Loading...
2007 - July 16 ~a506.G.;J.3 Final Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 16 July 2007 Monday -7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Steiner, Bonina, Merino STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Jacqueline Bateman, Recording Secretary Administrative Session: IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda. Cheryl Hansmann. 446 S. Tustin - Val Verde Estates Mobile Home Park. I moved to Val Verde Estates in January 2004 with my very disabled husband. I had spent quite a bit of time looking around Orange County for affordable so that I could take care of him properly. A year ago he passed away in March, six months later we were approached as a group of people from Val Verde Estates by Mr. Long who stated that he wanted to develop the park and what this meant was that all the people living there would be displaced. He then shared with us through the group that he hired, that there would be no compensation for us and that all the homes that could be moved would be moved. This morning he presented to the City Council that he wanted to develop the park. They have a great deal of concern about that because we've been told by the group that Mr. Long hired that they have no recourse. There have been attempts by Mr. Long to arrange for sewer lines to go through the properties behind the park and offers to buyout some of the residents to disadvantage us as residents. Additionally, he has given false information. He put a traffic monitor in our park and he did a double line so that the figures would look inflated. Mr. Long has no intention to compensate any of us for the market value of our homes or to help us. Chair Imboden asks the audience for a show of hands of how many people are present regarding this item? He states that there is quite a large number and asks Ms. Hansmann if she is the only spokesperson speaking on everyone's behalf? Ms. Hansmann answers yes and Chair Imboden gives her a couple of more minutes to conclude her comments and then the Commission will have a response. Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Ms. Hansmann goes on to say that she's been a resident of the City of Orange for 25 years and I concert that this city is not like other cities. This city is very community minded and that people from Southern California come to Orange say what a beautiful City this is. I would like to make an appeal to the City by the residents of Val Verde Estates to fully support us in this. Chair Imboden states that he believes that this project was initially submitted today and asks Mr. Knight to comment on this. He wants Mr. Knight to explain to the people in the audience how they can be noticed and is in the loop as far as what's going on and follows the project through. Mr. Knight states that Chair Imboden is correct. An application was submitted today. It's for a variety of actions that are being contemplated including a general plan amendment, a zone change, a tentative tract map, major site plan review and a conditional use permit. All these actions will be bunched together into a public hearing that will occur before the Planning Commission and the City Council before that can be considered fully completed by the City. Our Design Review Committee will also have a say so in regards to the major site plan review. An environmental determination will have to be made on the project and either a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report would be needed in order to be able to address those. Absent that I really can't give you too many details. Our Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb is the planner that will be working on this. Any of you can either e-mail him or give him a call and find out where the project is in the system. It will take a while for all these items to be taken care of and it makes it's way to the public hearing bodies. How much time, I really can't say, it depends a lot on the nature of the impacts and how much information will be needed by the staff in order to be able to study them. Chair Imboden states that he thinks it would be appropriate if one of the staff members here this evening can pass a contact sheet to those people that are here this evening regarding this item that we at least have that list. That any pertinent information can be put out to you as far as noticing goes on this project. Just to second what Mr. Knight has said, please understand that the proposal as it has come forward and staff has not reviewed the project in full yet. There will be a number of public hearings for this project where you will all have the opportunity to come forward and speak on that item both at this level and we anticipate also at the Council level. There will be a series as Mr. Knight has said. The project will probably take a little while, but certainly there will be opportunity for you to become involved in the process as it moves forward. Chair Imboden thanks the group for coming forward and bringing it to their attention. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF Page 2 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 JUNE 4, 2007. Commissioner Merino motioned to approve minutes as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Imboden, Whitaker None Commissioner Steiner None MOTION CARRIED. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) 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). Item was continued from April 16, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. LOCATION: 4725 E. Chapman Avenue RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution PC 20-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06. Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Steiner states that he noticed that one of the conditions in the Conditions of Approval specifically referencing Section 6 says that the antennas shall be flush mounted to the existing pole. In the same report that the staff has drafted, there is reference to the fact that the applicant has indicated that antennas can't be flush mounted at this location due to the shape. Have you confronted the applicant with this inconsistency? Mr. Garcia responds yes we have spoken to the applicant. The applicant has indicated that because the pole is at an angle, they are not able to flush mount. Staff is of the opinion that we may still address that. There may be a bracket system that would allow for the antennas to still be flush mounted. Commissioner Steiner asks ifit's Mr. Garcia's position that this indication that it can't be flush mounted may not be the end of the story. Mr. Garcia answers correct. We've also asked for the flush mounting to be at two other previous locations although the pole may not be exactly the same configuration as this one, so it's been done in the past. Commissioner Steiner asks in those previous locations where you have requested flush mounting, we you told in those instances that it weren't possible? Mr. Knight answers, he doesn't believe so, not specifically. Page 3 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Commissioner Bonina asks if the set of plans are the same set of plans from their prior submittal where we continued the application? Mr. Garcia states that these plans were resubmitted as new plans from the previous plans. Commissioner Bonina reiterates that this set of plans is different from the plans of two months ago? Mr. Garcia states correct. Commissioner Bonina states that Mr. Garcia had mentioned that the Planning Commission had asked for some information from SCE and what was the reasoning that they provided you that they wouldn't give you an operation or safety guideline booklet. I assume they have some sort of code structure. Mr. Garcia states that it SCE looks at these on a case-by-case basis depending on the size of the facility and therefore applies their guidelines justly, but I believe there is a representative from SCE here who can address that. Commissioner Bonina states that he gathers from that there are no safety guidelines that they follow. Is that what I'm understanding? Mr. Garcia states that they do have guidelines, they just aren't willing to share them with us. Commissioner Merino asks the previous set of drawings from the previous submittal was for a monopine, essentially a non-stealth monopine placed inside this enclosure. The whole issue was the branches falling off in a strong wind, wasn't that what we saw? I believe that's the case. Chair Imboden states that we were questioning the possibility of that, but that wasn't what was proposed. Mr. Garcia states that this has always been a non-stealth location and the Commission was requesting additional information on possibly requiring this to be a stealth location. Commissioner Merino asks has Edison validated that this is the only way we could go? We couldn't get a stealth assembly. Mr. Garcia responds correct, that's the information we received from SCE because of the size of the plant, there is not a lot of room. They were afraid if they did go to stealth facility, a branch could break off and cause a power outage. Chair Imboden asks looking at Sheet A-3 of Exhibit A, I see there is a proposal for an 8' fence. My recollection not that long ago with another Royal Street application we debated for quite some time that our Ordinance would actually only allow a 6' fence and that anything over that would require an administrative adjustment or some kind of variance. I would assume that the same Ordinance would apply in this instance? Mr. Garcia responds that he's not sure if the previous location was in a residence district. This is in a commercial district. Mr. Knight asks if this location is commercially zoned. Mr. Garcia responds correct. Mr. Knight states that it would have the same standards so the drawings would not be correct, it would be limited to 6'. Chair Imboden states that they will have to discuss that as well. Commissioner Whitaker states that the issue with the previous one was that there was a taller existing fence or barrier there and the requirement was that they take it back down to the code or they would have to seek a variance. Here, it looks like the current chain link fence is higher than 6'. Are we going to have to make them take that back down to 6'? Mr. Knight responds no. Commissioner Whitaker asks what is the difference between the other one and this one? Mr. Knight responds that the existing fence is around the entire site. They're not touching that existing fence. The issue with the commercial site was they would have to remove the fence. Commissioner Whitaker Page 4 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 states that they might be putting green slats in it. Mr. Knight responds that was their proposal, but there's no impact. Ifthere were a perimeter fence around that other side we were discussing, where there was an 8' block wall fence, we wouldn't ask them to knock that down to 6'. It was outside the area of impact and there was no recommendation or reason to impact it. So the only reason we were considering that is because it was impacting that particular fence at that location. Commissioner Merino states that one of the conditions of approval in this case #7 regarding the arborist, has that been agreed to or discussed with the applicant and are they in agreement with that or that is another issue? Mr. Garcia responds that he believes SCE will address that issue and I don't think they're in agreement with that. They are not in agreement with any additional landscaping. Commissioner Merino asks so they don't even want to discuss the arborist to determine if we could find a suitable plant material? Mr. Garcia states that is his understanding the SCE will address that issue. Chair Imboden asks ifthere is anything for Planning Staff at this point? Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward. We've already expressed a lot of questions to our City Staff so I'll be looking in your presentation to respond to some of those. I'm going to run through my list of things that have come up that I feel are appropriate for you to respond to. First, the SCE Guidelines that have been requested both by this body as well as the City Staff that have not been delivered to us yet. In our last meeting there was a discussion of alternative sites and there was a request that that list of alternative sites that had been researched be brought to this body before this evening and I don't have that as well. The flush mount antennas or transmitters, that still remains to be an outstanding item as that remains a condition, but yet we're being told that isn't agreeable on your end and then the situation with the arborist. Go ahead and make whatever comments you want, but I would like for you to try and address those in your comments. Jane Norine, 350 Commerce Drive #200, Irvine, California. I would like to thank staff and Robert Garcia. I have brought two employees from SCE to answer your questions. Mr. Llorens and Mr. Landrith. As to item condition #6, with the flush mounting we have brought the antennas in as close to the pole as we possibly can. There are RF issues in the sense that if I make them too close but also there's climbing pegs that may interfere with the bracket. I can flush mount, but would rather not for safety reasons. I will let representatives from SCE address condition #7. As to a list, I didn't realize you needed a list of alternative sites. In a previous Planning Commission meeting, Ryan Hammersmith did address the alternative sites and were available and were not available and it was determined that this was the only possible site. The shopping center to the west was considered, but the landlord was not interested and farther to the east, the only site was a hillside that gets close to other facilities. We have a list of facilities that the Planning Commission has approved some of which. We are a brand new wireless carrier and hopefully launching September 15th. Time is of the essence to get these sites build and on the air that's why we're pushing to get approval of our sites within the Southern California area. Page 5 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 We are a low cost provider; there are no contracts, a month-to-month basis, and $35 a month. You can have a cell phone without having to deal with two-year or one-year contracts, so we are providing a service to the public to make it less expensive and that's why MetroPCS is coming in full-force. Chair Imboden states that we need to have some discussion with the landscaping so I don't know if you're able to speak to that or if Edison wishes to speak to that. I will look to the Commission to see if you have questions for the applicant? Commissioner Whitaker states that it was previously represented to us that the issue with flush mounting dealt with the angle of the pole whereas other Royal Street co-locations on cell phone towers had agreed to flush mounting. Ms. Norine states that it does depend on the pole and in this particular instance; it is the pole with climbing pegs. I'm putting up 5' antennas and I've got climbing pegs that I'm not going to be able to climb from a 6' difference or maybe more. Commissioner Whitaker states that every pole would have climbing pegs though. Ms. Norine states no, some poles don't. She states that it can be done, you can bring in the machine, you can schedule it, they can climb up and do it otherwise they use the climbing pegs. I'm leaving it at your discretion. Commissioner Merino asks if Ms. Norine is actually with MetroPCS? She answers correct. You're not a contracting working for MetroPCS, you're actually a MetroPCS person? She