Loading...
2007 - December 17 Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 1 of 29 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 17 December 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session @ 6:35 p.m. Chair Imboden reviewed the Agenda with the Commission. The minutes from the November 19, 2007 meeting were reviewed - no changes were noted. Item No.2 Glos Residence: This was an Old Towne item with a recommendation from Staff for approval. Commissioner Merino stated that the site plan Al was very small and difficult to read. Mr. Ryan stated the setback prints were larger. Commissioner Bonina asked for the total square footage, as he had come up with 624 sq. ft.? Mr. Ryan stated that his measurement was correct, which was a 24% increase. The existing structure was 1664 sq. ft. and the addition of394 sq. ft. for a total of2059 sq. ft. He also noted that the enclosed porch of229 sq. ft. was not included. Item No.3 Chapman RV #4: Chair Imboden stated he had received a letter from Mary Ann Sferruzza, he would acknowledge receipt of the letter for purposes of being entered into the record. He also stated that he would have questions on the item. Commissioner Bonina asked on page 7 of the Staff Report, under the parking information, were columns 2 and 3 transposed? Mr. Ortlieb stated that they were transposed and he would note the correction when presenting the item. Commissioner Whitaker stated there was a repeated reference to a prior application. He asked if there was any history or information on that application? Mr. Ortlieb stated that Staff had tried to locate by address, cross street and other variables; however, Staff was not able to come up with anything. Item No.4 Beacon Day School: Commissioner Steiner asked Chair Imboden ifhe would be willing to move this item to the front of the agenda, as the applicant had been at the end at a previous meeting? Chair Imboden stated he had no problem in moving the item up in the agenda. Chair Imboden stated that the item was a minute order and were there Page 1 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 2 of 29 any procedural differences in the action they took on the item? Mr. Knight stated that the only difference was the motion and second would be noted in the minutes and a copy of the minutes would be placed in the applicants file. Item No. 5 Dance Partner: This was a final action on a CUP and Variance. Commissioner Steiner stated the Staff recommendation was split. Additional Business: Mr. Knight announced that the Planning Commission Institute Conference was coming up in March and if anyone was interested in attending to let him know. The dates were March 26 through 28 and Chair Imboden would be a speaker at one of the seminars. Administrative Session closed @ 6:50. PUBLIC P ARTICIP A TION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT ITEM (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the November 19, 2007 minutes as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED COMMISSION BUSINESS (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4290-07 - GLOS RESIDENCE A Proposal to replace a non-contributing screened-in porch and construct several smaller additions totaling 395 square feet resulting in an expansion that exceeds 20% of the size ofthe existing 1,654 sq. ft. contributing 1905 Hip Roofed Cottage. LOCATION: 816 E. Culver NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provlSlons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Page 2 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 3 of 29 Approve Design Review Committee No. 4290-07 approving an Old Towne addition that exceeds 20% of the existing floor area for a contributing residence. Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing. Applicant, Kurt Beckmeyer, Project Architect, 5659 Berkshire, Los Angeles, stated he enjoyed working with Staff and they were able to come up with design solutions based on the recommendations made by the DRC, including the changes to the roofline. He explained the square footage overage of 20% was less than a 4% increase in what was allowed. Commissioner Merino asked if he was licensed by the State of California? Mr. Beckmeyer stated yes, that was correct. Chair Imboden stated in reviewing the plans the windows were not specifically denoted as wood. Mr. Beckmeyer stated the windows were wood. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for public comment. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTP A, stated the OTP A supported the project and the addition was very complimentary in scale and mass to the Old Towne District. The addition was sympathetic to the streetscape as it would be barely visible from the street. This had been one of the few sets of plans that he reviewed where there was a notation that included the demarcation between old and new. Janet Crenshaw, 280 N. Cleveland, Orange, stated she was present to praise the project and the sooner they completed this project the applicant could start on the barn. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Commission for discussion. Chair Imboden stated it was refreshing to see a set of plans for an Old Towne project where an appropriate designer was hired for the job, and it was a good project for the community. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve DRC No. 4290-07, Glos Residence, noting the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Page 3 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 4 of 29 ABSENT: None RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: (3) MAJOR SITE PLAN NO. 0404-05; MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1790-07; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2554- 05; VARIANCE NO. 2173-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4220-07 - CHAPMAN RV #4 A proposal to establish a Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility within a BA8-acre Southern California Edison property that will continue to maintain towers supporting overhead power lines. A Variance is requested to waive a requirement to install a solid wall or fence enclosure within a 20-foot landscape setback from the residentially zoned properties to the north of the site. LOCATION: 1582 N. Tustin NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1790-07 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 25070 and in conformation with the local CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 46-07 approving the project. