated the net area minus the sidewalks. He doesn't believe the open space area requires us to calculate the area minus the sidewalks and we haven't done that. Commissioner Bonina is just trying to get a sense as to what that open space would be. Mr. Woodley responds it is 36-1/2 feet minus a 4-foot walk, so you are at 32-1/2 feet to the building. Commissioner Bonina asks how 5,803 versus 4,098? Mr. Woodley responds he is not sure. The actual figure is 4,098, he's not sure why the 5,803 was left on there. One of them is incorrect, but I'm not sure which one it is. Commissioner Bonina asks about the infill development standards. How does this project conform to the area? One of the criteria is trying to meld into an existing height and bulk of the entire area or at least that street, Mr. Woodley responds that the height is within the required area of 32' and that's why it's important not to focus on the stories. We would be allowed and we would fit into the standards by doing two stories that had 12' ceilings as long as we're under 32', so all we're doing is changing the story requirements, not the height. Chair Imboden wants to clarify that even with this other alternative, it would still require approval. You've used that as an answer a couple of times this evening. I would appreciate when the Commissioner's ask the questions specifically that you not use that as the answer because that would still require approval as well. Mr. Woodley said that Commissioner Bonina asked about bulk and he thought that it would be related to bulk and that's why he answered it that way. He believes that it does meet the infill requirements because of the bulk, because we're within the height limit. Page 12 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Commissioner Bonina asks for Mr. Woodley's opinion on how it looks when you look at the apartments that are contiguous to the site on Lemon Street? As you look to the right those are single story and on your left those are one story buildings immediately adjacent to the property. How does that transition occur in your mind exactly? Mr. Woodley responds that there's no mistake that it's going to be higher. I really think that a project like this is something that rejuvenates an area or has the potential of doing that. Do we know for sure? No, but we think this kind of stuff does this and that is our hope. Can I tell you that it's perfect in scale; it's a one story versus a two story. If that is a one-story building then this will be a two-story building. It's a transition. It's why, on the edges, we went to a lower profile and worked our way up to the middle. It's because we wanted to respect the scale on the side the best that we could. Commissioner Bonina asked would you consider this a stand-alone project? Mr. Woodley responds that there is clearly nothing like it next door and in that case it's different from what's around it and what's across the street. Commissioner Bonina responds it's self-contained for the most part. Mr. Woodley says that's one way of looking at it. I would say in terms of respecting the edges, we've dropped the edges on the side to keep it from standing out. We've tried to respect the edges as best we can, but is it clearly different from what's around it? Yes it is. Commissioner Bonina states the edges are one story. Mr. Woodley responds yes. If you were to say to me what is the best thing contractually to do next to one story, if you said the only thing you can do is just one stories and next transition, that's what you would have. There has to be a transition. Commissioner Bonina says that you have an opportunity here to transition. You have one story on the exterior. You transition to two, then to three as you go into your project. Mr. Woodley comments that somewhere you are transitioning from a one story to a two story and we choose to do it at the edge of the project. Clearly it's a transition, so no matter where you go from one to two there's a transition. Commissioner Bonina responds I don't disagree with you on that, that's a transition. The only issue I would have with that is does it impact the adjacent property or not? My way doesn't impact the adjacent property; your way does impact the adjacent property. Commissioner Merino asks if he is a registered architect? Mr. Woodley responds yes. Commissioner Merino then goes on to say that there are certain proportions that lend themselves towards a pleasant outdoor space and certain other proportions that don't. In looking at the areas that you use to essentially meet the open space requirements for this project, there are a lot of spaces that are fairly narrow between fairly tall building elevations. I'm just wondering are those applicable to those proportions? As I see it, a space that's three times higher than it is wider, is not necessarily considered a good proportion for an open space, is it? Mr. Woodley responds, I want to be sure I understand when you say the spaces we're using to meet our open space; those are the 20 x 20 minimum? Commissioner Merino responds aren't you using some of the areas in between the side yards. Mr. Woodley responds not to meet our open space requirement. That is in addition to the open space. Commissioner Merino asks so if you lost those spaces, you'd still meet the open space. Mr. Woodley responds we'd still meet the open space. Commissioner Merino says then my follow-up question would be are those really useable pleasant spaces between those homes, in your opinion? Mr. Woodley responds I'm sure you've traveled. In Europe these little nooks and crannies are very comfortable. We do work all over and in Orange County itself, you go to Balboa Island you're going Page 13 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 to see these nooks and crannies in these spaces that get a little bit of light in there because space is precious and those kinds of spaces are desirable. They're private and yet it would be nice to be able to have great big space. Commissioner Merino states but the reason that space is precious in this particular development is the applicant has a certain level of monetary remuneration that he is trying to reach. Mr. Woodley concurs with this assessment. Commissioner Merino clarifies that in Europe it's done because there is not a lot of space and here you are starting with a clean slate. Mr. Woodley says that potentially the space has a certain quality about it. Chair Imboden wants clarification of the questions. He states that Commissioner Merino was talking about required private space and Mr. Woodley was talking about open space. He wants to make sure that everyone is clear that these are required spaces for the units, correct? You couldn't just do away with the space? Mr. Woodley responds to meet the common open space; it is not part of the calculation. Chair Imboden clarifying again, says that he understands that, but these are the required open spaces for the unit? Correct? These are not just superfluous spaces, these are required usable spaces, and every unit must have these? Mr. Woodley says yes they are required spaces. Commissioner Merino comments so they are required spaces. For his prospective you've met the intent of the law but this may not be a pleasant space to be in and one of the things we are concerned about here in Orange is the quality of life and the fabric of the overall community and I'm concerned, do you have the same concern that perhaps some of these oddly proportioned outdoor spaces ends up being no man's land instead of being useable? You are meeting your obligation under the code, but you're not really creating a pleasant space or something that someone is actually going to use. Mr. Woodley responds that we've done this before, in new communities. We've supplied photos of some of these areas and I actually think they are pretty desirable because, unlike a conventional single family where you can have 5' between units, there are windows on them and they are not very private where this is a very private space and that makes it, in some ways, more desirable. Commissioner Merino states that he could take one row of units out and you could spread things out and these units would get a little more spacious and more pleasant, wouldn't that be a desirable thing to see in this project? Mr. Woodley states yes, he would like to have an acre for every house, but at some point you have to have an economic discussion with it. Commissioner Merino states let's talk about the actual spaces you've created with it. One of the things we've talked about regarding this project is that it would improve any crime issues that would be going on in this area. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the crime statistics are correct and it's a very substantial above average crime area. These little spaces, unlike a European urban area, have perhaps a higher crime area. Creating these little spaces for individuals with nefarious purposes to kind of hide and perhaps be invisible to law enforcement might not be a good idea. Mr. Woodley comments that it's no different than any side yard on a single family home. Commissioner Merino asks but aren't those usually a little bit larger? Mr. Woodley replies, not really. Commissioner Merino asks you might have a window? Mr. Woodley states that it is really no different than a single family with 5 and 5. We have 9'6" so we're 6" shorter than a single family. Commissioner Merino asks but you don't have to be? Mr. Woodley states you're asking me does this produce more crime and I don't think any more than a single family home. Commissioner Merino says if you have higher Page 14 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 dense area with high crime rate and you wanted to essentially reduce that, this would not necessarily be the best methodology to achieve that? Mr. Woodley says that he would not say that if you were trying to get me to say that this would increase crime because we have small areas, I would not do that. Commissioner Merino states that he was hoping it would decrease crime because one ofthe arguments made in support of this project is that it will be better than what we have there, which is multi-family, single story, lots of visibility. Mr. Woodley responds, different demographic. Commissioner Merino asks in looking at these units, assuming that they don't materialize the sort of demographic that you're looking for, what is the alternative that this development turns into if the demographic doesn't happen? Mr. Woodley responds that the housing market is definitely changing, but the most desirable market that seems to be the strongest is in price ranges of $500,000 that might be considered affordable in today's environment. I believe that has a very strong possibility of success in today's environment. We're seeing lots of areas that are very cold but other areas that are very hot and I think if we can get a price point that we can get, I think it has a very strong chance of being successful. If it's not successful, then the applicant has some problems, but