answers yes. I would like to say thank you for having you here at the Commission hearing because up to now we haven't seen an actual person, so thank you very much for coming. The question I have for you is if Edison were to allow some of these conditions to move forward, would MetroPCS be willing to comply with them assuming that Edison doesn't have an issue with them? Ms. Norine states that in regards to landscaping, it depends on the project and the amount of landscaping. As I have just concluded saying what we are, we're competing with other wireless carriers; we're a low cost provider so cost comes into playa lot with MetroPCS. Co-location on rooftops or other poles are out primary way we're going to go about business because it's the cheapest way to get things built and on air besides building our own poles. We don't want to build our own poles or our own trees, they are too costly to do and so if we can co-locate, that's what we want. If we can build on rooftops, that's our primary. Commissioner Merino states that while we greatly understand your desire to be competitive, you must also understand that, as Planning Commissioners, we're responsible to maintain the quality of life and certain Planning standards within the City so it's a balancing that we're trying to achieve. Commissioner Merino continues so there is some room for you to look at that, assuming that Edison is agreeable to it, you are also as MetroPCS. Ms. Norine states it depends on the extensive amount of landscaping. Commissioner Merino reiterates, so the answer is yes, but it depends. Chair Imboden asks for the Edison representatives to come forward and state their name Page 6 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 and address for the record and if you have comments go ahead and if not, we'll just throw questions at you. Alan Llorens, 4900 Rivergrade, Irwindale is my office. I'll just let you ask the questions. I do have a colleague with me, Ken Landrith. He's from our technical group. Ken Landrith, 4900 Rivergrade, Irwindale. Commissioner Merino states that we are concerned with the appearance up against your actual facility and while the MetroPCS is one aspect of it, it sort of opens the door for us to take a look at the best way to screen this entire project. Is Edison willing to look at the landscaping issues that come along with this project? Mr. Llorens states based on what Metro provided us about a week ago, we checked in with our substation management and the initial request would be to deny any additional new landscaping along the perimeter of the fence. All four of the sides of the fence have landscaping today. Commissioner Merino states that he understands but what they're looking for is that the existing landscaping, at least in the pictures and documents that were provided, aren't really effective at screening the facility or the base part of the antenna that we're now adding. What is the issue with the landscaping that is preventing us from improving the situation? Was Edison proposing the slats solution or is that coming from MetroPCS because in the package we now have, we have a proposal for adding slats to the chain link that's out there now. Mr. Llorens states that Edison across our service area has about 575 sites probably 10% of those are within substations and on a lot of occasions we have allowed slats to be put into the chain link fence so I'm not sure if that was a proposal from Metro or not, but we would be okay with additional slats within the fence. Commissioner Merino states that the reason he asked that is that it's not a security issue if the slats go in, and then obviously you are obscuring the area behind the fencing so it's not necessarily a visual issue. If the landscaping becomes the point of discussion that we'd like to see some improvements in that landscaping along the fence line, you're not saying no based on visual access. In other words, you want to have security the ability to see through the fence into your facility for security reasons. If you are allowing slats, that's obviously not a concern? Mr. Llorens states that's correct. Commissioner Merino states that what the City is asking that MetroPCS and SCE consider, as part of one of these conditions, bring an arborist to take a look at the plants that are out there right now that apparently aren't doing a very good job of screening and perhaps come up with a solution that's a win-win. Mr. Llorens answers that based on their initial request, it was for additional landscaping and leaving what's there today, in addition to what's there today and our substation division will not allow that. Another plan, we don't have that in front of us so it's hard for me to give you an opinion about an additional plan without seeing that plan, but right now if it was just additional cover in the same space where the eucalyptus or whatever trees they are, we'd have to deny it based on that. Commissioner Merino asks is it a security issue that's the basis for the denial? Mr. Page 7 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Landrith responds that number one is the safe, reliable transmission of electricity. That's our number one business. It's a very small substation and it is up to that substation chief to make these determinations. The current standards today for landscaping, if there were none there, would be 5' away from the fence and a 5' separation. You also have to keep in mind that there's overhead lines right there so the height is an issue. We don't want to have to trim trees. They get up in the lines and causing fires and outages. There are a number of issues with landscaping. Also, we've had issues with people getting into substations cutting copper grounds, that's a safety issue for the public, it's also a problem with our substation and sometimes they tend to do this by the surrounding landscaping. The people that do this type of activity use the environment, they don't carry around ladders. Again without having a specific proposal in front of us, there's nothing we can take to the substation group and say is this okay. What's there today is in excess of what we would allow based on our current standards and our current environment. So their position is no new additional landscaping. I don't think we proposed the green slats, but it is something we've allowed on other sites if you look at the west side, there is slats there now and they seem to provide the additional screening and you can see there's not those other issues I spoke of. They're not going to get up into the lines, they don't grow, the branches don't fall on the substation, they actually would restrict climbing as opposed to allow it. So those are just some of the issues that we look at with landscaping. Commissioner Bonina thanks the representatives from SCE for attending the meeting and states that they've long awaited their visit. Mr. Llorens states that they apologize for not being here sooner. Had we been asked to come, we would have gladly been here, so we're glad to be here. We have over 500 sites across our service area. It's not a core business of Edison, but it is a win-win in terms of existing facilities. We want to support to deployment effort. Commissioner Bonina states that he assumes that it provides additional revenues for SCE? Mr. Llorens answers right, but it's really not about the revenue for Edison. Commissioner Bonina asks with 575 locations, are those just in California or those throughout the West Coast? Mr. Llorens answers we service only Southern California down to the San Diego Gas and Electric border and up to almost Bakersfield, so it's about 55,000 square miles within Southern California. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Landrith about current standards not allowing for certain things and that's where we're trying to get to attain some guidelines from you as to what your standards are. We're being told that we can't get those standards or they don't exist but then you reference that there are current standards that don't allow you to do certain things. Mr. Landrith states that with respect to the siding of cell sites within substations and that is very site specific. We don't allow cell sites in some substations. It's up to that station chief s call based on a very conservative estimate. If it can be done safety, if it can be accommodated in that substation you look at things like circuit growth. You may look at a substation and say you have a square mile, but they may be for future Edison equipment. We do have standards if we decide to site a facility there that govern how that site is constructed. Commissioner Bonina asks a facility as a substation or a cell site. Mr. Landrith states that if we commissioned a cell site within a substation then there are standards like the 8' fence that you were questioning. I believe they are putting that interior to the substation to house their equipment. That interior fence now becomes our Page 8 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 exterior substation fence so it has to be built to our exterior substation standards. Commissioner Bonina asks so that siding effort, you do in fact have standards for that and guidelines that you follow? Mr. Landrith answers we have if it is agreed that a site will be allowed based on the substation deciding that it's okay and the security saying that it's okay. Commissioner Bonina states that assuming you get through your internal people, and then you would have some guidelines? Mr. Landrith states correct. Commissioner Bonina asks if those guidelines are documents you can share with the City of Orange because it would be interesting to understand your thought process and your guidelines when you look at a site so that we can better make a decision. What we don't want to do is get outlandish here. We don't want to propose something that would be offensive to you in terms of doing something so if we had those guidelines, we could at least be within some parameter of reasonableness, at least from your prospective. Mr. Landrith states that the only public document that he is familiar with is G095, and I don't think that addresses adequately our standards. I could check our technical design centers and see if we could provide them publicly, but I think it was a no before but I will go ahead and check. Mr. Landrith explains that G095 standards for General Order 95. You can get it on the Edison website. That's a state requirement for clearances, safety and so forth but it's really a minimum standard and Edison standards tend to exceed the minimum standards. Commissioner Bonina asks so these are general standards that most companies utilize? Mr. Landrith states yes. They use them as well. They are for safety of clearance for electrical workers, clearance from electric lines and clearance from conductors to other structures. Again, that is broad to all electric and telecom work. Commissioner Bonina states that in spending some time at the site, he would expect that the eucalyptus trees were originally put in place as wind barriers. That's a very common practice to help with the wind factor in most areas and over time these trees have grown and you've cut them down and they've continued to grow and what we see, unfortunately, as just trunks coming out and it doesn't provide the visual relief that one would want to find in a urbanized area such as this. My fellow Commissioners have spoken to the landscaping issue. As I see it, the landscape issue is frankly a very important component of this and I appreciate Metro's need to keep the costs low, but to keep your costs low is one thing, at the expense of the community and the overall City is another and I think we have to get beyond that. It's one thing, in my opinion, we need to get a reasonable landscape plan both from the City and then in back of the site you have residents. Again, all you have are these eucalyptus trees that overtime, all you see is the trunks and I think the only effort from SCE are the eucalyptus trees and as I look at the side perimeter, it would seem that the shopping center to the left as I'm looking from Chapman to the substation, provided the low growing landscaping other than the eucalyptus trees and then Bank of America provided for everything else on the right side looking from Chapman to the substation. Commissioner Bonina states that it sounds like SCE is very open to it but they haven't had something to look at or consider. Is that something that Metro would bring to your attention? Is that something that Metro, as a construction manager; are they the entity that would bring forth a comprehensive landscape plan for us to review, for you to review so that we can collectively make some sort of decision on this? How do you see that working in your world? Page 9 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Mr. Landrith states that typically these issues are worked out in advance of the zoning process. We go through what will and will not be allowed and come to agreement on a set of approved zoning drawings. Quite frankly, our directive from transmission management doesn't want any landscaping anywhere. Their objective is to clear our right a ways because of the infrastructure growth we have to do. They are coming from a position of no and we have to negotiate from there. Typically it's worked out in the zoning process pretty far in advance. We come to some sort of agreement, it's put on the zoning drawings and we move forward. Commissioner Bonina asks who develops the zoning drawings? Mr. Landrith answers the applicant (Metro). Commissioner Bonina asks ifthere is anything that they've seen in that regard. Mr. Landrith answers no. Commissioner Bonina asks Metro what their position in this whole thing? It indicates that you're a construction manager. Ms. Norine states no. I'm a project manager and I handle over 240 sites for Metro. Commissioner Bonina states not you specifically, your company. In this structure are you a construction manager firm? Ms. Norine states no, Royal Street Communications is the FCC license and Royal Street has contracted basically as a DBA MetroPCS to build out the Southern California market. Commissioner Bonina states that you're a DBA, a part of Royal? Ms. Norine states that the way she understands it, the way I think about it, is that MetroPCS is the marketing name and Royal Street Communications is the owner. Commissioner Bonina asks that essentially you're Royal essentially, you represent the lessee of this proposed structure. Ms. Norine answers yes, that's correct. Are there any other players involved here other than SCE? Architect, Engineer or those types of things? Ms. Norine states that SCE is their landlord. Commissioner Whitaker states that there are really two landlords. There is SCE that owns the land and Sprint owns the tower. Ms. Norine states correct, we'll be paying rent to Sprint and SCE. Commissioner Bonina asks if Sprint is providing any feedback? If they are leasing the ground from SCE and they built the pole and then you're going and leasing space from the pole, are there any issues that Sprint has provided or surfaced at this juncture? Ms. Norine states that initially when we go into a project and we're co-locating, yes we have to provide Sprint with the same information we provide SCE. They need to approve whether we can co-locate on their pole or not. They tell us yes or no. In this instance, yes we can co-locate. It's structurally sound to be able to handle our antennas so we can build on it. Commissioner Bonina asks so you've gotten past that? Ms. Norine states correct. Commissioner Bonina states that you've gotten your