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner stated referring to page 16, item P Mitigated Negative Declaration, it appeared that two selections had been marked, one for no impact and one for less than significant impact. He asked which was correct? Mr. Ortlieb stated the correct selection was a less than significant impact. Commissioner Steiner asked if the proposal had been reviewed by the Fire Department and if any opposition had been received from the Police Department? Mr. Ortlieb stated the proposal was reviewed by the Fire Marshall for compliance with Fire Codes and the Fire Department had recommended the item for approval. No opposition was received from the Police Department. Commissioner Steiner asked on the article submitted with their packets, dated November 19,2007 from the LA Times, titled Edison Zaps Lease and Build Program, was it Staffs Page 4 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 5 of 29 position that anything proposed on the application under the power lines qualified as commercial structures? Mr. Ortlieb stated no, there was a modular structure proposed for the site without a permanent foundation. Commissioner Steiner asked ifthere were any proposed zone changes for the project? Mr. Ortlieb stated no, there were no proposed zone changes. Commissioner Merino stated on Page 12 ofthe Staff Report, there was reference to a wall recommendation parallel to the northerly adjacent residents. He asked if there had been a wall recommendation by SCE, and if there was an SCE representative present? Mr. Ortlieb stated no, and there had been no recommendation or approval by SCE for a wall. There was not an SCE representative present. Commissioner Merino asked in reference to the parking study, were the individuals who would bring the RVs to the site being considered as an additional vehicle, and was this considered in developing the required parking? Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff requested that information from the applicant. The applicant indicated that at their other location there was not a need for additional parking, and he would like to defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Merino asked if there was any consideration given to the requirement for a signal to assist with vehicles turning in and out of the driveway? Mr. Ortlieb stated he would defer that question to the Traffic Division. Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani, stated that a signal was not considered for the RVs entering and exiting the storage facility. In reviewing the traffic impacts a signal was not warranted. Commissioner Bonina asked if the existing driveway was wide enough. Mr. Farahani stated it was wide enough. Commissioner Bonina clarified that an RV would have the ability to turn in without over emphasizing a radius turn and allow another R V to turn out. Mr. Farahani stated there was adequate space for an RV to enter and exit. The space was analyzed by the Fire Department for use by a Fire Truck and it was found to be adequate. Commissioner Bonina asked ifthe RV had the same ability to make radius turns as a Fire Truck? Mr. Farahani stated an RV had the same mobility as that of a Fire Truck. Commissioner Bonina asked if Mr. Farahani had an opportunity to participate in a parking study? Page 5 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 6 of 29 Mr. Farahani stated no, he had not participated in a parking study, as they felt what was being provided on the proposal was adequate. Chair Imboden stated the Fire Department reviewed the driveway and found it to be adequate for a Fire Truck to enter and exit the site. He asked if there was an analysis completed which looked at an RV entering across traffic into the driveway, while another RV was leaving the site? The Fire Department did not look at a Fire Truck entering and exiting at the same time, and was that type of analysis completed? Mr. Farahani stated no, that type of a study was not completed. The Traffic Department felt that the driveway and site set up was adequate as it allowed for stacking on the driveway. Chair Imboden stated the minimum width driveway required for such a facility was 30' and he asked what was the proposed driveway at? Mr. Farahani stated it was at the minimum of30'. Commissioner Whitaker, referring to page 4 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, stated there was a proposed 20' landscape buffer along Cambridge and a 30' wide buffer along the northern property. He confirmed that those widths were on the plans, and in those two areas there would be 4,600 Queen Palm trees to a height of 15' feet stored there for the existing nursery. The condition proposed in the Variance stated that adequate numbers of box trees would need to be maintained. How was the constant landscape buffer going to be policed? Mr. Ortlieb, referring to page 4 of the environmental document, stated the number of trees in the buffer was the amount the applicant had provided for and was different than what was required by Code to fulfill their tree obligation. Commissioner Whitaker stated he was not referring to the tree obligation, but the wall Variance, and their intent to meet the Code was to provide the heavy landscape barrier. The proposal states that box trees must remain in the quantities in areas of the site plan for the duration to conform to the conditions. Did the proposal require 4,600 trees in the landscape buffer to meet the conditions of the Variance and how would they insure there would be 4,600 trees there at all times? Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff did not link the number of required trees to the number stated in the environmental document. The requirement was for the location of box trees, when the nursery would take a tree they would be obligated to replace the trees, the policing of that would be ongoing. Commissioner Bonina asked what the proposed hours of operation would be? Mr. Ortlieb stated 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Bonina confirmed that the decision made on this proposal was a final action and it would not move to City Council. Page 6 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 7 of 29 Mr. Ortlieb stated correct, it was a final action. Commissioner Bonina stated a comment was made on the consistency of the plans, what level of inconsistencies were present in the plans and the Staff Report? Mr. Ortlieb stated in the Staff Report the setback area vs. the site plan, one showed 20' and one showed 30' in referring to the landscape area. Commissioner Bonina confirmed on the Staff Report it showed 20' and the plan showed 30', as he had also noted a range of23' to 30'? Mr. Ortlieb stated one was 25' the other was 30'. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a title or Alta Survey completed on the properties to identify any underground utilities that were found? Mr. Ortlieb stated there was not one submitted for Staff review. Commissioner Bonina asked if it was typical to not ask for a survey? Mr. Ortlieb stated on an existing site that would be predominantly unchanged, and the site was not being disturbed, it was not required. Commissioner Bonina asked ifthere were any water or gas lines located in the ground? Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff was not aware of any. Commissioner Bonina stated that SCE did not allow a permanent fence, with the exception of a perimeter wall. It was his understanding, if a wall between the Edison property and the residents to the north was enhanced it would meet the SCE requirement. Mr. Ortlieb stated it would be allowed by SCE, it was not required. Commissioner Bonina stated it appeared that a fence would be allowed. Mr. Ortlieb stated in speaking to the applicant they would be willing to accept a right turn only to enter/exit the site. Commissioner Merino stated the applicant had a similar project on Batavia and they were using that as a comparison, did Mr. Farahani have the level of service for the Batavia location? Mr. Farahani stated he did not recall the level of service on Batavia. The level of service on Tustin was at a level C. That was well below the threshold. Commissioner Merino stated for comparison purposes he wanted the level of service on Batavia. Mr. Farahani stated he would look for that information and give the Commission the level of service on Batavia. Commissioner Bonina stated he had an opportunity to speak to Larry Labrado, an SCE representative, about the item. Page 7 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 8 of 29 Chair Imboden opened the public hearing. George Tindall, 610 Malabar Drive, Corona Del Mar, stated the driveway on Tustin Avenue was 40' wide, and it exceeded all residential standards. There was no issue with vehicles turning out and vehicles turning in. They had agreed to restrict turns to right turns only. He passed out a letter to the Commissioners and explained it was an SCE letter stating they were in compliance with SCE standards, and there was no permanent structure proposed for the site. A question had been raised regarding an Alta Survey, SCE had a survey that was similar and showed a map with all utilities on the site. In regard to the inconsistencies, the requirement was for a 20' setback on Tustin and Cambridge, if the Code required 30' they would comply. The closest motor home to Tustin Avenue would be 400' away from the right-of-way, and the closest proposed motor home space from Cambridge would be 48 11' away. Mr. Tindall added that they were required by the Ordinance to provide a minimum of 20' of heavy landscaping between their site and the adjacent residential properties. The heavy landscape they proposed was 20 11' to 30' of Queen Palm trees to shield the neighbors to the north from the site. Mr. Tindall stated he had been working on the project for several years and with the recent City Ordinance restricting RV parking there was a need in Orange for facilities as the one they were proposing. Their property was zoned for an R V parking and storage facility, and it required a CUP. The Commission was reviewing the matter to insure that all the conditions of approval had been adopted to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. They had worked with four different City Planners and had prepared an extensive Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Green Plan and a very comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan that had been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. They had also prepared a traffic study that took into account the trips in per day, including the July 4th and Memorial weekends and the result was that the traffic had a nil impact on Tustin A venue, Cambridge and the adjacent intersections. The level of service on Tustin was a level C or better. Village Nursery had lost their lease and they were able to make use of the site with their proposed facility. The project had been reviewed by the Fire Department and had listed conditions that were included in the Staff Report. The same plan was also approved by the O.C. Fire Authority. Mr. Tindall stated the 4 guest parking spaces were adequate for any guest wanting to park when dropping off their vehicle for the first time. Generally when a tenant was picking up their vehicle they would leave the vehicle that they drove in, in the spot where the RV would be taken from. The driveway was 40' wide and 70' long with a turn in. Most cities shied away from having 2 parallel fences that increase a "no mans land". The City of Orange Ordinance required