I think that this has a very strong possibility of success, even more than a possibility. We've done projects like this and they've been very successful so I am very confident it will be. Commissioner Merino asked of those that have been successful, what price ranges are they? Mr. Woodley states anywhere from $300,000 to $4,000,000. Commissioner Merino asks you've had units at $300,000 with this amount of square footage? Mr. Woodley answers yes, absolutely. Chair Imboden asked looking at the R-3 multi family residential. I see the purpose of this zoning designation, and this is coming direct from our Municipal Code, is to provide a minimum of ground area coverage and a maximum of open space with higher density developments. Then when I go to our definition of townhouse, a detached townhouse, a dwelling unit with one or two common walls and which has direct access to private yards and no common floors or ceilings with other units. I'm having difficulty with this project in terms of its submittal against its review and I posed that question to City staff and I can't say that it was answered to my satisfaction, with all due respect to them. This is your proposal. Is there anything you can say to make me or other Commissioners up here more comfortable with this? It clearly, to me, doesn't meet what our ordinance is looking for at least in the letter of the law. Mr. Woodley replies it's clearly not attached so it doesn't fall into the attached category, but the reality is it's not traditional single family. There are no property lines. You don't have a great spot for it. You've apparently approved some of these in your master plans, so you must have found a spot for it or you called it something else in some specific plans. It is a hybrid. It's not unique or ever been done before. We do it all the time, but to fit it into your slots has been challenging and this seemed to be the best way to do it, to call it a detached town home because if you read specifically it says attached, but that's why it's put detached town home because that, therefore, makes it different. We have to find a slot for it because the alternative to this is some sort of attached housing and in an attached housing, all the questions that you've raised here tonight, is it a better solution, do we really get a better solution in attached housing? Do we really address crime better by putting some sort of attached housing or leaving it the way it is? Do we really solve Page 15 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 some of the issues that you have by leaving it the way it is? Is attached housing that is 24' meeting the criteria that you have set? Is that really a better solution for this site at the end of the day? My sense is that my client came to us and asked us what the best solution was to bring value to this property. We still think single family like is still the best thing to bring value to this property and we think value to the community. We can meet the criteria of what the multi family zoning is, but is that really going to give us a better solution? We think that you have some of the same kind of issues you've raised, but worse, more challenging. To a transition, we think it would be very challenging to make that. Values, we think the values would be lower. Maybe not the exact numbers, but we think the values would be lower for multi family. This is the perfect solution. Does it have a perfect spot in your zoning? No. That's why we worked with staff to come up with this. We've really done what we think we can, the best that we can, to try to fit this in a particular slot. It's not perfect. We worked with your Design Review to work through all those issues. We think we have a very good solution. I've tried my best to tell you honestly how we've addressed those issues that you've raised. Commissioner Bonina asked about Commissioner Whitaker's question about adding another parking space on the site for the fourth bedroom bonus area. I don't recall a response. Should the applicant be the best person to answer this question? Mr. Woodley responded it's physics. To add a parking space we're going to lose open space or lose units. To lose open space, we can't do that because then we wouldn't meet the criteria. To lose units, my guess is that my client is going to tell you that it would be very difficult financially to do that. Commissioner Bonina states that the plans are footnoted as being for design and development studies only. As we go through these dimensions, is your experience typically when you start to get into working drawings or more specific drawings, do these dimensions typically expand or get smaller? Mr. Woodley responds that we're not going to go beyond these dimensions. The reason for the note is that they are not final drawings so we don't want the civil engineer to work off those. As you know, a porch may move back and forth. Those dimensions are the dimensions that we commit to and work to. These are preliminary drawings, not final drawings, so we don't want somebody to use these drawings as final drawings. Commissioner Bonina states that he realizes that but was wondering, in his experience, do they typically get bigger or smaller. Mr. Woodley states that they are staying within that generally. Could it go a little bigger? Yes. Could it go a little smaller? Yes. In my experience it probably stays the same most of the time and that's our goal to keep it the same, but things happen. Commissioner Bonina asks was this plan provided off an Alta survey? Did you survey the site? Mr. Woodley responds they did not survey the site it was provided to them. Mr. Walker clarifies that the survey was an Alta survey. Commissioner Merino had a question for Mr. Walker. Some of the comments that you are hearing should be familiar to you because they were some of the comments from the last time you were here. Did you seriously consider the possibility of reducing a few of the units to make some improvements based on the comments that we made the last go round? Mr. Walker responds the comments that we received the last time were comments that I thought could be addressed within the context of what we had. We had to go back and work the open space because we were vague and I apologize for that. We Page 16 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 should have had the numbers and I think we nailed the numbers in reference to the open space. With respect to the parking, we heard loud and clear that the code aside; you wanted more parking so that was the intent when we did what we did by adding more spaces. The other thing that I heard loud and clear especially from the Chairman, when you look at the elevation from Lemon Street, you're not happy. By removing the parallel parking spaces, we removed the two parking spaces in the front which we were not happy with and if you'll look at the new elevation, you'll see that the entry or opening is wider than it was on the old plan and we thought that really substantially softened it. As far as the overall square footage of the entire project, I've said before that the trade off was not to use a density bonus and to live with giving the affordable element. If somebody said to me that the affordable element to us is 6 of one or half a dozen of the other and the affordable element to us is really, really important, then we have to stick to where we are. If you say to me setting the affordable element aside, we want to change the profile, that's a different part of the mix and we did not address that because we said we want to keep the affordable element. Commissioner Merino again asked, in your opinion you've made a substantial effort to address the comments of the Commission? Mr. Walker answers, yes we have. We've spent a lot of money and a lot of time. Commissioner Bonina addresses the affordability issue. He asks am I hearing you say that if you didn't bring in the affordability, if we didn't require the affordability, or if you didn't volunteer the affordability, then you wouldn't need the three story or two and a half story buildings? Mr. Walker responds that would be 100% accurate. Commissioner Bonina then says all these units would be two stories in height. Mr. Walker responds we would not have asked for the bonus. Commissioner Bonina asks then would you also have not needed the variance for the distance between the buildings? Mr. Walker responds no that would have to stay, in terms of the profile and the silhouette. Commissioner Bonina asked would there be any impact on the parking in terms of adding additional parking if you went to two story? Mr. Walker answers I think maybe that would have gone away in terms of Commissioner Whitaker's question. If we lost the third story bonus, then the bedroom or bonus room would have disappeared in the process because that extra level would have gone away. Chair Imboden asked ifthere were any other questions or were there any other comments before he closed the public hearing. There were no speaker cards on this item so Chair Imboden brought the item back to the Commission for deliberation or a motion. Commissioner Whitaker stated that he believes home ownership in that area would improve the scenario in terms of our crime statistics. Architecturally this project is very well conceived. If you take a look at some detached town homes in other areas, it's relatively comparable. It's not something I would live in, but there is a lot of room in the marketplace for that with the price point and a lot of people would appreciate that. I would have no problem granting the waiver on the number of stories, the variance in terms of the spacing between the two because I think you can make all of that very attractive, but only if there is, in my opinion, on the four bedroom units, sufficient parking where you can have three parking spots per in addition to the guest spots and I think, unfortunately for you, what that really requires is that you have to relook at the Page 17 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 project and relook at two to three units going away because if you add another 7 parking spaces, which I think is probably required, and the open space required to move around in those spaces, which addresses Commissioner Bonina's issues with the open space, you would be down to a 44 unit complex, which I would be more comfortable and have no other issues. Some of the other Commissioners might have issues with it, but at least where I'm at, at 47 units, I can't approve the variance and waiver because the actual usage will create too many issues with the parking. Commissioner Bonina states that he believes Commissioner Whitaker is absolutely right on the architecture. The architecture is fine. One thing I am a little concerned about is the infill development standards in the streetscape. I don't see any relationship with what is there today in terms of the adjacent properties. Granted you want to improve the area and I think this design is a significant enhancement to the area, but I think you still need to