deal structured with Sprint? Ms. Norine states yes. Commissioner Bonina asks and SCE is okay with it? Mr. Llorens states absolutely. We promote co-locate when feasible. Commissioner Bonina states that we are now working through the details. Ms. Norine states correct. Ms. Norine states that she's done a lot of SCE sites and everyone of the sites are different. None of them are cookie cutters; they're not the same so I have to go through all the different standards. Cities want landscaping and groundcover. I have Santa Ana that doesn't want the groundcover because the homeless people sitting behind there and making their homes back there so they'd rather have the mature trees such as in this instance where you have mature landscaping surrounding this property. Commissioner Page 10 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Bonina states that he thinks they're going to find that challenge in any kind of property you're going to develop or redevelop on the West Coast but you're absolutely right it is very challenging. Ms. Norine states that every site is different. Commissioner Merino states that there is an existing tower in the Edison yard, that's correct, yes. You're requesting to co-locate and we've established a set of Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report that we're going to vote on. Ms. Norine responds correct. Commissioner Merino asks are you willing to accept those conditions or not? Ms. Norine states that she is not willing to accept Condition 7 on behalf of Southern California Edison. Commissioner Merino states that's a showstopper. Ms. Norine answers correct. Chair Imboden asks if the wires in the pole are internal? Ms. Norine answers yes. Chair Imboden states that the application is asking for one microwave dish but he doesn't see any indication to the size of that dish or it's location because it's not shown on the plans? Ms. Norine answers 2' diameter. Chair Imboden asks where would it be located and what height? I'm just asking approximate, above the transmitters, or below? Ms. Norine answers below. Somewhere below our antennas, it has to have line of sight to another microwave facility and I don't see it on here. Commissioner Whitaker states that the actual drawings at A4 and then our various illustrations or views are all inaccurate because the microwave dish is not on them. Is that the case? Ms. Norine states that she always likes them to zone for a microwave in case we need that. In this particular instance I don't know if they've taken this off and that they don't need the microwave dish, but I do know that current policy with Royal Street is to always keep the microwave there for our redundant situation in case we need it for a future site, so I don't know why it's not on these drawings now. Chair Imboden asks but it is part of your application so I'd assume you'd want to keep that since it's general process for you. Ms. Norine states I do, especially for redundant emergency situations. Commissioner Bonina asks if that is typically located above the antennas or below? Ms. Norine states it depends on where they need. In this particular instance I believe it would have to be below where our antennas are in the sense that we have Sprint above us directly so there has to be certain clearances. Mr. Knight states that Robert Garcia just shared the SRC plans that showed the microwave dish on it. These plans do not. I would have to say it was a conscious decision on the part of MetroPCS or Royal Street not to have it. Commissioner Steiner asks Ms. Norine if she has a problem with Condition 7? Ms. Norine states the landscaping. Commissioner Steiner states that Condition 7 as he reads it requires that an arborist be hired to determine if groundcover should be placed and I understand that you indicated that you objected to it on behalf of Southern California Edison, those are the words you used right? Ms. Norine states correct. I believe Southern California Edison's position as stated by Mr. Llorens and Mr. Landrith was that at this particular location that they would not want additional landscaping. Commissioner Steiner states that Condition 7 as he sees it does not require landscaping. Doesn't it indicate that you're required to hire an arborist to determine if groundcover should be placed? Ms. Norine states that could be. We can amend the Condition. I'm Page 11 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 agreeable to amending the condition in the sense that if an arborist determines that we cannot or we can, that's fine, but I would also like the condition to state that if Southern California Edison determines that they won't allow it, then this condition goes away too because it is a Southern California Edison decision that they're making here on this particular site and this particular location. Chair Imboden states if he could just interject a comment here for myself, if this item were to move forward tonight, I don't know how the other Commissioners feel, I'm already going to ask that Condition 7 be amended because I feel that it's in here for us to approve a project based on the mitigation that this landscape would provide, however, the way that this is stated, this would only be considered prior to the issuance of the building permits, after the decision has already been rendered. So I'm already going to through this Condition out and ask that it be recrafted if we're moving forward anyway so go ahead with the questions if you want but if I'm going to be looking to move this forward tonight, I'm not going to accept the condition the way it is anyway. Commissioner Steiner states that all he was trying to determine was why the applicant was opposed to Condition 7, but apparently the applicant is opposed to it under any circumstances even the bare requirement of consulting with an arborist. Ms. Norine states that she has no problem with consulting with an arborist. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying and making the point for Southern California Edison that in this particular instance they won't allow additional groundcover, but be that as it may, let's amend the condition however that it can meet this situation. Commissioner Merino states that you have to decide. Edison is right here, if I ask Edison that if they hire an arborist and that arborist comes forth and says there is an alternative here that will work, are you willing to consider that alternative or is it a straight no because she's representing on your behalf that the answer is no. Is it no or is it not no? Mr. Llorens states that they don't have a plan to review. Commissioner Merino states so it could be yes. Mr. Llorens states that based on 7 as it is, as the Chairman says, to date all we have is 7, it doesn't say to look at these plans, it says to hire an arborist. Chair Imboden states that earlier this evening you said that the landscaping that's already there would exceed your current standards. Mr. Llorens answers yes. Clearly what we're looking for is additional landscaping so I think if you feel that any additional landscaping cannot be approved on this site, we may as well hear that tonight because clearly that's what we're looking for. If you feel there is a possibility of that and you'd need to see plans to review that, we should also hear that. Mr. Landrith states that we could take plans to the substation. I'm telling you what I know and from our experience. If you ask is there a possibility, it's like asking in a Court of Law. It's there's .1 % chance, yeah sure anything's possible, I guess. We can get the plans and take them and have them say no 99.9% of the time and looking at the situation with a small substation, confined space, confined space to put that landscaping, knowing our existing standards, there's probably not a lot of alternatives. The area that I'm most concerned with is the Pearl Street side, the residential side and we have overhead lines there so it really confines. There are a lot of elements there where I'm not sure what we could do. I've gone over it with the substation chief there in looking at the standards. I gave you the directive on our right-a- ways, it's pretty cut and dry so we try and work with people as much as possible to sight Page 12 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 these things and keep them as stealth as possible. One thing that stealth is putting them in an area where there's already ugly stuff. My boss probably wouldn't like hearing me say that, but it's ugly on ugly. You've got existing pole, you've got antennas going below, you've got a substation there; it's not a great impact like putting a new monopole next to Starbucks. Is it possible, I guess, but probably unlikely. Mr. Llorens states just to clarify I think it's Pearl Street which is the north side of the substation, there's a small sidewalk area there and per the conditions as Ken stated, we do have a 5' buffer and I believe that's why the west side, in addition to the east side, has that other groundcover because it is 5' away from the actual perimeter fence. So again, based on what #7 says, we'd have to say no because there is no plan and what the request was to add additional to existing. Commissioner Bonina states that if we asked you to put some additional landscaping down next to the current, that's not going to happen. Mr. Llorens states that's correct. Commissioner Bonina states that I did hear you say that you would consider a new landscape plan for that area. Is that correct? Mr. Landrith answers that it's possible. I think as you extend the perimeter it reduces the changes. If you were to propose removing plants on Pearl Street and installing new, I think that is something we could take in review. Commissioner Bonina states that his concern is Pearl Street and Chapman. I think the sides have ample landscaping on either side. I think Pearl, for the benefit of the residents that are living on that street, there is an opportunity for them not to see what they see today. Certainly on Chapman, I think here is an opportunity to better that situation and that's we're trying to get to. In terms of setback, from the fence to the property line was 5' or 3', it's that simply resolved by taking the fence and putting further back into the property and then you have additional area for landscaping. Mr. Landrith states that he guarantees the substation is not going to give up property and move a fence closer to their equipment, it's not going to happen. Commissioner Bonina states in other words your setbacks are predefined and you're more than likely at the limit of those setbacks? Is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Llorens states yes. Mr. Landrith states that the fence is grounded all the way around for safety and you're talking thousands of dollars. Chair Imboden states in regard to the fence. The City Ordinance allows for a 6' high fence. Do I understand you correctly that your requirements would essentially deem this fence having to be 8' high. Mr. Landrith answers yes absolutely, that's our standard to keep the public out. Chair Imboden asks and you would not consider going to a 6' fence if that's what our Ordinance is? Mr. Landrith states that no, that wouldn't happen. Commissioner Whitaker states that the fence on the site looks to be 8'. Is the existing fence an 8' fence? Mr. Landrith answers yes. Mr. Landrith states that they're putting a fence interior to house their equipment and the existing exterior fence remains, but that fence they're installing now becomes our exterior substation fence because they are entering from the outside into their equipment area so from there is has to meet our requirements, 5' clearance. You don't want people going in through their access and then accessing the substation. Commissioner Bonina states that he was there the other day and he noticed that there were piles of gravel and sand and dirt in the facility. Do you also utilize the facility as a staging of that type of material to do other kinds of construction projects in the area? Mr. Page 13 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Llorens states that he couldn't answer that, he'd have to talk to the substation chief as to why those products are there. Commissioner Bonina states that he is curious to have that answer, if would be very helpful. Commissioner Bonina states that he's not sure if that's the norm for the substation. Mr. Landrith states that not on a property of that size. There are other properties that are quite large that we would use for a contractor to lay down yard, but it has to be a pretty large property. Commissioner Bonina reiterates that there are definitely piles of gravel, dirt, sand and then there was a large area of broken concrete that was piled up but I'm not sure what the use of the facility was. Mr. Knight states that the OMC zoning code in commercial districts chain link fencing, there is an exception for chain link fencing may be used for security purposes for public utility structures and for temporary fencing uses and needs and also allows them to use barbed wire so if they need an 8' fence for security purposes, it would probably be in line with the zoning code. Chair Imboden is it simply because of the Edison equipment that we would consider this a utility site or would the cell tower alone qualify as that? Mr. Knight answers that the cell tower would not qualify as a public utility, but the Edison facility would. Commissioner Whitaker asks if we move forward this evening, would you be willing to have that the microwave dish was not part of the permit? Ms. Norine states that she'd like that to be part of the permit. Commissioner Whitaker asks but if we said no because it's not on the plans? Ms. Norine states then I guess I'd have to come back. Commissioner Whitaker asks come back on a second application? Ms. Norine states that if she needed it she'd have to come back for a second, yes. It's now a standard policy to always have that and this instance happened before the policy came in. Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions and asks if the applicant has any further comments before he closes the public hearing. Ms. Norine states that they are with the CPUC, we are considered a public utility. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Whitaker states that as far as Condition #7, Edison's a landlord and I think they have the right to say whether they want a tenant or not want a tenant under what conditions. So if they say we don't want any landscaping, I think they have the right to say that and they risk losing the tenant because maybe we don't approve the tenant. That's their business decision and so then the question comes down to can we approve the aesthetics of this application knowing that it would only be there without landscaping. For me if you had the flush mounted antennas because it's an existing pole, that's already ugly, that's never going away, the flush mounted antennas is probably not any worse, but what I don't like is that you've got what seems to be a continuing set of sloppy applications and here we have absolutely no renderings of the microwave dish and where it's going to go and is it going to extend beyond the exterior footprint of the Sprint antennas up at the top of the tower which could impact the visual blight that's already there, whereas I don't think the flush mounting would. I would only move forward with Page 14 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 the application on the extent if the microwave antenna wasn't part of it and it's flush mounted and Edison is not going to allow any landscaping on their site, so whether they have the new tenant there or not, Edison is never going to make this look any better, but I wouldn't do it with the microwave tower. Commissioner Steiner states that he wants to agree. He's not as hell-bent on the arborist issue. I certainly and absolutely see the value of landscaping in certain co-location applications that have come before us and in instances where we are considering putting up entirely new poles. I think that in many instances that have come before us landscaping can playa critical role, but I understand Edison's position and I also, just looking at the image that was provided to us, to me the main issue was and is the flush mounting. Just looking at the picture of it, whether there was anything in the way of landscaping at the bottom of this cell phone tower to me is not particularly material, but the issue of the proposed antennas being flush mounted definitely is. I'm a little perplexed that at one point in the Staff Report we're told, not by Staff, but that the applicant has indicated that they cannot, not may not, but cannot be flush mounted at this location which suggests some sort of physical impossibility, but I'm glad to hear that position has been modified because I'm willing to seriously look at it if there's flush mounting. Commissioner Merino states that he sees two clear issues for him. One is that we're trying to make the Chapman and Pearl Street for one of our main streets in the City and a neighborhood that is obviously been facing something unattractive, however, that project isn't here. The other part of this is what the tenant, Royal Street, can do or what we can ask them to do to keep the pole from being even uglier. It's been clear that it's the flush mounting. I would be more than happy to move forward with a motion that actually contained the requirements whether it's the arborist or the screening. I just don't think that's going to happen so to deal with the reality that we're facing is that we're going to get perhaps a flush mounted connection on this antenna that's already ugly and I would then say to Edison that the Planning Commission is clearly telling you and whether it's impossible or not, that the Pearl Street and Chapman elevations are of great concern and if other projects and other tenants on this location come forward, you're going to hear this over and over again. I think there is a clear message that I hope you're getting but I don't see that we can hold the Royal Street hostage on the one issue because the two aren't tied together. Commissioner Bonina states that he agrees with Commissioner Whitaker in his comments that he suggested that this proposal/document are not complete, there are some inaccuracy and we need to address that. I also agree with his comment that this is a business decision and I think it boils down to that and there is a business occurs everyday where there are property owners and there are tenants. Tenants come to the City for approval to occupy space and there are criteria imposed on those tenants, which thereby get imposed to the property owner for approvals. It's that simple, that's where we are here. What we're suggesting to Royal or Metro as a tenant of SCE, is that we (collectively) have a need and a desire to enhance the landscape area off of Chapman and off of Pearl, not necessarily for the benefit of SCE and not for the benefit of Metro, but for the benefit of the community and that's what I would like to see. So with that said, what I would like to see here is that we continue this item forward with the condition you Page 15 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 come back with a landscape plan that addresses both Pearl and Chapman, that you provide the microwave dish location on the property, again so that we have a completed application, and then finally we have the flush mount antennas clearly articulated so that we understand where those go as well. To me that would be a reasonable request of Metro and then SCE has something to review. I think one of their complaints, unfortunately, is that they didn't have anything to review. Here's an opportunity for Metro to develop a landscape plan, addressing Chapman and Pearl, that SCE has the opportunity to review and hopefully see the wisdom and community opportunity there to approve a landscape plan that's adequate. That would be my position. Chair Imboden states that he is going to concur with most of the comments that were just most recently made by Commissioner Bonina. There has been some discussion of the landscaping, will it screen the tower. The landscaping that we require for cell sites is not for the tower. The screening and the landscaping that we require is to screen the ground equipment and that is what we need to be looking at in this case. As I mentioned earlier, my problem with Condition #7 is that it asks us to approve an item with perhaps, or perhaps not, getting the mitigation that we would look for to screen that equipment. I too would be willing to continue this with the very clear understanding that it is the screening that we're looking for as it was when we first heard this project but also I would want to express that the plans do have, as they have in the past, left out very vital important information that helps us make our decisions. In order for me to move ahead with these projects, we need that information, we absolutely do at least for myself I do. I'm going to look to the Commission as far as what you would like to do. Commissioner Merino states that if the sense of the Commission were that we want to see certain things for this to move forward, would it not be prudent to put it back on the applicant. Make the conditions that we want to see and they either comply or they don't. If we continue this item, this could go back and forth and we could be right back where we started from. If we want to see something, then we should make the decision to put it in as a Condition of Approval and then it's up to the landlord/tenant applicant package to decide whether they can move forward or not. We will have made a decision. Gary Sheatz states that the applicant has a due process right and the due process is a thumbs up thumbs down on the application they've submitted. It's difficult for the Commission to coerce a condition and say that we know this isn't your application but this is what we're going to approve so either do this or do nothing. As I'm hearing the Commission up here, the issue of landscaping, we might be going down that road. The issue of flush mounting, I don't think it is an issue and I'm taking off of what Commissioner Bonina has said. The flush mounting doesn't sound like that would be an issue, that might be something that would need to appear on the plans or a revision of the plans just like the appearance of the dish. There's definitely the issue of aesthetics and the need to say how is this thing going to look, so let's see where this dish is going to be, let's see what it looks like when it's flush mounted. But as far as the landscaping goes, it's difficult for this Commission to say no we want to send it back, you need to provide us with a landscaping plan if the applicant says, you know what, that's a deal breaker. It's not going to happen, we're not going to do it then the applicant deserves a thumbs up thumbs down something from this Commission one way or the other so they can move on through the process. They could take this decision and appeal it to City Council if they Page 16 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 don't like that they could seek a Writ of Mandate with the Superior Court. They need that. I think at this point it might be best to see from a continuing standpoint. This is just a recommendation, the body does what it obviously does what you feel you need to do, but to get a plan back that is representative of something that shows or reflects the flush mounting if that an issue as well as the location or the appearance of what that dish is going to look like. Chair Imboden states that his response to that is he is looking for is plans that reflect what the applicant is proposing in their application and furthermore, as far as the landscaping goes, that meets the requirements of our City so I don't think that what we're crafting here is necessarily anything beyond what our conventional standards are. Nevertheless, that being said, why don't we just go ahead and jump right to it. Would you prefer to have a continuance if this body does not feel that we can reach an approval this evening or would you rather have a determination? Ms. Norine states that she'd rather have a determination this evening based upon the plans that are in front of you tonight. Chair Imboden states that with that being the case, he would like a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Merino asks if they should amend Condition #77 Commissioner Whitaker states that he would like to make an attempt at a motion whether it succeeds or not, we'll see. Commissioner Whitaker motioned to approve PC 20-07 the resolution to adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06 to allow 6 panel antennas but amending it not to allow the microwave dish. Allowing the equipment cabinets onto existing monopole at property located at 4725 East Chapman Avenue also deleting Condition #7. Chair Imboden asks are we then relieving this project of any landscaping requirements? Commissioner Whitaker states that at this point and hearing what the landlord says that they're not willing to have any landscaping there, yes. That's the motion as it stands because I think if Edison is going to say whether they want a tenant or not. If we do the landscaping, Edison will say no tenant. My motion is basically saying there is no landscaping requirement. Chair Imboden states no screening requirement perhaps it should say. Commissioner Whitaker states that he would add to his motion the green slats in the current chain link fence as screening. Gary Sheatz asks to the maker of the motion Mr. Whitaker that essentially he's moving approval of Exhibit B, the photo simulation that was provided by the applicant. That photo sim does not reflect a dish. Commissioner Whitaker states to forget the photo sims. He is moving the resolution and the Conditional Use Permit as it is stated in here which has as item #6 flush mounting. The Conditional Use Permit and the words are what count. We're taking out the microwave dish because it's nowhere in any of the drawings that we've seen. Gary Sheatz responds now we're back to the drawings. I'm trying to get a grasp when the body is talking about the aesthetics and there is reference to plans in the conditions, so I'm trying to get a handle. Commissioner Whitaker states that we have in past said that they must submit plans to the Building Department that the antennas are flush mounted because I've seen flush mounted antennas before, but I've not Page 17 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 seen how the microwave dish would look and I'm not willing to approve that tonight. They want an up and down tonight and the only way I'm willing to approve it is without the dish. Commissioner Merino states to Commissioner Whitaker if you are willing to do that with the flush mounted antennas, why not do that, for consistency sake, do that for the microwave? Commissioner Whitaker responds because the flush mounted antennas go flush up against the tower and it reduces the aesthetic blight. The microwave dish we don't know where it's going to be on the tower and it extends out. Commissioner Merino states that he would say the same thing of all of the issues here. We don't know how this is really going to look because we don't have a drawing that looks like anything. Commissioner Whitaker states that he made a motion and there was a second and it may fail. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Steiner and Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Bonina and Merino None None Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06 was denied. Commissioner Bonina wants to thank the representatives SCE for coming out and for recognizing that this is a mutually beneficial relationship that SCE and the City of Orange have had historically. You have a lot of properties in our City and I think we have cooperated greatly as a City to allow certain things, Royal being the beneficiary of those often and I just hope that in the future as these things come up, you see the wisdom and try to enhance your facilities for the betterment of the community. Chair Imboden asks if there is any interest in bringing another motion forward. Commissioner Merino states that he would like to make a different motion. He would like to move the project forward with the conditions recommended by Staff with an amendment to the item 7 that the item 7 is retained and that whatever the arborist recommendation is. Chair Imboden interrupts and states that Commissioner Merino can't make another motion for approval. We all agreed on the motion and the second and placed that vote. I'm sorry I may have said motion, I just meant simply any comments that you choose to make in closing to the applicant. Chair Imboden states that the item has been denied. I agree with the comments that have been made here this evening. This project for me is just too far from the standards that we require for such projects and would look forward to seeing further applications that come closer to meeting those standards. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2649-07 - BLUE FROG BAKERY A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control License Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Page 18 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Plan) License for a restaurant including findings of Public Convenience and Necessity. LOCATION: 136 S. Glassell Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2649-07. Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Dan Ryan provides a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. As a note you were provided at your administrative session a copy of the Orange Police Department Memo dated April 12, 2006 recommending approval of Type 41 Beer and Wine sales at the Blue Frog Bakery. On July 12, 2006, the Orange Police Department Memo regarding crime-reporting data was provided rather than the Orange PD Memo recommending approval. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing and asked the applicants to come forward. Mike Mares, 136 S. Glassell and Jill Mares, 136 S. Glassell. Chair Imboden asked if they have any additional comments they want to add. Mr. Mares responds that he would like to thank the Police Department and everybody for approving this. My whole thing on this is just being competitive with everybody else. Chair Imboden asks the applicants if they have reviewed all the conditions that the Staff has set forth with this application and that you're okay with those conditions? Correct. Mr. Mares responds right. Commissioner Merino states that on the ABC application in the Staff Report showed some handwritten item on Page 6 that talks about handling patrons involved in fighting or arguing that you then clarified about calling the Police. I just wanted to make sure it's clear to you that if patrons get out of hand, that's the methodology because when you filled that out, it looks like there were two different answers. Mrs. Mares responds that clear. Mrs. Mares asks about the conditions where it states that no one can serve liquor if they are under 21, but I thought if it was open by someone who was 21, you could serve it if you were 17 or older. Do you know anything on this one? Chair Imboden states that's not really a City ordinance issue so I don't know that this body would want to venture into that territory. Chair Imboden looks to Mr. Sheatz to respond to that. Mr. Sheatz states that he would recommend that they not venture into that territory, that would be regulated by ABC. Mr. Sheatz asks the applicant if he saw that in the City's conditions? Mrs. Mares responds yes the paper that was given to them. Mr. Sheatz states that he rifled through the conditions and he didn't see them. They are not actually part of the conditions that go along with the entitlement so it might have been in something else that you got. Chair Imboden states that it not something that they would have control over anyway so I appreciate you asking that but I don't think any of us are going to want to venture into making a condition like that. Commissioner Whitaker states that what she is commenting on is on Page 3 or 5 in our Findings, the last sentence in Sectionl. Chair Page 19 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Imboden states that nevertheless it is not a City Ordinance and we can't really change that. Commissioner Bonina states that looking at the floor plan, I haven't been in your facility and congratulations on trying to get into this area. There are two bathrooms. Do you have them identified as male/female or are they both unisex? Mrs. Mares responds that one downstairs is for the employees and the one upstairs is for the patrons. Commissioner Bonina states that he wants to highlight Condition #18 that no alcohol is to be served on the patio area. Gary Sheatz states that as Commissioner Whitaker pointed out, that sentence appears in the tail end of Finding #4 and if this item is moved for approval, that the maker of the motion could strike that sentence from that finding that would be most appreciated. Chair Imboden states the last sentence of Finding #4 is that correct? Mr. Sheatz responds that's correct. Chair Imboden asks for any further questions for the applicant. No questions so he closes the public hearing. Commissioner Merino asks Mr. Ryan regarding the crime statistics that we provided shows this to be a low crime area. Mr. Ryan states yes. Commissioner Steiner makes a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2649-07 striking the final sentence from Finding #4 and adopt Resolution PC 26-07 and to state that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Bonina, Whitaker & Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2659-07 - GRAND STREET CENTER CHILD CARD - FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH A proposal for an after school program serving 56 children (Kl-8 per day, operated by the YMCA) and an Infant Care Program (12 babies from Casa Teresa). LOCATION: 146 N. Grand Street (Old Towne Historic District) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 28-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2659-07. Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Dan Ryan provides a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Page 20 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Commissioner Whitaker states that the school didn't have it's Conditional Use Permit but asks Mr. Ryan if the YMCA's 20-year after school program have its' permit? Mr. Ryan answers no it did not. Commissioner Bonina asks about the traffic summary. Is that the one that starts with agenda item and members of the City Traffic Commission? Mr. Ryan states yes it is. Commissioner Bonina asks if that's the body of the summary. Mr. Ryan states correct. Commissioner Bonina asks if the CUP was for the preschool. Mr. Ryan answers correct that's the preschool located on the church property on Orange Street. Commissioner Bonina states that recognizing that's an existing operation at the site and we're proposing something new, do we see some sort of potential conflict moving forward from a Traffic, circulation, or operational prospective if in fact we move forward tonight with the current application? Mr. Ryan states that he doesn't believe so. The playground facilities for the preschool where the kids go directly from the side of that property on Orange Street right into the playground area so there is less impact for them for the movement of the students around and that's important. Commissioner Bonina asks about the drop off. Mr. Ryan states that there are three 9 passenger vans that pick up the students at 6 or 7 schools and those are brought back and unloaded at the yellow loading zone in front of the Grand Street Center and they are escorted into the facility. Commissioner Bonina asks that typically the pick-up will be vehicles, the parents picking up their children and that was considered that they are not all at the same time, they are somewhat staggered was considered in the traffic study. Mr. Ryan answers correct and the length of the yellow zoning was also considered to be important as far as the capacity to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles they would figure would arrive at one time. Commissioner Bonina asks and we do not anticipate any added traffic parking on the opposite side of Grand then much walking across the street to the facility? Mr. Ryan states correct. Mr. Ryan states that in addition we realize that Chapman is using 10 fewer spaces of their shared parking on the Grand Street lot across the street as well. Commissioner Merino also asks about the Chapman agreement and states that it's not a formalized agreement. Mr. Ryan says yes it is and their parking management plan requires them to delineate all of the shared parking arrangements they have around the university. Commissioner Merino asks so if the 10 spots become available, are those formalized in some sort of agreement now with this project? Mr. Ryan states he believes there is some sort of discussion between First Presbyterian Church and Chapman as far as the use of those spaces. Commissioner Merino asks if anything is formalized? Mr. Ryan answers you'd have to ask the applicant, I think they might know Chair Imboden states that he has a few questions. Staff Review committee approved the drop-off and pick-up plan. Did they only have the same map that we have that just shows the street markings? Is there any kind of a site plan? Where I'm confused with this is that I don't have a comprehensive site plan that shows me pedestrian circulation. Once the children get out of the car, how they move to the building and which buildings they move to and how we came to numbers in terms of how many cars are coming at one time or another and typically we have that for this kind of an application. Mr. Ryan responds that it is his understanding that the Traffic Commission reviewed that directly and the Page 21 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 information provided to them is the same information provided to the Staff Review Committee. My understanding is too from the applicant that the yellow loading zone, the staff is required to escort to children when they're dropped off into the center and my understanding if parents choose to park across the street, that they would escort their children across the street, but my understanding is that's going to be a pretty rare occaSIOn. As far as the site plan, there were some details on the loading and unloading zone that were provided to the Traffic Commission. I believe those were also provided to the staff here and to the Commission. The loading zones are indicated here on the Exhibit. Chair Imboden states that the problem he's having is that they show him any relationship to any buildings and also how did we come to these lengths based on the numbers. Mr. Ryan responds that as far as the site plan, you'd have to actually combine. It was impossible to try and put all the information on one page. If you notice, one page has the information as far as the playgrounds, another one has the buildings, another one has loading zone. It's not what you normally get to have in your hands, but it's kind of a look and paste together kind of a concept. My understanding is that the Traffic Commission discussed this at length with the applicant; maybe they can add more information to that because they were involved with that. The frequency of drop-off and the times provided, that the loading zone was large enough to be sufficient for those parents that would be there at those times. Chair Imboden states that they will address any of those questions with the applicant. Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks that the applicant come forward and add any additional comments and be available for questions from the Commission. Judy Sollee, 660 S. Glassell, Orange and I'm the Director of the Orange Presbyterian Preschool and the soon to be open Infant Center. Dolores Maricun, Executive Director of the YMCA of Orange and our offices are located at 146 N. Grand. Bill Teachout, 2243 Foothill Boulevard, Santa Ana, but I'm a member of the Church and I am the Church representative on this project. Chair Imboden asks if they have any additional comments that they felt needed to be made? Mr. Teachout states that in answer to Commissioner Merino's question, there is a signed document with Chapman concerning the spaces that was signed about 3 weeks ago. Commissioner Bonina states that the Chairman has made a fairly good point in that the plans are on different pages and we're trying to follow. How do you see this functioning on a day-to-day basis in terms of kids being dropped off, where do they go, how are they escorted through the process and then how are they picked up? Ms. Maricun answers that there are three vans that pick up the kids from about 7-9 different schools around the City. The way we envision it, they are going to be coming down Grand Street, parking on the same side in the loading and unloading zone, escorting the children through the front gates into the front door and into the gymnasium area. All the kids are signed in by one of our leaders and pretty much the same thing when they leave, but their parents are pulling in, walking in, getting the children, signing them out and then bringing them out to their cars. Commissioner Bonina asks so they are escorted from the van? Ms. Page 22 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Maricun answers yes. Commissioner Bonina asks are they actually escorted or are they simply dropped off? Ms. Maricun answers no; they are escorted in by the staff. Chair Imboden asks at the end of the day, they are escorted again back to the vehicle? Ms. Maricun answers the parents are required to come in and sign them out. Regarding the loading zone, we are encouraging the parents to pull up to the loading and unloading zone to get their kids so they do not have to walk across the street. Chair Imboden asks if he is correct in understanding that there are 56 students? How many cars can fit into this loading zone? How many did you expect would fit into that loading zone at one time? Ms. Maricun answers four. Chair Imboden states then to get to 56, 4 at a time, how much time are we talking about and how are you going to manage that if there's ten people that show up at the same time? Ms. Maricun answers when you look at 56 kids, typically we have more than one child in the family so it's not going to be 56 cars and that depends on when we have sign-ups and sometimes they have siblings, 2, 3 or 4 siblings coming. The parents do start coming about 4:00 so we're talking about from 4-6 so they are spread out. The only thing that I can speak to is at the YMCA where we run another childcare center, on an average you're seeing 3-4 cars coming and going. I've never seen it at the Y where we have 15-20 parents picking at exactly the same time, it's just typically spread out and that's just from my experience. Chair Imboden states that if we already have 3-4 cars picking up and dropping off and now we're going add another 56, right, am I understanding that correctly? Ms. Maricun states no. Chair Imboden asks tell me where I'm not understanding? Ms. Maricun states that the vans are gone. The vans are only there dropping off from 2:30 to 3:00, and then those vans are no longer there. Chair Imboden asks if the red line is part of what they are approving this evening or is that part of the Traffic Commission approval? Mr. Knight answers no, those were actions taken by the Traffic Commission. Chair Imboden states okay, so we're not looking at approving that this evening, that's already established. Mr. Knight states that is correct. Commissioner Bonina states that in a few weeks you are going to come forward with a Conditional Use Permit for the preschool. Is that a conflict with what you're proposing today and how does that work operationally? Mr. Teachout states that the subject of the CUP for the preschool was brought up by Mr. Ryan a couple of weeks ago and I was unaware that it had never been applied for and I then made a trip over to the City and spoke to the people at the Planning counter and pointed out that part of the property for the Church is C-2, so I'm not sure at this point and I haven't discussed it with Mr. Ryan whether or not I really am required to submit a CUP because my understanding C-2 does qualify to have daycare programs. I believe at the present time we are in compliance, but I'm certainly willing to submit a CUP for that preschool if its necessary. Mr. Ryan states that schools and preschools in the C-2 zone require a conditional use permit. Chair Imboden states that we've established that a CUP is required or at least it appears that way right now, is there anyway to anticipate if there will be any type of variances, Page 23 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 anything that's going to cause any problems? Chair Imboden states that he has no objections to their use whatsoever. I think you provide a very important service. My concern with this application is that it's quite fragmented. I realize that there's several parcels, but we have a big use that works as a campus essentially but we're not seeing it in that sense and it's difficult for us to foresee what your expecting to bring forward and what problems there might be with that versus what we have in front of us this evening. Have we started the process at all? I'm assuming we have not since we're still debating whether it's even required or not. My concern is primarily for the safety of the children. I want to know that we can move children around on a site safety from their vehicles, whether it is from a van or from an auto, into the building. Typically when we have these kinds of projects in from of us, we have a much more thorough pedestrian circulation plan that tells us very, very clearly how people are going to move safety across a site so that's where my hesitation is here. Commissioner Bonina states that a Church a couple of 3 years ago had a similar circumstance and one of the resolves was that we actually asked the applicant to develop a master plan which provided, articulated and elevated the issues about circulation and uses on the property and it really provide a clear picture to the Church and more specifically to the City as well and the Planning Department so that they could make these types of decisions. That is something to consider. Mr. Teachout states that when they purchased the property it was their intention to make it an outreach from the Church for the youth of the City. We purposely put the infant care center in the back of the property so that it would not conflict with the YMCA's After School Program. For many years, I would guess 20; they had the infant care and the After School Program up in the front of this property on Grand Street. Now we have the infant care center in the back and there is parking and the ladies from Casa Teresa, which is a block and a half away, can actually wheel the babies over. We have a master plan from the Church's standpoint and that is to utilize that building fully for the After School Program, for the infant care program and certainly the backyard. If any of you have been down on Orange Street and seen what we have done to that playground, I think Downtown Orange should be very proud of the way that looks today. Ms. Sollee states that she was the Director for the After School Program when the YMCA was there and we didn't have the yellow curb and we did bus the children in the same method. We opened up the van doors to the sidewalk, it's as close as I am to you Mr. Knight, and we never had one bit of problem. We never had one bit of problem because you don't have a lot of pedestrians. You have Renata's on the corner and Wells Fargo and then the Church, so there is some parking on the street but I ran that for three years with the after school. We had 158 children between the infant care, the preschool and the school age and we never had a problem. As I say, it's very close to the fence where the children go in. There's a gate there, they go in and it was very safe, we never had one problem. Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions for the applicants? He closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission and asks for any additional comments, questions or motions. Page 24 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Commissioner Whitaker motions to approve PC 28-07, Conditional Use Permit 2659-07 establishing an after school program for 56 children K-l through 8 and infant care program for 12 babies within the existing Church facilities located at 146 N. Grand with all the conditions stated therein. Gary Sheatz directs staff to correct the Draft Resolution, as the Chair's first name is incorrect. Commissioner Bonina states that this is categorically exempt and he echoes Chairman Imboden's comment that we thank you for the service you provide in our community, it's very appreciated SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Merino, Bonina and Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. Chair Imboden calls for a 10-minute break at 9:08 and will reconvene at 9: 18. (5) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4095-06 - MIDSTOKKE RESIDENCE A proposal to convert an existing attic into a new 484 sq. ft. bedroom and bathroom on a 988 sq. ft., one-story 1887 Gabled Roof Cottage. Item was continued from the August 21, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting. LOCATION: 154 N. Shaffer Street (Old Towne Historic District) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review proposed modifications and make a determination on Design Review Committee No. 4095-06. Senior Planner, Historic Preservation, Dan Ryan provides a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden asks Mr. Ryan about the unique character of the property. Mr. Ryan states that he took our Historic Survey and sorted it by date and by architectural style and then those elements looking through the survey of what buildings are very similar and there was only one other building that was somewhat similar that had a porch on the front of it, it had the same roof design. This is the only building of that style. There was a great deal of discussion whether it was 1887 or 1912, but I think that's a little less important whether it was constructed that date or the other date. The issue is what are the characteristics of that particular building and its age that are very unique to other resources within the City? We don't have any other ones that are like this, so I think that's another emphasis that I'm looking at. I went through and pulled out the survey and went through this information and said if we have 500 of these or 300 or 20 of them or is Page 25 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 there another one that's designed the same venue, then I can go look at that and look at the characteristics, but there's not. I went through both the gable roof cottages and the hip roof cottages for all the ones we have in the City, looked at the pictures, looked at the data, and looked at the height. In addition, when we look at a resource, the other thing that we have to pay attention to is that the survey did not have a District record when we did the National Register Survey. Contextually, the block is very important as mentioned in the first and second record of the context. Not only is the resource important, but it's setting and other buildings of similar age within that block are really important, so we also have to look at the large collection for the impact of that. Chair Imboden asks if Mr. Ryan could talk about the second-story windows that were added to this structure and is there impact more to this structure or to this historical streetscape that you're talking about? Mr. Ryan states that the windows would be visible because of the scale and the placement of the house from the sides and the street view. Chair Imboden states that he understands they are visible, but his question is more is it an adverse impact, in your opinion? Mr. Ryan answers that he thinks it's one of the impacts. The other concern I have as noted with the applicants is the unforeseen structural information that might be hidden in the amount of work and impacts to make those changes in order to support that second floor. We've had experiences in Orange where someone started a rehab and it turned into a demolition; single wall construction falls over, I think we do have a couple of those and part of that is we don't have enough information. We start out saying that there might be some concerns here. Now we at least try to do when we figure there may be deficiencies for construction or single wall construction or something that's adverse, try to at least go out and make an inspection to find out whether that building actually can sustain a rehab or, in this case, there was an addition attached to it and the addition stood up and the other part fell down. To answer your question directly, when you look at the side elevations, the windows look too tight in there. It doesn't look appropriate and the simple style of the building itself really calls out that the gables were not finished out with windows. It was not meant to have an attic space on it; it just doesn't seem to fit. It's really trying to put a lot of stuff into a small space and there could be other options. Commissioner Bonina asks about the garage being converted to an unpermitted second unit. Is that something that we are looking at this evening? Mr. Ryan states no it is not. It's a separate Code Enforcement issue. The City is waiting for a resolution of this particular item to see which way they want to go. There might be another option if they want to apply to have an accessory second unit on the property and provide parking for it, that could be another option that was suggested the first time around, but certainly Staff would be willing to look at that but I think at this point we're willing to try to find a solution to what we have here before we proceed with Code Enforcement. Commissioner Bonina asks whether the attic area has been built out as well? Mr. Ryan answers yes it is currently converted. Commissioner Bonina asks was that done with permits or not? Mr. Ryan states no it was not. Commissioner Bonina asks were both of these items done simultaneously or were they phased in? Mr. Ryan answers he does not have timing on that. I do understand that there may have been a bathroom in the rear structure at one. I think the attic conversion happened before that; I don't have a date on Page 26 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 that. Commissioner Whitaker states that he is trying to get a little history of the conversion. When he looks at the attachments that probably came from the applicant, they talk about how they found the home with the upstairs attic and stairway in very bad shape and there's pictures that show their redo of it to bring it into good shape. The question that I can't figure out though is a year ago there were significant concerns about the structure being able to maintain a second floor and especially if you redo a bathroom with tiles, toilets and all those kind of things. Are these as built plans, or are they proposing to go back in and reinforce the structure they've already built? Mr. Ryan states the second part, they will go back and reinforce the structure because one of the requests of the Planning Commission the last time was to have the applicant identify those changes necessary to structurally allow the second floor maintained to meet Code and how that would work out. As you can see there are quite a few changes from foundation all the way up through their structure. Commissioner Merino asks when a project is submitted for review and approval specifically in regards to whether they comply with the Old Towne Design Standards or to the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Ryan states that the overwhelming issues as far as the Secretary of the Interior standards that the recommendation should be to return the building back the way it was. Commissioner Merino states that's not the question he is asking. It's a yes or no answer. Mr. Ryan answers no it does not. Commissioner Merino states both in the case of the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Ryan states more so with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Chair Imboden asks if there are any additional questions for Staff, he will open the public hearing and ask the applicant to come forward and add any additional information that you care to be available for any comments. Craig Wheeler, Architect, 58 Plaza Square. I hope you each have a package of the drawings revised 7 May 07 and on those drawings on the right hand side there's a section called changes since the last submittal. That's where we try to describe what we've done since the last meeting. We came away with four different things that we felt the Commission wanted to see. One was the ribbon driveway that is listed here as being concrete, I don't know where that comment came from, but we are calling out for a concrete ribbon driveway. The next is a study replacing the front door. They did find a door that very much appears to be the original front door. It was in the attic over the existing garage. It's a 34" door rather than a typical 36" and that's what the front door opening is so it's pretty likely that was the original door, so I show that as replacing the door that's there now. The third item was a suggestion by the Commission that we study the idea of some sort of shutter over those two gable end windows on the north and south that would suggest the attic ventilation that is seen on other houses of the period and so we have done that with a study of a possible shutter configuration and since we did that I have played around with a different configuration that I would be happy to share with you. Page 27 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Then the main thing that took the most time was to analyze the building structurally and see what kind of changes would have to be made to make it suitable both for vertical live and dead loads and for lateral loads and I had Chuck Yagi who is very experienced in this area go through it and study it very carefully. He made a number of visits to the site and he came up with the suggestions that I have delineated on sheets S3, D1 and D2 and if you'd like, I would be happy to go through that a bit and describe what we're going to have to do to the house. On sheet S3, the foundation plan, we're going to be adding new continuance footings under two of the bedroom walls on the northwest corner of the area. We're going to be adding new square footings in two locations and a continuance new footing across the front wall between the front of the house and the porch. The details of those are shown on sheet D2. The second floor plans verifies the size and type of the beam that was installed during the modifications as the floor beam that extends across the main living room. We would have to add sheer walls to two of the bedrooms walls and two sides of the front wall. Those sheer walls on the front wall will be installed totally from the interior and should not have to affect the exterior of the house at all. On the roof framing, we're going to adding a new ridge beam over the back gable as well as headers in four locations and as you can see on sheet D2, detail #3, we're going to have to reinforce the single wall construction where it extends up beyond the new second floor because that created a hinge where the forces from the roof were trying to push out that single wall construction and Mr. Yagi has come up with some struts with a fairly complicated attachment detail that will compensate for that and drag that lateral load from the roof back into the floor diaphragm. Other things that are going to have to be done are strapping over the new ridge beams, the new foundations, new hold downs for the sheer walls, doweling into the existing footings and new footings, new strapping over the existing floor beam that was put in during the change and miscellaneous blocking. Those are the primary areas. The engineer feels that it is possible to do it and that it can be done. Those are the things that we've done on the drawings. I also had a couple of comments I'd like to make on the Staff Report. On Page 3, and Mr. Ryan has brought it up this evening, there are numerous references to the 1887 gabled cottage as though it was built in 1887, but to me it seems quite clear by the historical resources inventory on Note 19 it seems to make it pretty clear that the house was either torn down or incorporated into something else that was built in 1912. We brought that up last time, but it seems to me that it's much more likely that it's 1912. Also, as we talked about last time, to me the windows don't look Victorian, they look later and the single wall construction certainly was ramped around 1910. I did another house on South Pixley that was single wall construction that was built in 1910, so it seems very possible to me that this house was built more close to 1912. Also on Page 5 of the Staff Report, one item was that no notation was provided to the material to be used on the ribbon driveway. I take exception to that. I believe that notation was there. Also, the reference on the exterior finishes are not shown for clarity, this is just a standard way of detailing especially for structural Page 28 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 where you don't often show all the materials, so it is clear to see what is being done. There is no sinister motive here to say that the exterior materials are going to be changed in any way. In fact, on the cover sheet of the drawings, I made it clear that there shouldn't have to be any modifications to the exterior. However, as Mr. Ryan pointed out, we've always had mistakes where the contractor starts to tear things down without asking questions so it's going to have to be watched very carefully, but from a structural, I don't see any reason that the exterior should have to be affected. From my standpoint, I wish it could be that the metal siding could be removed and something that could be put back would be more appropriate such as the original bough tons that covered the single wall construction