a fence at the 20' right-of-way line, which meant there were two parallel fences, the other being at the property line on the north. This situation was problematic as SCE did not allow parallel fences on their site. If the parallel fences were built with heavy landscape in between, there would be no means to maintain the landscaping between the fences, and therefore, they had requested a Variance. He stated they were willing to install some type of fence along the north property line; they had spoken with some of the residents regarding that concept. To fulfill the requirement for security lighting they would install low profile lights that would be shielded to prevent glare and spillage. He acknowledged that letters opposing the project had been received Page 8 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 9 of 29 and he stated they had also received letters from neighbors who were supportive of the project. 80% of their clients at the Batavia storage site were Orange residents. Commissioner Merino asked on the issue of parking, when an RV was picked up, the car was left in the parking lot, would this mean there were no guest parking spots available? Mr. Tindall stated that four guest parking spaces were adequate, and the most pick ups that they had experienced were two at one time. The Batavia site had no guest parking spaces. Commissioner Merino asked where did the individual who would pick up his R V park? Mr. Tindall stated that the car would pull up to the RV space, the RV would back out and then the car would pull into the R V space. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to evaluate the data, and in reviewing the parking he wanted to know how many trips per day that activity would generate. Manny Goreal, 2874 Westhaven, Anaheim stated they did not require guest parking as the person picking up their RV would park their car in the RV stall after the RV had been pulled out. Commissioner Merino asked how many spaces would that create as part of the trip? Mr. Goreal stated they would not use a guest space; they would pull into the space that the R V was in. Mr. Tindall stated four guest parking spaces had been provided, however, based on their need they were not required. On the Batavia and Garden Grove site there were no guest parking spaces. Commissioner Merino stated when someone was picking up their R V they would need a place to park the vehicle that they had arrived in. Mr. Goreal reiterated that the tenant would leave their vehicle in the spot that the RV was pulled out from. 95% of the vehicle pick-ups were handled in that manner. Commissioner Whitaker had a concern with the variability of the box trees and the need of the nursery to take them. Would the applicant be willing to provide permanent heavy landscaping in the 23,20, and 30' perimeter areas? Mr. Tindall stated only one side of the property would have box trees. Village Nursery would own and maintain the trees, and they had agreed to remove not more that 1 % of the trees at any given time. They wanted the trees to be there as long as possible. The Queen Palms provided a dense, forest type separation between the storage facility and the neighbors to the north. This was the solution they had come up with. Page 9 of 29 Pages Commissioner Whitaker asked if the applicant was willing landscaping? December 17, 2007 10of29 to provide permanent Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Tindall stated they were willing to provide permanent landscaping, however, SCE had a limitation on tree height. If the Commission required the permanent solution they would be willing to look at that. Commissioner Bonina stated he agreed there was a need in the City for an off site parking area. He confirmed that the proposed modular building was a one-story building. On the RV stalls the depths were 10, 35,40,42 and 50' deep, with driveways of25-30' wide, he asked for further clarification on the vehicle maneuverability on the site? Mr. Tindall stated the geometrics were the same as at the Batavia site, 10' worked well with 15' angled parking to allow vehicles to back in. There was no through parking, which allowed time for the drivers to make their maneuvers. The turning radius worked for the site. SCE's turning radius requirement exceeded the Fire Department requirement. Commissioner Bonina clarified that a 45' RV was able to back into a 25' aisle adequately. Mr. Tindall stated only 1/3rd of the vehicles placed on the site would be RVs, some were trailers and some were boats. Commissioner Bonina asked if the trailers had more of a challenge to get into the spaces? Mr. Tindall stated it did not present a problem. Mr. Goreal stated they could make the stall width wider, 11' -12' if the Commission recommended that. Commissioner Bonina, referring to page 6 on the proposed landscape, it stated that all new trees would be 24" box trees, Condition No.12 required 25% of the perimeter trees to be 24" box, 37 proposed, 10 existing, 121 required by Condition No. 13 on the landscape buffer area of residential properties to the north for a total of 168. He asked what that meant? Mr. Tindall stated he would need to refer that question to Staff. Commissioner Bonina asked what was the intent of the applicant for landscaping? Mr. Tindall stated they intended to place approximately 4,600 boxed Queen Palm trees, per the drawing on the site plans, as a barrier. The layout of the palms was noted on the photos, which he referred to. Commissioner Bonina stated, in looking at the detail of the tree layout, he felt the intent was to provide a residential buffer with landscaping. He was not sure it accomplished the intent as there were aisles providing complete exposure to the residents. Commissioner Page 10 of29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 11 of 29 Bonina stated he was struggling with how the landscape met the intent of a 20' setback and was there an alternative considered which would provide a better buffer? Mr. Tindall stated they had looked at