maintain the scope, the bulk and the height of the area and this, to me, doesn't fulfill that issue. Parking becomes a very significant issue for me. This is a very dense area. There is a lot of parking. As a property owner I assume you've been there all times of the day, every day of the week and that you recognize that the area is always parked maxed out in the street. Unless this project is self contained in terms of its parking, it's going to flow outside of this development and it's going to cause more problems which the area doesn't need. The affordability issue, my expectation very frankly is that a responsible developer coming to this City recognizing the need for affordable housing and there are certain requirements that a developer would need to come forward with a quality project which would include affordable housing. I don't believe we need to go with a 2-1/2 or 3- story unit to get to the affordability issue and the distances between the buildings to me present opportunities for silo buildings and I don't believe that something the City, in my opinion, will support. So I don't support this project. Commissioner Whitaker suggests 44 units. I don't know what the appropriate unit number would be. Is it 44, is it 30, is it 20, I don't know. That's something the developer would need to figure out one way or another. Commissioner Merino stated that he is torn on this project because he believes it's Mr. Walker's right to develop his property that belongs to him, but one of the things that we discussed during the administrative session prior to the meeting, should we consider financial feasibility as a major factor in making our decision or as a factor at all? As I look at the project, one of the things that we're going to give you a variance on is space. I just don't feel comfortable, although I think that home ownership will enhance this area, I think that the design is terrific. I just don't feel that the spaces are being placed in between these homes to meet a requirement are very pleasant and I think that the idea that the home ownership will reduce crime may be offset because, as time goes on and the project ages, those spaces aren't going to get any wider and those are going to be very undesirable spaces. Maybe not when the first property owner comes in and buys but maybe 10 or 15 or 20 years from now, assuming this project will be around that long; assuming the property is maintained well. We're not Europe or downtown Los Angeles or downtown San Francisco, we're Orange, I just have difficulty with the spaces we're creating so as much as I want Mr. Walker to have the opportunity to develop, and he still does, Ijust think to take another look at the project is not an unreasonable thing to ask. Chair Imboden says that following on the comment he would have to agree with that. I Page 18 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 know that this project has gone before the Design Review Committee on two occasions, been in front of this body twice now. The same comments I'm finding in the DRC minutes and I'm hearing here is that the project just hasn't substantially changed. Even though both groups did note some issues that would require some substantial change. So for me the project has just not made that leap yet toward trying to accommodate the concerns that are set forth. To me the project just has too many issues. Usable space, required usable space. A 2'6" usable space, to me, is not usable space. You can argue it anyway you want, to me that is not quality usable space nor do I think that meets our requirements. The parking as was addressed earlier, when we talk about conventional single family residence, we are usually talking about a two car garage, at least a two car driveway, room for two or three cars in front of that house. You're talking about a number of cars that could be accommodated that really impact that home. These are being designed, in many ways, to the benefits of a single-family residence but not necessarily taking care of the issues that come with the lifestyle of the single-family residence. Things as simple as trash, this does not even come close to an acceptable solution to that. The clear open space in the garage, which was talked about last time, we put storage space in there now. I just think that this is a project that is so tight that it requires a certain rigor and discipline. There can't be mistakes with it and I think there are too many opportunities here for mistakes. I agree, in the beginning, it may be a beautiful project, those initial homeowners may have a beautiful place to live but I think down the road these places are not going to be desirable. Last meeting we talked about 6' usable spaces with a 32' wall beside you. We didn't take into account even the 2' you lose for the roof overhang, so we're really talking about a 4' and change opening to the sky. I don't buy that's a pleasant space to be in either. I also will not be supporting this project this evening. I would love to see a similar project happen, but I'm not feeling confident that we're getting any closer to meeting our concerns with this project either. I guess I'm going to look to the Commissioners for some sort of consensus to move forward with this. As I say, I think all of us have stated that we're interested in seeing some type of a project on this sight; however, I think we're also getting resistance to getting a proj ect that we'd like to see. Commissioner Bonina would like to have the applicant come back up because he states that there are two options. Either deny the project straight out under which the applicant would have the right to appeal to the Council, or we continue this project. City Attorney Sheatz states that the action this evening is a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Bonina asks that if we recommend denial, does the applicant have the opportunity to appeal to the City Council? City Attorney Sheatz responds that it would move forward to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Commissioner Bonina states that the City Council would hear the project or we would continue this item allowing the applicant to further modify the project and listening to what we all had to Page 19 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 say here around density and parking and so on. Mr. Walker states that he would respectfully ask the Commission to continue their application. Thanks for your time. That's the way we leam. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Walker with the continuance, is it clear in his mind what is the general desire is of the Commission? Mr. Walker responds ifthere isn't, I've been asleep. I've spent a year and a half with staff, I've had two Design Review Committees and I've had your thoughtful input on two occasions, I think I got it. Commissioner Merino asks staff if they have the general direction that the Commission is looking for? Mr. Walker states that he has it and I want to be sure that the staff has it also. Mr. Knight responds yes. Commissioner Whitaker asks City Attorney Sheatz if they continue does it need to be a date certain or, in terms of needing significant review, should it be to a date uncertain and renoticed? City Attorney Sheatz responds at this point it should be to a date uncertain. Even if it were to a date certain you are going to have a significantly different project that would require renoticing anyway. Your environmental document is going to be different. This is sounding like it's going to be a wholesale change. Mr. Knight states also that it sounds like ifthere were enough changes to this, it would have to go back to the DRC. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue to date uncertain PC Resolution No. 13-07, Tentative Tract Map No. 17088-06, Major Site Plan Review No. 451-06, Design Review Committee No. 4120-06, and Negative Declaration No. 1781-06. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Bonina & Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner Chair Imboden made one comment regarding this project as it comes back. I know one of the initial comments made at the DRC was that part of the difficulty they were having in evaluating this project was that it lacked a preliminary landscape plan. It is certainly not unusual at all for a project of this scope to be accompanied by such a plan and whether this goes back to the DRC or not, I think the kind of changes that we're talking about needs a landscape architect to look at this project and really show us what it will be so that we're on board with it. So if the rest of the Commission agrees with that, I think it should be part of the review process as it returns to us. So we have a motion to continue and a second on that motion. If there's no further discussion, please vote. It's unanimous; we have a continuance to an uncertain date. MOTION CARRIED. Recess from 9:00 P.M. to 9:12 P.M. INRE: NEW HEARINGS Page 20 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2631-07 - SHIKI RESTAURANT A proposal to allow an upgrade from a Type 41 ABC License (On-Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) to a Type 47 ABC License (On-Sale General License for a Bona Fide Eating Place) within an existing eating establishment, and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. LOCATION: 1936 E. Katella NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the proVISIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I _ Existing Facilities) since the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 11-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2631-06. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing for this project asking for anyone to come forward that wishes to speak. Mr. Gerard Edery states that he would like to thank the Commission for taking the time to consider approval of the conditional use permit. The restaurant has been in business for 30 years and has never had any problem of any kind regarding the license or anything else. We just want to upgrade the restaurant to higher standards and keep it like it's always been, a family type restaurant. We're not going to change our hours, we just want to be able to serve cocktails to customers while they wait. This is something that the customers have been asking for. Commissioner Bonina asks the applicant to clarify that the restaurant has been there for 30 years. Mr. Edery responds not with him, but the restaurant has been there for 30 years with an ABC license. Commissioner Bonina states that the area is fairly congested with the ingress and egress off of Katella freeway on and off ramp. Have you experienced any issues with your customer base, trying to get onto Katella with the density of the traffic? Mr. Edery responds no. The only thing that people tell us is that they have difficulty finding the entrance to the restaurant because they have to go through the gas station to find the restaurant. Commissioner Bonina also states that there is a car wash in the gas station that exists out into the easement. Have you had any issue with any blind spots? Mr. Edery responds no, not ever because when they exit they have to wait for the dry machines so when you drive by you see the car. Chair Imboden states there are lists of conditions that are attached with the conditional use permit and he wants to make sure that Mr. Edery has reviewed those and that he is Page 21 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 okay with those conditions the staff has put together. Mr. Edery responds absolutely. Commissioner Imboden asks if there are any speaker cards for this hearing? He closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission for deliberation or a motion. Commissioner Whitaker makes a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 2631-07 with the acknowledgement that this is Categorically Exempt from CEQA allowing the upgrade from the Type 41 ABC license to the Type 47. Commissioner Bonina asks if there is a currently a condition, referred to kindly as the Pruett Condition, on the existing license? The beer and wine license that states they would stop serving an hour prior to closing. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur states that staff was conducting research to track down the original Conditional Use Permit or ZA approval and there isn't anything in our records. It only shows that a license was issued in 1977. Based upon exposure to other licenses around this time, if there were any conditions this wouldn't be included. It would be very, very general. Commissioner Bonina asks what is the condition number in the Conditional Use Permit? Staffresponds it is condition #13 and asks if they would like a reading. Sonal proceeds by reading the condition which states that "at all the times when the premises are open for business, the sale and service of alcoholic beverages shall cease at least one hour prior to closing. " Commissioner Merino wants to clarify that the condition was not named the Pruett Condition because of him, but because this was one of the conditions he added into these types ofrequests. Commissioner Bonina asks of Mr. Edery if he is aware of this one condition? Chair Imboden asks that City Staffread the condition again. Sonal reads "at all times when the premises are open for business, the sale and service of alcoholic beverages shall cease at least one hour prior to closing." Commissioner Bonina explains to the applicant that any sale or serving of alcohol would have to stop one hour prior to your scheduled close. Chair Imboden asks Mr. Edery to step back up to the podium to be sure he is clear with the conditions. Chair Imboden states that the condition that is included here is regardless of the time that you close that you are being asked to stop serving alcohol one hour prior to closing time. So regardless of what time you close, if you have different closing times throughout the week, and so forth, that you stop serving alcohol one hour prior to closing. Is that a condition you are comfortable with? Mr. Edery responds yes, that's no problem. Chair Imboden states that's all we wanted to be certain of. SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Whitaker, Bonina None Page 22 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2633-07, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4183-07 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0137- 07 - TESCO MARKET. A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license for a new grocery market and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. Allow exterior and tenant improvements to an existing building and for the reduction of the number of required parking spaces. LOCATION: 146 S. Main Street NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the proVISIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities) since the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing pri vate structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 23-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2633-07, Design Review Committee No. 4183-07, and Administrative Adjustment No. 137-07. Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Bonina asks for clarification on the number. Is it 183 or 182? Mr. Garcia responds 182. Chair Imboden comments on the overall parking. When we look at today's standards, certainly this parking lot does not meet our developmental standards of today. When you combine the food use and the retail use, I see that there was a variance provided for this site in 1988. Could you share with us exactly how we got to the number of 198? Mr. Garcia responds back in 1988 when this shopping center was approved, the required parking spaces for a shopping center like this was 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, therefore, based on the total amount of square footage, the total amount of parking spaces would have been about 202 parking spaces. The administrative adjustment at the time was for a reduction to 190 parking spaces. Based on our current code now, the sliding scale for shopping centers that are 25,000 square feet or larger, it would typically be at 4.95. Chair Imboden asked but don't we have a different number when more than 15% of the shopping center is food use? Mr. Garcia responds 15% is correct which takes us back up to the 202 number. Commissioner Bonina adds so the vanance IS from the 202 or the administrative Page 23 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 adjustment because of the change in use from The Good Guys to the food use which takes it back up to the 202 and they are asking for 182. Mr. Garcia responds that it's the entire shopping center, how it's changed over time. it wasn't particularly looking at this market, but looking at the entire shopping center as a whole that we found that the uses had changed and there are more restaurants out there than there was previously. Commissioner Bonina states that with the restaurants and the new tenants in the shopping center, some are now new restaurants and then the proposed grocery store use, does that now take it to 202? Mr. Garcia responds, correct, that would take it back to 202. Commissioner Bonina asks so the administrative adjustment is the difference between the 202 and the 182? You want to take it back to 182, that's the administrative adjustment. Mr. Garcia responds correct. Currently the center is approved at 198. Commissioner Bonina asks that was with a variance based on certain uses that are no longer there. Mr. Garcia responds correct. Chair Imboden suggests that to make this easy, I'm sure there will be a presentation from the applicant to tell us a little bit about their project. Perhaps what we can do is get a breakdown. If my understanding is correctly, City standards for retail is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia responds for this shopping center based on the square footage, based on the sliding scale if it was just strictly retail and restaurants were not over the 15%, it would be at the 4.95. Chair Imboden says that is in this case if it is over the 15% then we go back to the regular numbers, don't we? Mr. Garcia responds no we add additional parking spaces for the restaurant space that's over the 15%. Chair Imboden states that if this project were being proposed today, could you give us, based on the square footages as it stands, what the required parking would be? Mr. Garcia responds 202 and that includes the restaurants that are there now. Chair Imboden asks so it would only go up 2 spaces from the requirement of 1988? Mr. Garcia responds correct. You would have to also deduct that portion of the restaurants that's calculated at the higher number from the base number and it comes up to 202. Commissioner Imboden wants to know how we only get a 2-space difference? it seems like if we've had a change in requirement; it would be more than 2 spaces, wouldn't it? Commissioner Bonina states 4 spaces. Chair Imboden states that's from the variance. The required was 200, is that not correct? My understanding is that originally it was supposed to be 200 and there was a variance for 198. Mr. Garcia responds he believes that it was originally at 202. Chair Imboden states that he will do some math on his own. Commissioner Imboden opens the public hearing. Mr. Michael Volchok with the Bergman Companies is representing the applicant, Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Markets. He states that he also has the architect available to answer any questions on the project. Mr. Volchok states they are asking for approval of approximately a 15,000 square foot neighborhood market, specifically off-sight alcohol sales, Type 21 license and approval of a parking variance and design review approval. Commissioner Bonina would like some information with regards to the parking variance? Mr. Volchok introduces Mr. Steve Di Laurenzio who also represents Bergman Companies. Page 24 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Mr. Di Laurenzio asks for Commissioner Bonina to restate his question. Commissioner Bonina asks if they are asking for an administrative adjustment for parking? Mr. Di Laurenzio replies that is correct. Commissioner Bonina asks and the variance is for 20 parking spots from the original 202? I am just trying to understand what is the basis that you are asking for this administrative adjustment. Mr. Di Laurenzio replies it's for the delivery truck this market requires. For this tenant improvement, the best spot for the delivery would be in the front. In order to do that, there are seven spots in the front that need to be deleted to allow this truck to come into the parking lot. Commissioner Bonina wants a definition of "front"? Mr. Di Laurenzio replies the north end of the building that faces Chapman. Mr. Di Laurenzio goes on to say that there's a finger that is being deleted in order to allow this truck come into this space and in front of that finger and the side of that finger there are parking spots that are being deleted. Commissioner Bonina wants to know is there specified delivery hours of the products? Mr. Di Laurenzio says that Mr. V o1chok would be the best person to answer that question. Commissioner Bonina replies that depending on what the answer to the previous question is, would that make the parking spaces that front Chapman non-usable. Mr. Di Laurenzio replies, yes that early in the morning but I don't know how many people shop at 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning. Delivery plans are not really set up, but to the best of Mr. Vo1chok's knowledge, he believes the delivery times will be in the early morning. Chair Imboden states that this was previously used as an electronics store and that he assumes that they had deliveries with large trucks as well. Do you know how they accomplished that with the parking layout the way it is? Mr. Di Laurenzio states that he has done a lot of investigating at that property and there is a gentleman that owns a restaurant there that has watched The Good Guys operate and facing the front part of Chapman Avenue where we are proposing