but that's something for the Commission to discuss and my clients to think about. As I said last time, I don't see that much historical significance in this building because it's been so badly damaged. The porch has obviously been rebuilt, it's modern conventional lumber, it's not an historic porch; it's not in the same location as the historic surveys show the porch. The exterior has been clad in this hideous wood grain stamped metal siding that is not an historic material and to me it does not seem that large a deal that some windows have been added to the second story whereas we've been adding windows to second stories or former attics to houses in Orange many times when we make an attic conversion but we'll do our best to see what we can do to make it better. Commissioner Merino asks you've submitted projects throughout the City to the City, correct? Mr. Wheeler answers yes. You've submitted them, gotten corrections, made those corrections, and gotten projects approved, correct? Mr. Wheeler answers correct. Has Dan apprised you of the issues regarding the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards? Mr. Wheeler responds yes. Is there anything that is preventing you from working with your client to make the residents meet those standards and those criteria? Mr. Wheeler responds he personally doesn't see where we're that far off. The only thing that is visibly different on the exterior is three gable windows and then we are proposing to add a rooftop window in the back. That certainly is a change from the historic fabric of the structure. Commissioner Merino asked if he heard him as Dan the City is the arbiter and has that authority, so while I appreciate that you have an opinion and that you're advising your client, as the City has that responsibility and authority, they are giving that to you and in serving your client well, my advice would be that we come to a meeting of the minds and that you comply with the requirements that Dan's setting forth. Do you see that there is a problem with doing that? Mr. Wheeler answers that he feels the Dan feels those windows are not appropriate under the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Commissioner Merino states okay, so that's a correction requirement. Mr. Wheeler states that would be hard to change because we need those windows both for egress and for providing air. If those had to be removed, I don't think the project would be tenable. Commissioner Merino states that as a fine architect that I know you are, that's a challenge that I'm sure you can meet. Mr. Wheeler states that we'll try. I think one of the other comments in the last meeting was to see if there's anyway to move those windows back to the rear and we discussed a gable but I don't see anyway to get a gable back there because there's not much space between the existing rear historic gable. Commissioner Merino states just to sum up, you do understand that the City's putting forth requirements and that you're being asked and the owner's being asked to comply. Mr. Wheeler states right. Commissioner Merino goes on to state when we turn in projects as architects anywhere, Page 29 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 we're given plan check corrections or corrections and you make those and I understand it may be a difficult situation because you may have been brought in after the fact to sort of fix something that's already been built, but we are here where we are so you clearly understand those requirements I assume. Mr. Wheeler states that he sees the Secretary Standards as a matter of interpretation. That there are, I think Dan mentioned, conflicting standards. One thing will say one thing and one thing will say another, so do we have actual hard lines that say this is it or is it something we should discuss, as there are different approaches to it? Commissioner Merino states that the City has the responsibility and authority to make that decision, I'm afraid that Dan's correction list is the one that governs. Mr. Wheeler states that he thinks that the Commission has the responsibility to make that decision. Commissioner Merino states your right. Commissioner Whitaker asks about the three windows that are not historically accurate because they are up on the second floor and in the gable, were they there before the renovation project or were they put in as part of the renovation project? Mr. Wheeler answers that as far as he understands they were put in as part ofthe renovation project. Commissioner Whitaker asks so the dilapidated second story that was there had no windows? Mr. Wheeler answers that as he understands it, there was no second story there originally. The original house had a high ceiling. Commissioner Whitaker asks what was the nature of the home when these owners bought it? Were there three windows there, was the second story there and they're just trying to remodel it or was that not there and they put it in? Mr. Wheeler responds as he understands it, there was no second story. There was an attic. The original ceiling was higher than the current ceiling because they put in a new floor down a little bit lower so that they had more room for a new living space above, but originally there was no stairway and no second story, just an attic. Commissioner Bonina states that condition that you just described, was it prior to these current owners buying the property? What were the circumstances with which they bought the property? Mr. Wheeler responds as he understands it they bought it in the condition where it had no second story. That it had merely an attic. Commissioner Bonina goes on to state, no second story, no windows, no converted back garage, no nothing? Mr. Wheeler answers that the back garage is a different issue. We seem to have evidence that garage has been converted since at least the 70s so that's a totally different issue. As I understand it, all the owners did with the garage was to paint it up, clean it up and fix it up, but they didn't add or change anything. They may have put in new fixtures, but basically the configuration has been since, as least according to former neighbors, at least since the 70s. Also, the configuration shown is the same footprint as shown on the Sandborn map. It appears that hasn't been changed as far as usage for a long time. Commissioner Whitaker asks for a clarification on the pictures that say stairs before and stairs after. The stairs that were there before; were those put in by the applicant? Mr. Wheeler responds I don't know of any stairs before. It was just a pull down ladder. Commissioner Whitaker states that it's not what the pictures show. It looks like a full staircase. Page 30 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 Chair Imboden states that the bathroom before Image says rear window in upstairs bathroom replaced. Commissioner Whitaker asks was there an upstairs bathroom before the applicant bought the home? Mr. Wheeler answers he hasn't been told of one. Commissioner Bonina asks if the property owners could come forward. Commissioner Bonina asks, just to confirm Mr. Wheeler's statement, what was the condition of the home when you bought the house? Mrs. Midstokke answers that the condition of the home was a disaster. Commissioner Bonina asks structurally, what were the improvements? Mrs. Midstokke answers that when they got into it, there was a closet and when we opened this closet, we opened this closet in a bedroom there was a rickety stairway that went up to the attic, but there was no bathroom up there. Chair Imboden asks if there were any windows. Mrs. Midstokke responds no. Chair Imboden states that he is compelled to ask the question because he has a picture of a half demoed bathroom here, toilet moved to farther wall. Mrs. Midstokke replies that was the bathroom downstairs. That was added on at some point after the house was built. Chair Imboden states that the problem is that right next to it says bathroom after, and it shows me the upstairs bathroom. So you're saying those are two different bathrooms? Mrs. Midstokke answers yes; they are on top of each other. Commissioner Whitaker states that one of the comments in the Staff Report is that the more appropriate thing would be to build an addition in the back pushing the footprint out so that you had a line of demarcation between the historic and the non-historic. Have you thought about that? Was there a reason not to do that especially if you take a look at, having gone through a remodel myself recently and all the horrendous costs of structural members, it would be better to have an addition out in the backyard. Mrs. Midstokke states that at this point it would come down to financial. We're into it so far now, down the road to try to start over and put something in the back wouldn't be an option for us at this point. Commissioner Whitaker asks if they've taken a look at what the cost would be to totally increase the foundation and redo the structure? Mrs. Midstokke answers a little bit, yes. We've talked to construction people and we've got their input about them doing it and so we know where we are there. Chair Imboden moves to a public comment and calls Jeff Frankel forward. Jeff Frankel, on file, on behalf of the Old Towne Preservation Association. Our position really hasn't changed on this project since the last hearing. We did have an opportunity to review the Staff Report, but the plans were not available at the Library, but Mr. Wheeler was kind enough to share them with me for a short period of time before the meeting. Again, this is a unique historic resource being the only pre-1900. That's up in the air. I know on the City's website, here is the newest inventory because it has a 2005 photo. It states it's an 1887, but I guess that's neither here nor there. We agree that if at all possible in adding additional living space to an historical structure, Page 31 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 that it's best to utilize unused space within the existing structure, but with this structure it may prove to be a challenge that cannot be met. The windows that were added at the gables have a negative impact on the original design of this structure and they should be removed, as the addition of shutters does not seem to be a viable solution. As with some bungalows, they were designed with larger attics for possible future expansion and therefore their gables were larger and could handle a larger window and some were actually built to include living space within what appears to be an attic area. This home, it seems, was never intended to incorporate living space in the attic. If adding living space in the attic has a negative as well as unknown impacts on the exterior character and defining features of this home, then it is not an appropriate direction to take and adding on to the rear of the home would seem to be a more appropriate way to go. I think we do have to ask the question that if this project was proposed and had already not been completed or built, would it be considered for approval? I don't know, I think we find that unlikely. We would suggest adding a sympathetic addition to the rear of the structure that is out of public view, removal of the inappropriate siding and restoring the porch to the original configuration if that's known. In addition, we agreed with Staff regarding the restoration of the garage to accommodate two cars, but apparently that is not part of this project and I thought it was. I was looking at this house before the applicant's purchased it and I noticed that there was 2 by 4 framing in the interior and I wasn't aware it was single wall construction. It must have been at one time because the attic seems to be single wall. Aside from the fact that in our opinion this proposed project does not meet the standards, there still seems to be unknown impacts associated with this project, therefore, we again, encourage the Commission to deny the project before you. Chair Imboden asks the Commissioners if they have any other questions for the applicants? Commissioner Bonina states that the whole idea of having work done with permits is one that I don't endorse, but putting that aside for the moment, it just seems to me what this boils to is the visual impact of these windows and these proposed shutters. I have a question for Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Merino touched on this, is there a way to put these windows in the back and still provide for the space that you have understanding that you'd still have to do all these structural items and everything else that's being proposed? Mr. Wheeler responds that he hasn't found one. As I mentioned, the only space that seems adequate would be, as you're looking at the front of the house on the left rear, but that would place the window over the existing stair going down, so that window would not be available for egress, you'd have to leap across the stair opening to get to the window. It would be available to light and air, but that would be about all. I can look but I don't think there's enough room to get a new gable on the right hand side in the back without that gable being a very visible element from the side of the house. It's going to be very close to the edge of the house if it works at all so I can't see one. Theoretically it might be possible to reconfigure the whole second story so that you try to get one major window that does all in the back of the small gable in the rear but I don't think that would give enough light and air from looking at it. It would be off of a very small area and Page 32 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 trying to service this much larger area. I've tried but I haven't been able to find a way to do it. Commissioner Bonina states that not being an architect, does the window from the roof contribute to the light? Mr. Wheeler answers yes, that contributes to the light and the air because it is an operational roof window, but it doesn't do anything for the egress. It's still too high for that, so we have to rely on one of the two new gable end windows. One of these will have to be converted from a current double hung to a casement that will look similar to a double hung but maybe will give us a large enough opening to meet the 5.7 square feet of area you need for an egress window. Chair Imboden states that he has a question regarding the shutter proposal that you have and if I could I want to remind the Commission where the project was when we sent it back. We had discussed the opportunity of other egress options from the second story and it didn't appear that they were possible and we encouraged the applicant, with the crux of Staffs concerns regarding this, was the addition of that second story window, but we said let's find a way to diminish that window. Actually the direction that was given was not to create shutters, but to create the appearance of an attic vent and then the question was raised how do we get our egress and the response was have it function as a shutter. Instead what I think we have done is design decorative shutters that I think are entirely out of context with this house, in fact, draw more attention to something that we're trying to get rid of. I think that what we have in front of us tonight is really to assess the impacts personally and whether we feel they are adverse or not. Let me ask you, before we move on to that, about this shutter being quite frank with you that I'm not happy with the solution that came back to us. Mr. Wheeler asks if he could pass around the alternate one? Chair Imboden answers go right ahead. Chair Imboden states that in his opinion