to have our deliveries is where they had their deliveries. Right now there is an existing ramp that they used for their cars to go into to a semi-subterranean warehouse where they did speakers and such. That's where deliveries were made and that's the same premise as to where we're doing it. Chair Imboden asks whether they were able to do this without removing parking spaces? Mr. Di Laurenzio says yes. Commissioner Imboden wants to know why they need to remove parking spaces and Mr. Di Laurenzio replies it's because their client has a larger truck. Commissioner Imboden asks is there any way to accommodate these deliveries without removal of those parking spaces? Mr. Di Laurenzio says unfortunately no. What we've done is the best that we can offer. Mr. Vo1chok states Fresh and Easy has a large 55' delivery truck and it's part of their fleet. We're currently building an 800,000 square foot distribution center in Riverside where we do prepackaged food, packaged produce and packaged meat products. We load those all onto our trucks. We don't have the Frito Lay trucks doing their deliveries. We don't have individual vendors coming in. They come in generally in two deliveries a day. These aren't on our fleets and they are the larger style trucks. Chair Imboden responds that he's not sure that his question was answered. I'm not Page 25 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 certain how many parking spaces we're losing along the north side of this building, the front that faces Chapman. Mr. Di Laurenzio responds in that particular area, we're losing 4 spaces. Regardless of the size of the truck, Chair Imboden wants to know why would we have to lose those spaces? Mr. Di Laurenzio answers because of the approach on how the truck is entering the parking lot. I would have to physically come up and show you when the truck enters, it has to come in and jack around, get inside the spot and then get back out and by doing that, the angle that it's approaching and the size of the truck warrants that these four spaces be deleted. Chair Imboden says what he is seeing requires your truck to turn sharper than if they just pulled between the two rows of cars. Is that not correct? Mr. Di Laurenzio replies could you restate that question please? Chair Imboden asks if the driver were to simply back between the two rows of cars rather than back up to the back of the building the way that it's shown, it would actually require less of a turning radius. It requires more of a turn to get that truck back up to the back of the building than if it just sits straight. Isn't that correct? Mr. Di Laurenzio replies that it correct, however, to unload these trucks coming out the back end, the company has a permanent scissor lift that's going to be on a new built truck loading area where the existing ramp is. This permanent scissor lift could just unload the truck and by doing it the way that you're talking about, it would have to be portable and it was not presented to us in that manner. It was presented to us to be at the angle it is represented there. Commissioner Bonina states that the suggestion is that there are four parking spaces to be eliminated. By the Administrative Adjustment, even if you use the 198 to 182, that's 16 spaces. Chair Imboden wants clarification on where these spaces are being pulled from and why. Mr. Garcia responds that not all the spaces that are being lost are in the general area. We are also losing some additional spaces for the trash enclosure that was not there when the project was originally approved. Also with the current ADA standards as improvements are being done, some of those parking spaces have been converted and we've lost, 2 in order that we can have more accessible parking spaces. Again, we're looking at the whole shopping center in its entirety, not just the affects that the Tesco Market is having. Also previously, if you look at the photographs in your exhibits, you can see the loading ramp where The Good Guys is. That previously was all parking along that area, so some of the parking spaces have been lost already when the loading ramp was put in. So I guess we're trying to clean up some of this after the fact in terms of the four parking spaces that were lost because of the trash enclosure and some of the parking spaces where the loading dock is now. Chair Imboden asked so we've already lost parking spaces from the 198, is that correct? Mr. Garcia responds correct. Chair Imboden then asks how many parking spaces are there currently? Mr. Garcia responds 187, he believes. Mr. Di Laurenzio responds 188, he believes. Chair Imboden wants a specific answer and Mr. Di Laurenzio responds 188. Chair Imboden then asks from that we're removing how many? Mr. Garcia responds 6 additional spaces. Chair Imboden responds so we're down to 182. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia and Mr. Di Laurenzio both reply correct. Page 26 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Chair Imboden states we're asking for an administrative adjustment from 198, with a 10% allowance, correct? Mr. Garcia responds correct. Chair Imboden states that he just wants to be sure on the numbers. Chair Imboden wants to know if the City staff worked with the property owner outside of the market itself to see if there isn't a way to consolidate this parking lot to bring trash enclosures together, perhaps connect them to buildings and somehow use space other than parking space? Mr. Garcia replies that it is his understanding that the property owner is currently working with the Economic Development Department to make some exterior improvements to the rest of the center. This could be something we could look at when this comes into our staffreview and DRC as well. Chair Imboden states part of his concern is a redevelopment project and I think this is a project that the center needs, but I'm not convinced, necessarily, that this is the only way of getting there. We haven't reviewed other alternatives, is that correct, this is just the way it came in, this is the proposal, this is what we're reviewing? Mr. Garcia responds correct, this is what was looked at out on the counter before submittal. Commissioner Whitaker asks the trash enclosures that use spaces are those existing today or are they making proposals to cannibalize spaces for enclosures? Mr. Garcia responds, no those exist today. Commissioner Bonina asks is there any concern regarding the ingress - egress from the adjacent property? As you look at the site plan, I assume there are two donor ships when loading occurs. Mr. Garcia responds correct. Public Works has reviewed this and approved the route plan as indicated on the plans. Commissioner Bonina responds did they have some sort of template they put on the plan? Mr. Garcia responds correct. That was actually additional information that they had from the first review. Commissioner Merino states the elevations in the package have a significantly different color scheme from the existing facility. You mentioned that there is going to be some redevelopment. What are these consistent with, at least from a color change prospective? The future developments or this is going to be something that is consistent with the property owner is doing for the rest of the proj ect? The rest of the proj ect is mauve and yellow at some demarcation line. How is this going to come together? Mr. Garcia responds the rest of the center would be made to look consistent to this style. Commissioner Merino ask but we can't make that a condition of approval for this proj ect? Correct? Mr. Garcia responds correct. Commissioner Merino asks is there going to be some sort of transition period and how do we know this is consistent with whatever ends up being in the rest of the center? How does that work? Mr. Garcia responds it's his understanding they are waiting for the landlord to fully incorporate whatever color scheme is used here so they can put it in the rest of the shopping center. I believe there is coordination between Tesco and the owner of the shopping center. Chair Imboden asks whether we've received any proposals regarding that? Mr. Garcia Page 27 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 responds that he's seen preliminary paperwork, but it really wasn't consistent with this so we've asked for additional information. Chair Imboden asks which we have not received yet? Mr. Garcia responds correct. Chair Imboden asks if Mr. Di Laurenzio has any final comments to make? Mr. Di Laurenzio responds that he would like the Commission to be sensitive to the fact that Tesco would like to be part of this community. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Volchok what are the hours of operation. Mr. Volchok replies that they are asking for 7:00 a.m. to midnight. They are conditioned for alcohol sales from 8:00 a.m. to II :00 p.m. Our plan is 7:00 to midnight. I don't know if we are conditioned or restricted on hours at this time. There are no speaker cards so Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for deliberation. Chair Imboden states that he is very much in support of this concept. I think this is what this center needs to revitalize it and I think this is a very good project for our city to look at in terms of placing investments to get this moving. I have a little bit of hesitation, however, when I say that I want to know that we're getting the best possible project that we can. When I asked about parking earlier, my understanding was that we've had an increase in food use since this site was originally opened and given it's variance. It seems to me that there would have been a parking load increase, if that, in fact, is the case, but when I ask what that is, I'm being told that it's only two spaces. That's where I'm struggling with those numbers a little bit. Regardless of where we're at, I have to say that one place I don't usually have trouble finding a parking space usually is at the market, so I will entertain the idea of perhaps some reduced parking here. It makes me a little bit nervous adding administrative adjustments on top of variances, but as long as we're in with the numbers, I'm more comfortable with it. But I guess going back to that, I would really like to be convinced that we have done everything we can, working with the entire site, to consolidate trash pickup, restripe the parking lot, which apparently is going to have to be done anyway, just come up with the best project we possibly can here. I'm also a little bit troubled that we have a Design Review Committee item in front of us. How do we evaluate the internal consistency of this project? We're only being shown a small part of it, but it's a small part of a much larger project here so I'm looking to some sort of assurance of when and how that will happen. My concern with tonight is I feel like we're seeing a small part of a much larger picture that seems like we're dealing with already, but just haven't finalized so I'll look to other Commissioners to either agree or disagree. Commissioner Whitaker states that