you're getting closer, but we now look like louvered shutters instead of just louvers and I'll be real frank with you about another thing. What I don't want to see here are shutters put on this house, if this is the direction we go, shutters that are put on this house that as soon as someone inhabits the home, they open the shutters and now we have an upstairs with shutters again drawing more attention. It has to be understood that this is first and foremost an attic vent. Mr. Wheeler states that is one thing he was trying to do there. He was suggesting that these shutters be put on with spring hinges so they would be encouraged to stay closed. Whether that works or not, whether the Building Department will accept it, I don't know. Chair Imboden states that he knows what he would do if he lived in the house. I don't know how the rest of feel if this is a direction and we're getting into comments now rather than discussion, but I guess this may be where you have to make some changes if we move there. It's still shutters to me and that's not what we asked for. We asked for the appearance of an attic vent that would diminish the second story appearance of this house. I don't want to consider or entertain anything that is going to bring more attention. That's the opposite of what we're trying to do here. So it sounds as though you're open and not set on any kind of desire for that up there. I think that's the only question I have. Actually for clarification, let me just cover a couple of things. When I look at PI, I see a new concrete ribbon driveway; keynote #5 so I think your proposal is Page 33 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 to do concrete. Mr. Wheeler answers yes. Chair Imboden states he is fine with that. The only other thing that I was confused with was the plans where they state reusing what you believed to be the original door. There was kind of a question mark there and I just want to make sure that we're on the record here that you do intend to use that door because the door that's there now is part of this remodel as well. Chair Imboden states that it's keynote #4, A4. I just want to make sure that isn't a question. Mr. Wheeler states replace the current entry door, the one that's there now, the one that everyone feels is inappropriate, with the door that we found in the attic of the garage. Chair Imboden states that answers his questions for the applicant. Chair Imboden asks if the Commissioners if they have any other questions for the applicant. There are some things that need to be discussed. Chair Imboden asks if the applicant has any closing comments? He closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission. Chair Imboden states this is a problem project as well all know and the problem is caused, of course, because we're trying to make something comply that didn't come forward for review in the first place. That makes it more difficult. That doesn't mean that I think we can't find some kind of solution here that meets City requirements, meets Secretary of Interior Standards, gives the homeowners some kind of final resolution to this. I don't know when this came to us before, but I'm looking back through the minutes and I see old Commissioner's names on here. Some of you this may be your first time seeing this even. Commissioner Bonina states you meant prior Commissioners, not old Commissioners. Chair Imboden states some were prior; some were older. At any rate, I think we have to determine where we are. I know that last time this was in front of us Staff gave us recommendation for denial based on Secretary of Interior Standards. I have to say that I don't agree with that conclusion and Mr. Wheeler brings up an important point when it comes to the Secretary of Interior Standards. There is not a list of items that we can just go down and check off that we've met each one of them and the project moves ahead. Instead they have to be consulted very, very carefully. You have to read through them to find the intent of the standards and try to apply that philosophy in that intent toward the project as you make your decisions and really use it as a guide to make educated decisions. I understand that there are standards that would lead a person to not interrupt the historic resource and do an addition to the rear, that is one option the Standard allows for here. However, when I look at the massing of this building and I look at the floor plan, I have no doubt whatsoever that an addition to the rear of this building would cause more disruption of the historic resource than what is being done right now. Beyond that the Secretary of Interior Standards that I have in front of me in their introduction to the section that deals with Alternations or Additions For New Use that this would certainly fall under. The construction of an exterior addition on an historic building may seem to be essential for new use but as emphasized in the Rehabilitation Guidelines which is part of our approved Ordinance, that such new addition should be avoided if possible and considered only after it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering secondary, i.e., non-character defining interior spaces. When I look at this I certainly would have to say that I think an attic of a house is a non-character defining interior space. Yes a stairway has been added to the living Page 34 of 38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 room, but there was a stairway of some sort there already. We have a picture of it. I think the modification is very minor. To me the biggest crux with this project, I think we've solved all the other issues, with the door, the issues with the driveway that we had in front of us last time, are the situation with these windows that have been added and I think we have to come to a conclusion as to the adverse nature of those windows and all options on the table, what is going to create the least impact to this historic resource? We sent the applicants away last time asking them to try to disguise this, to try to mitigate those windows. I can't say that I'm ready to go exactly with what's proposed, but certainly what we're seeing tonight is getting closer to that, but I want it to be understood that my direction and feeling is that the way that the addition has been done within the existing bulk and mast does very little to disrupt the overall form and character of the building. It does very little, actually, to impact the interior of the building. I think that you keep within the standards as much as you can by the way that it's been done. I hate to condone the way that it's been done, but that is what I'm doing. I'm going to throw it out to the other Commissioners here. I just hate to see us veer off on a direction entirely different than when we visited this last time. Commissioner Bonina adds I think we need to be practical, I think it's important here at this juncture. We tried to explore the opportunity of relocating the windows and apparently it sounds like that's not going to be feasible. I think the applicant, through the architect, has been able to address the structural issues that we had required back in '06 and I think that was very important to make sure that was taken care of. My recommendation here would simply be that we approve the application as submitted with the change that the shutters be worked between the architect and Mr. Ryan and allow Mr. Ryan to have the final say if, in fact, it does comply from an historical prospective and it's something acceptable to the City. To me that would be a reasonable resolve and again, we certainly don't condone folks going forward with projects that are not permitted. It's not something that we endorse here. Commissioner Merino states that he is having lots of difficulty with this issue because we have vested our Historic Planner on this project and our Staff with the ability to make the decision and the interpretation on the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. We've had that interpretation made, and we have a Staff recommendation. It gives me great pause to now, essentially from the dais, make another interpretation that is different than our Staff is making because we have to have some finite person interpreting those two standards by which to make a decision so that when other applicants come forth it's not assumed that they can come to the Commission and maybe get a different answer. That being said, I have great sympathy with the applicant. I'm sure they regret having moved ahead without the permit and based on the argument that the Chairman made, it's very convincing, but it's different than our Staff member made. I'm still somewhat torn and probably won't be able to make a final decision until I push the button, but I'll say that there is a precedent that I'm concerned about and we should be careful in looking at this when we push the button. Commissioner Whitaker states that it's a very close call and I think our Planner said it was a close call in the way that he came down on it was that it was less damaging to the historic character of the building to build onto the rear and the way the Chairman's Page 35 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 saying that it's less damaging to the historic character to stay on the interior and I'm really conflicted as to which way is the right way but that's in our discretion. That's why we're appointed to sit up here and make a decision. If you visit the property, the windows especially on the north side aren't very visible due to the landscaping that's there. The south side is the side you're really most concerned about because that's the side that's facing the Library and people are going to see. I think obliviously the current shutters bring more attention to it. I would like to see something as the Chairman indicated, it even in the minutes from the meeting a year ago, to have something that looked like an attic vent. Where I am at this point in time, I would probably lean towards where the Chairman's position is. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Ryan, to all eave a little bit of Commissioner Merino's concern and I appreciate what he said and I just want to get clarity. Mr. Ryan, it didn't sound to me that you were necessarily, absolutely advocating that the resolve here would be to put an addition in the back but that one of the resolves would be to do something with the windows in terms of the shutters, making them look like attic vents as the Chair has suggested. Mr. Ryan responds that he is very clear on the issue that I believe the design and the uniqueness of the building warrants that there are not windows in the gable ends. Commissioner Bonina asks your black and white there? Mr. Ryan states the options would be to explore what the impacts would be to adding the addition to the rear of the property. Certainly that's been the given custom when there's an issue as far as bulk and mass, if the secondary building or addition is of lower height and it's constructed within the setbacks or has a line of demarcation. My main concern is the amount of structural changes to the building and my experience in Orange about when that takes place-having buildings where a project gets way beyond what they discover because there hasn't been a thorough investigation of how the building is constructed. Termites do like red wood even ifit's 100 years old. Even on my own experience you don't know what's there until you open it up. The problem being when you're that far along and you comment yourself to it. I just see that the amount of structural work that could be done could be better put to building an addition on the rear that would be compatible and resolve those issues as far as access and floor plan. I think that there's an addition on the back that's a later addition, a little shed roof that comes down, I'm sure that's less appropriate and historic than an addition that's properly designed on the back. I have grave concerns that's a unique building by itself and any changes to it, based on the amount of work they are proposing could have an adverse impact of the unknown and it seems like a better direction to be consistent with the kind of additions onto the rear with a line of demarcation and it's sometimes easier to pencil that out as new construction than going into something that's unknown and then you can keep the main building as it is. You don't have to put a new floor system and do everything else. Commissioner Bonina asks in the typical attic, would you not expect some sort of ventilation of that attic through vents? Wouldn't that be a typical mechanism to vent an attic? Mr. Ryan responds a lot of times the gable vents at the end have vents to get the heat out of the building even ifit wasn't habitable space. Commissioner Bonina asks about Commissioner Whitaker's comment about the south Page 36 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 window being the most prominent. Is there an opportunity of removing that south window entirely and then moving forward with the other two and still making this work? Mr. Ryan states that it gets back to the central question is the building unique and compromising one portion visibly to another portion is the same issue whether you're going to build on the back or do the addition. Chair Imboden comments that in regard to the uniqueness of the house, certainly unique construction, techniques, unique styles of homes can lead to their listing on the National Register simply on that basis but that it not the reason for it's listing as being some unique type of construction. In fact, the modifications that we're talking about here this evening don't impact the uniqueness that is being discussed here. If we were to change this to blowout dormers through the roof, then yeah, of course we would be changing that but I think we have to be careful what truly are the character defining features. Bottom line does the house demonstrate or convey a sense of time and place which is it's requirement to be brought into the district and to be constructed during our period of significance. Another thing that was brought up that is often overlooked that yes the back of the house probably was an addition or has been changed over time, however, if it occurred during our period of significance which brings us all the way up into the 1940s, if it occurred during that time, it also is significant material and we can't just discount it because it was not part of the original building campaign. Just because it may not date from the original construction of the house, doesn't mean that we lose it to do an addition. I just want to clarify where I'm coming from with this. There are a number of ways that we look at these things and we have to be very comprehensive in doing so. Pulling a few standards here or there won't get us there. Chair Imboden motions that the Planning Commission approve Design Review Committee No. 4095-06 Midstokke residence with the condition that the applicant or the applicant's representative provide for Historic Planner Dan Ryan's approval window screening with the appearance of attic venting that attempts to diminish the presence of the new second story windows. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Bonina, Merino & Steiner None None None ADJOURNMENT: MOTION CARRIED. Chair Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, August 6, 2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Bonina, Merino & Whitaker None Page 37 of38 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 2007 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:21P.M. Page 38 of 38 Pages