he thinks it's an excellent project. He thinks the City needs this type of use there. He likes the concept although he is concerned about the way the center has evolved over the years in terms of the trash enclosures and cannibalizing spaces. I understand the ADA requirement that just happened in my office as well. There's nothing you can do about that. I really don't want to hold up this applicant for Page 28 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 issues that are more directly related to the land owner, so I'm going to be in favor of it this evening but with a strong message to Staff that if there is any consideration being given to redevelopment dollars for this landlord, that we have the trash enclosure issue taken care of so we can get the parking that is needed for all the food use. Commissioner Bonina states that he also thinks it is a good project for this particular center. It's a good concept and you're rolling it out everywhere that is good, but the parking is an issue, very frankly. The circulation and the parking need to be looked at much closer. I'm not sure if we're in the position to make the final assessment on this, very honestly. The one other thing, just to confirm, if this does move forward on an approved basis, the hours of operation as articulated in these conditions, is 8:00 a.m. to I I :00 p.m. I know you suggested something different, but it suggests here 8:00 a.m. to II:OOp.m. It would be a much better opportunity for the City if we could coordinate the development of the grocery store architecturally and then reconfiguration of the parking lot. As Commissioner Whitaker and Chair Imboden suggested that it would be great if somehow we could consolidate the trash enclosures and put them elsewhere other than a parking stall. In conclusion, I like the concept. I still have some concerns around the parking and circulation, but, again, I don't necessarily want to hold this applicant up. I will probably support this moving forward. Chair Imboden asks City Staff if they have any idea how far they are away from seeing the information? Clearly three of the Commissioners have spoken so far and they support the project but there are some unanswered questions. Commissioner Merino states that he has some of the same comments. Chair Imboden states that clearly knowing where they're at, that they like this project, there are some big questions here that we would all be more comfortable with and we would like to not hold up the process any longer than necessary. How long would it take to get these answers back so we could move this project along? Mr. Garcia states that we should be receiving something for the rest of the center in the next 2-3 weeks. Commissioner Merino states that he doesn't think that they necessarily need to hold up the project. I think we can feel comfortable to rely on staff to take care of the coordination that is certainly going to happen, for the exterior improvements. It would be ludicrous to assume that we're going to see these improvements where the rest of the project is left in the same color or without any improvements. I think that's going to be happening without a doubt. The parking issue, I believe, in the redevelopment process, can be addressed as well so I'm pretty confident on that. In terms of the components of the project, the ABC license in looking at the data, it's not an over concentrated area of liquor licenses so although there's some crime issues, I think the lack of concentration more than offsets that and I'm actually prepared to move forward on this right now. Commissioner Merino makes the move to adopt Resolution PC 23-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2633-07, Design Review Committee No. 4183-07 and Administrative Adjustment No. 137-07. SECOND: Commissioner Bonina Page 29 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Whitaker & Bonina None None Commissioner Steiner Commissioner Bonina wants to underscore the point that Commissioner Merino suggested that these two, to the extent possible, are coordinated. That is the development of the market and the shopping center along with the opportunity of the trash enclosures and the parking lot as well. Commissioner Whitaker states that we also need to make a finding that it is Categorically Exempt. Commissioner Merino states that he will amend his motion accordingly. Commissioner Imboden states that we have a motion, a second and a modified motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2644-07 - FARGO AUTOMOTIVE A proposal to allow retail auto sales at an existing auto restoration facility within an existing industrial building in an M-I (Light Manufacturing) site. LOCATION: 316 W. Brenna Lane NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class I - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 24-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2644-07 allowing retail sales at an existing auto restoration use within an existing industrial building subject to conditions. Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opens public hearing. Mr. Walter Froemke and Mr. Benny Sam both appeared before the Commission to speak with regard to this project. Mr. Froemke states that he operates a restoration shop at this location. For four years he has operated a wholesale car lot for antique and special interest cars and during that four year period, he has only had a total of 10 sales so you can see it's not a very active business. We go to different shows throughout the country and buy special interest cars and bring them back and either recondition them or rebuild them and then we sell them to people who are in that area. For instance, you have a Chrysler collector or Chevrolet collector. We're really not increasing the landscape or changing the traffic patterns there, if Page 30 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 anything the bingo parlor has already done that, and the crime rate, as far as that goes, we do have a problem and that's why none of our stuff is on the exterior part of the building. We keep everything locked up. We have a multiple housing area north of us on Wilson Street and we have gotten some feedback from them. That hasn't been a detriment to us at all. Commissioner Whitaker asks what do you do with the showroom area now? Mr. Froemke responds that the cars are just parked in there and polished. The repair area is behind a wall and that repair area is a small upholstery shop or detail shop. Light touch up things like that. We don't do any heavy mechanical work. We don't rebuild engines. This type of thing is all farmed out to outside people like Blake and Nations. We then bring it back, finish assembling it and detailing it. One of our largest customers is Art Astor who used to have a radio station in Anaheim or Garden Grove and he has a location on East Street and Ball Road with over 300 special interest cars in it. It's quite a thing to see if you ever have a chance. He's got cars from the 30's all the way up to the 70's, almost every type of model you can think of all have been reconditioned to A-I shape. You walk in there and you think it's a showroom or a new car dealership. Commissioner Whitaker asks Mr. Froemke ifhe currently wholesales cars? Do you have your DMV wholesaler's license? Mr. Froemke states that he has wholesaled only 10 cars in the time he has been in business. Commissioner Whitaker also asks if he is applying for his resale permit. Mr. Froemke states that was the reason he had to have the CUP, because he has applied for his resale permit. Commissioner Whitaker asks City Attorney Sheatz whether they should condition the conditional use permit on his approval by the Department of Motor Vehicles for his retail dealer's license? Mr. Sheatz responds you wouldn't necessarily have to. The assumption is, and with all the entitlements, the operation or the actual land use, that they are going to abide by any and all other laws that might exist out there so you wouldn't have to specifically call that one out. This would just go to the specific land use itself. The operation, if PD ever went out to there and requested to see that information, they would be able to handle that information ifhe did not have that DMV license. The assumption is that whatever other laws are required for that type of business or operation; they're going to obtain that. Mr. Froemke says that they are going to approve us and the only benefit to the City will be that they will be getting sales tax now and these cars sell for large amounts of money. No further questions for Mr. Froemke. Chair Imboden calls up Mr. Benny Sam from YK Development Group. Mr. Sam did not have any comments for the Commissioners. Chair Imboden states that if there aren't any other questions, then we can go ahead and close public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for any further discussion and deliberation. Commissioner Merino says that sales tax is wonderful. That's what keeps the City of Orange going so we like it, I like it. Page 31 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Commissioner Whitaker states that as a person who loves cars, he would be happy to make the motion. Commissioner Whitaker motions to approve Resolution PC 24-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 2644-07 for the retail auto sales in the existing industrial building in the M-I zone for Fargo Automotive that is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Bonina, Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. (7) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4212-07 - STARBUCKS COFFEE A proposal to provide new umbrellas with signage for use as part of the outdoor dining area in front of the new Starbucks. Additionally, the applicant is also requesting a color change in the repainted building. LOCATION: 44 Plaza Square NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the proVISIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines (Class I, Section 15301 - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review Committee No. 4212-07, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and any conditions that the Planning Commission determines appropriate to support the required findings for umbrella signage and paint colors on the contributing historic building. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Bonina comments the color of the sign for Starbucks Coffee appears to be a greenish blue, is the trim under the Starbucks Coffee a different color green? Dan Ryan responds there is a slight difference in that green color. The cornice green is a little bit lighter, but as you look at this particular photo, I think because it was partially in shadow, there was an issue with the reflective ability of the signage and you might be picking up that difference. It's fairly close. I think the difference you're seeing here is the reflection. It seems to me a bit darker, but I think that is related to the reflectance as well. Commissioner Bonina asks is the trim across the top the same. Dan responds that the dental that runs below the Starbucks is supposed to be the same color as the cornice detail. Commissioner Bonina asks is the trim over the side windows the same thing? Dan responds yes. Page 32 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Commissioner Bonina asks is the placement of the outside seating dedicated exclusively to Starbucks or is that kind of a pool of seating that would be used by all those vendors? Dan explains that the outdoor dining ordinance has a competitive arrangement where they negotiate for space in front of their storefronts and that's part of what the process is involved. That's negotiation between the different storefronts for those defined areas. Dan states that what is seen on the defined plan may not be accurate as to what has been approved at this point. The applicant can speak to that. I think there was some discussion as far as the placement of tables recently. Commissioner Bonina asks the number of umbrellas? Dan replies that he believes there are four umbrellas and is not sure if the two tables next to the building have umbrellas as well. Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward and add anything that she cares to and answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Michelle Wong is the representative for Starbucks. She states that they are here for 3 things. The first being signage on the umbrellas. They are well within the allowed coverage, respectful in size and not overly obnoxious. The next is the colors. The intent was to have the colors of the cornice and the trim match the umbrellas and the signage and, in general, it works out with the building and the adjacent buildings that also have a trim that is green. The last thing would the screening. I was there today for dinner and I noticed the same thing, the size of the lattice. I think lattice works as the material, but I believe we could cut it down to be the same size as the unit and also the color. We are open to whatever it is that you would like to see as far as the screening. My opinion would be to paint it the same color as the green, but if you've got something else that you'd like to see, we're definitely open for that. Commissioner Merino states that he has one comment to make regarding the comment Ms. Wong made regarding the signage not being obnoxious. I'm not saying it's obnoxious, but I don't know how many different ways we need to say Starbucks. You've got the little circle sign, the BIG Starbucks sign, now you're going to have umbrella signs. Do you think we might be able to do without something? Pretty much there is no doubt that there is a Starbucks Coffee shop there. Ms. Wong states that she understands and thinks the size is okay; it's an inch and a half. I know what you are trying to get at, but if we're allowed to have signage, it's the brand name, they identify with the green umbrellas with Starbucks Coffee. Dietrichs had signage on their umbrellas as well. Ifwe can have signage on the umbrellas as well, Starbucks would definitely appreciate that. Commissioner Merino states that from his prospective it's a little signage overkill. So you don't see it as signage overkill? Ms. Wong responds no, I understand. Chair Imboden states that he is going to jump right on to the same conclusion. My take with this right now is too much Starbucks. What I don't want at the end ofthis project is Old Towne Orange brought to you by Starbucks. We already have Starbucks logo on the other side of the Plaza; we now have it over here. We have now taken a National Page 33 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Register Building and painted it to become part of the branding of Starbucks. It's not usually the way we go about treating buildings in the Plaza. I'm very disappointed. When Starbucks was before us for the signage I specifically asked would there be exterior changes to this building and I was told outright no. I was very clear that it needed to come back for our approval prior to being done. Chair Imboden states that you stated earlier that you would like to have the umbrellas, the cornices and the signs all match. From my review of it, none of them match. The paint colors don't match the signing. The umbrellas don't match the signing or the paint colors. I am completely lost at why we would want to paint the screening green and bring more attention to it. I don't know exactly what the resolution is here. Starbucks has to look at this building as more than just a Starbucks; it's part of an historic urban fabric. You mentioned that the building next door uses green; it's a different color green entirely and if this had been proposed in the beginning, I would have said I think you need to be a little more sensitive to the existing green next door. There is no doubt to me when I stand in the Plaza that this is the loudest building there and it wasn't that way prior to being painted. The red fayade also makes the green greener. You have to think about that as well. They are opposite colors and they intensify each other. I have to say that I am in agreement with Commissioner Merino that I think something has to give here. I'm definitely not going to go for green on top of the building. It's just way too much Starbucks that reads from across the Plaza, I'm not interested in seeing that. Since part of the signing here we're talking about is these umbrellas, do you expect to maintain the store across the street at this point? Ms. Wong responds that at this point she has not been given any indication that it's going to close. That would probably be a question for Starbucks and I can get you a follow-up if you want. Commissioner Imboden responds yes. Commissioner Imboden states that he is concerned at what he is starting to see as a saturation of one kind of corporate identity in our Plaza. Ms. Wong responds if we scratch the sign age on the umbrellas and we paint the lattice the same color as the rooftop unit, she doesn't care about the color for the rooftop unit. Commissioner Imboden responds typically we ask the applicant to bring a proposal forward. We'll see what the other Commissioners have to say but that's something from my own perspective, I would expect you to put a proposal together and direct you to work with our Historic Planner in doing that. We don't do the design for you. Ms. Wong responds sure. Commissioner Bonina states that his only comment is that it does stand out when you're in the Plaza. I'm not sure removing the Starbucks logo from the umbrella would really make a difference. What really stands out to me is the size of the Starbucks Coffee sign. To me it isjust massive and overwhelming that entire fayade. If there was a change that I would recommend on this, it would be taking that sign and literally reducing it in size by a quarter to be in more balance with the fayade and then the colors do need to all match. That is the greens, although this green is a little loud. In one of the colors you had a more muted green, almost an olive color that I thought was a bit more suited for that particular fayade. That's my perspective. Again, I wouldn't necessarily endorse taking the Starbucks logo off the umbrellas, but I would certainly hope that you could find someway Page 34 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 to take that Starbucks Coffee sign and literally reduce it to a quarter of it's current size. Commissioner Whitaker comments that at a prior meeting we approved the signage with the color of the signage. The question this evening is the paint color of the fayade that was not approved and didn't come through this Commission for approval. I believe the color makes the building too garish for the look in the Plaza and I wouldn't approve the Starbucks green on the cornice or on the dental. I understand the logo on the umbrellas and I have no problem with that or the umbrellas being green, but I think the color on the building looks garish and I don't appreciate it being done without coming through for approval. I can't vote to approve that this evening. Commissioner Merino states that the Plaza in Orange is a very historical and precious place and one of the things this building has is a sign that says The Orange Daily News. That's part of the historical nature of the building and that the Starbucks sign is visually obliterating the historical nature of the building. We don't necessarily want to tell you how to design it, but I would ask that you be sensitive to the fact that this isn't just your store location, but it's a building that's been around for 100s of years and the sign below it speaks to the history of what was in there before and maybe some attention to the fact that it is something special. If you could think about that with whatever solution you come back with, maybe you want to consider that in whatever you bring back. Ms. Wong responds I'm sorry I'm the one they sent to speak of the mistake. When I found out about it, it was freak out mode so I apologize that it occurred and I didn't give the instruction to go about it that way. I know what needs approvals and what doesn't. We're definitely fine with going back to the lime green color that was there before. That would mean that we would be painting it based on maintenance since the old building was due for a paint job anyway which would mean that we would only be here at this meeting for the umbrellas and the rooftop paint on the lattice that we could negotiate with staff. I believe it is a small enough thing that we could come up with a resolution. If it has something to do with the color of the green, we can change the color of the green back to the way it was before. Chair Imboden states that he is of the consensus that what was there before was more historically appropriate. I think if the applicant is willing to do that, I'm okay with that, however, I want a color sample brought to our Planning Department and approved by our Historic Planner prior to painting. I don't have such a problem with the logos on the awnings if we're going to lose this overriding green on this corner. My concerns are just with everything. It's far too much and I think if you take away the green dental, the green cornice, both at the top of the building and those associated with the windows, a lot of that goes away and I'm okay with that. I do think, however, the screening for the HV AC units on the top of the building is up to the applicant to submit a proposal for our historic planner to review keeping in mind that our Ordinance requires that enclosure be architecturally compatible with the building and what is there now is nowhere close to that. Ms. Wong asks do you mean the material. Chair Imboden states the material and the color. I have a hard time connecting blue lattice with this building and if you can somehow help me see that connection, I might be convinced, but I don't see it now. Ms. Wong responds I wasn't convinced when I saw it as well. Page 35 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Lattice was a material that was suggested by Dan, so iflattice works for you, it works for Dan and us. Would you also want to see it trimmed down? Chair Imboden responds that it shouldn't be any bigger than necessary. This is an historic building and we don't want to change the appearance any more than necessary, so don't bring that enclosure any higher than it needs to be. Commissioner Bonina states with the opportunity of taking the colors of the trim back to their original color, he understands that the Starbucks large sign would remain green. Is that your understanding? Chair Imboden states that's what's been approved. Commissioner Bonina asks Ed Knight if we have, in fact, approved the Starbucks Coffee sign color and size? Mr. Knight responds yes we have. Commissioner Merino wants to make it known that he was not on the Commission at that time. Chair Imboden states that when he walked the area the other day, I want to make it clear that it's not part of the approval of this body, the positioning of these tables and umbrellas according to the drawing would not work with the configuration that's out there today based on the tables that are out there currently by a nearby vendor. I want to make it real clear that the allowance or non-allowance of these tables being positioned is not part of our decision making this evening. I don't want you to be confused that the Planning Commission told you that you could do that. Ms. Wong states that this is a completely separate outdoor dining permit. I was out there and you're right, they are not put in the place they are supposed to be. It is a shared agreement with Felix and I know Starbucks has received a violation for it and that would explain the picture and why they're not where they're supposed to be. The only thing I can say to that is I've sent many emails and I will continue to remind them that they need to get a hold of their management ASAP and let them know that the violations will continue and whatever happens will happen if they don't get their tables where they should be. In addition to that, it's also a shared responsibility to ten Felix that if they are encroaching into this area, they need to move over because it is a shared space. Chair Imboden states that he just wants to make sure that she is aware that this is not part of their approval this evenmg. Ms. Wong reiterates that she wants to make sure she understands what's going on. She's going to work with Dan on the lattice and the color. The cornice and the trim win go back to its original lime green color and we'll be allowed to have the signage on the umbrellas. Chair Imboden states that he believes that is the consensus of where they are right now. The only thing I might add is that it's not just the color, but the size of the screening should be worked out with Mr. Ryan. Commissioner Bonina asks that once Mr. Ryan sees the colors of the Starbucks trim, how is that going to look with the color of sign? There has to be some sort of balance. Ms. Wong states that the building was due for a paint job. I'm not sure when it was painted last and I'm sure over the years it's faded. We would be painting back to a color at it's last state. I'm not sure how close that was to its original color. Commissioner Whitaker states that's why Chair Imboden wants you to bring a sample to Mr. Ryan. Chair Imboden states either you need to submit an entire paint palette proposal for the building. Ms. Wong asks can this all be done administratively? Chair Page 36 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 Imboden answers not an entirely new paint palette. To turn it back to it's original green can be done with Mr. Ryan's approval. If your concern is that you're not happy with the colors the way they were and you want to propose something different, then that needs to come through us in the regular way. Ms. Wong states that she is not proposing that at all. I want to make it back to the way it was. Commissioner Merino states that he is unable to visualize what lime green is. I think more of an olive green is more appropriate. I'm concerned that by the time we repaint the trim the original color, that's not going to look good with the bright green Starbucks sign. Those two greens don't seem very compatible to me. Again, if we're trying to make the Starbucks thing jump out, then we've certainly achieved that. Chair Imboden states that he personally doesn't remember that the dental was very green at all. He asks Commissioner Merino if he is suggesting that a paint palette come back for approval? Commissioner Merino states that he has faith in Mr. Ryan's ability to protect the Plaza's look and paint schemes. I would just like to suggest that he look at the fa9ade in total instead of just the one green color. I don't want to end up with us making the problem worse than resolving the problem all together. Mr. Knight states that he doesn't think that will happen. I'm looking at Jackie's top and she's got the palms and the green next to it and that's probably pretty close to what the combination would be. I think the sign being the dark green with the lighter green would be very workable. Chair Imboden states that the way the paint palettes work in the Plaza is that you chose from the approved palette or it comes before Design Review. So if they were going to go with an entirely new paint job, it would need to come in front of Design Review. It's not something that can be done administratively. Commissioner Merino states that he would go with the general consensus, but he disagrees with Mr. Knight a little bit that the Starbucks green is an aquamarine, not really a green that I see on her shirt and I do that a little bit for a living. Chair Imboden states can we come to a consensus of one form or another and what do we think is the best way to proceed with this? Commissioner Bonina states that he thinks Chair Imboden outlined it pretty well. Chair Imboden moves to approve Design Review Committee No. 4212-07 Starbucks Coffee recognizing that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA with the following conditions: . that the architectural trim work of this building that has been painted to match the new sign be returned to its former color and that the color be pre-approved, with a sample, to our designated Historic Planner prior to execution . a proposal for the materials, color and dimensions for the screening for the HV AC units on the top of this building be provided to Mr. Ryan, designated Historic Planner Mr. Sheatz wants the motion to include the part about the umbrellas because that is part of the review that appears on here. Chair Imboden states that is part of the approval. I just have conditions as part of the approval. Mr. Sheatz states that he just wanted to Page 37 of39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 make sure that what he was conditioning wasn't limited to just that. Chair Imboden asks the rest of the Commissioners whether there is a change to the umbrellas? Commissioner Merino asks Chair Imboden that in the event that the colors are not compatible when they are returned to their original state, that an entire palette be brought back to the Commission for review. Chair Imboden asks who's making that determination? Commissioner Merino states based on Mr. Ryan's determination. Chair Imboden states that the submittal of that sample has to be acceptable to the designated Historic Planner and in the event that it isn't, it has to come back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Merino's concern is that we're addressing a single color change that may or may not work. Commissioner Whitaker states that's all we can do because otherwise the actual discretion rests with the Design Review Committee and we're sitting as Design Review in this room, so if you don't say return it back to what was previously approved, then you actually have to have it come back to this body. Chair Imboden states that a choice has to be now. Mr. Ryan states that the other issue is they can choose between the already approved color palette with the green and other colors that match. Chair Imboden states that he believes that's not what they are approving here this evening, that we return it the way it was or we come forward with an entirely new submittal. Mr. Ryan adds that he has the color numbers from the original paint job so we can get that close. Chair Imboden asks if all the Commissioners are comfortable with that? Motion still stays, correct? Commissioner Bonina states if intent is for the umbrellas, in terms of color, will match the Starbucks sign? Chair Imboden states that they are already on site and they don't match. Commissioner Bonina states if that's what we want, let's put it out there. Commissioner Bonina asks Ms. Wong if they have the ability to match the sign and the umbrellas? Was that the intent? Ms. Wong responds that it is her understanding that these are all standard prototype signs and umbrellas. I don't know ifthere is an option to do that. Chair Imboden responds we're not a prototyped town. Ms. Wong states that she means that Starbucks has their umbrellas and their signs. Chair Imboden states in my review of the site, I don't feel that the signs match the umbrellas. Commissioner Whitaker states that he doesn't believe it matches exactly either and I think that it's probably the closest dye lot they could get and they are going to fade in the sun anyway. I'm fine with having green umbrellas that say Starbucks out there as long as they return the building to the prior color. Chair Imboden states I don't think you're going to get them any closer and as you say, they are going to fade. Chair Imboden states that he's made a motion, can I have a second? Chair Imboden states that no changes unless coming back to the Planning Commission first. Ms. Wong responds Girl Scout honor. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Whitaker, Imboden, Merino & Bonina None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. Page 38 of 39 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 21 May 2007 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Merino moved to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, June 4, 2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Whitaker & Bonina None None Commissioner Steiner Commissioner Bonina has a quick comment before the motion is voted on. The time and effort concerning Starbucks and the building in the Old Towne area, I hope we can take some part of that scrutiny and detail review and apply it to other parts of the City as well. One particular item I'm speaking of is one that we reviewed this evening, the townhouse or single-family project. We need to make those types of critical reviews of projects as well before moving forward. Every part of our City deserves our level of scrutiny on all aspects of the project. We went through this Old Towne thing in excruciating detail which is exactly what we should be doing, but we should try to apply a good deal of that to other parts of the City. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:40 P.M. Page 39 of39 Pages