staggering the box trees. The reason for the gap between the trees was to allow for tree maintenance. The trees needed to be sprayed, watered and maintained, the aisle between the trees would allow for maintenance. Commissioner Bonina stated he understood the reasoning, however, if the intent was to provide landscape it needed to be clear to the residents what was being proposed. Mr. Tindall stated the ordinance did not give a specific for heavy landscaping. They had a neighborhood meeting with 50 palm trees delivered at the Batavia site and invited neighbors from the north and south to take a look at what was proposed. The applicant had the meeting to solicit the neighbors' input. He stated the goal was to be good neighbors. The trees could be angled to give better coverage. Commissioner Bonina stated as long as it accomplished the goal of the 20-30' setback. The description was heavy landscape area, and to accomplish that would be great. As the palms were to cycle out, what would be the replacement time frame? Mr. Tindall stated he believed the trees would be replaced within a week. Commissioner Bonina stated the property appeared to be fairly flat. Mr. Tindall stated the property had a 2% grade from Tustin to Cambridge. There were SCE power lines underground and an old Santa Ana irrigation line that ran across the property. Commissioner Bonina stated that SCE did not allow a permanent wall, with the exception of a wall at the perimeter of the property. He envisioned the area between the Edison easement and the residential zone, was this the area Edison would allow a fence at? Mr. Tindall stated that would be allowed or an enhancement to the existing wall. Chair Imboden stated he had received a letter from Mary Ann Sferruzza, in lieu of reading the letter, he wanted it to be noted that all Commissioners received the letter for their evaluation and it was noted in the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for public comment. Evelyn Martin, 1548 E. Chestnut, Orange, stated she had resided at this address for 15 years. A comment was made by the applicant that they wanted to be a good neighbor. That is what they had heard from Village Nursery who went on to increase their business and increase their hours of operation. With Village Nursery as a neighbor, when looking at the homes in the neighborhood, people like the Nursery and feel that it made the neighborhood nice and quiet. The R V facility would have longer hours and be open more days of the week. There would be noise created by the vehicles, emptying of the outhouses, and the movement of people in and out. The traffic count of 81 in and 81 out referred to vehicles, did that number include the cars that would come in and out to pick up their vehicles? With regard to the trees, in speaking with Mr. Goreal, he explained Page II of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 12of29 that 4500 trees would be on the site. She thought the trees were going to be planted and not in boxes, which would be at the whim of Village Nursery. She felt that the nursery should be contractually obligated on the proposal. Jean Tudor, 1035 E. Trenton, Orange stated she was proud to live in Orange and to be a part of the community. In regard to the LA Times article, they noted problems with access and security issues. She felt the project was obtrusive to the neighborhood and belonged in a commercial zone, not in a residential zone. There was a potential for hazardous waste. It would take the green away and bring their property value down. She felt the goal would be to improve the City and would they want it in their backyard? Sean Martin, 1044 E. Chestnut Ave, Orange stated in regard to fire safety there would be access problems for the Fire Department. The plans called for a fire access lane. If one of the RVs was to go up in flames the likelihood of requiring more than one fire company was high, and he thought the plans did not call for access of more than one fire truck to get into the facility. On the opinion from the Orange County Fire Authority, he had spoken with the Fire Department and was told the City of Orange Fire Department had not completed or reviewed any study and had no opinion on the project. He also stated he spoke with someone from the O.C. Fire Authority and they looked at a study completed by an SCE consultant. The Edison study stated that business under power lines was O.K., the independent study was not as clear, and the L.A. County Fire Department study stated under no circumstances was it a safe endeavor. They stated it was unsafe for the residents and the Fire Department personnel. Mr. Martin wanted to clarify the comment by one of the Commissioners that the L.A. County study was based on a commercial building; the study was based on a 350 space RV storage. In regards to the lighting, there were 70 proposed light standards around the perimeter at 130' intervals. The lights would be higher than the trees and even with shielding they would reflect off of the RVs and encompass the area in a glow during the night. There would also be a potential dust problem. Ennis Teshe, 1022 E. Chestnut, Orange stated there was a safety issue referring to the LA Times article which addressed RV parking under high tension wires. If it was unsafe there, it would be unsafe here as well. The study was backed by the L.A. County Fire Chief and he felt it was a good idea not to continue those types of developments. He was interested in what the City of Orange Fire Chief s opinion was on the project. He stated he was opposed to the general appearance and lighting, and he would not have bought the house he was living in if he knew he would be backed up to the proposed type of development. He questioned why they were looking at the site between Tustin and Cambridge and not between Batavia and Glassell. Anne Luce, 1032 E. Chestnut, Orange stated she purchased her residence 5 years ago and did not seek a property next to an RV storage lot, next to lights that would be illuminated all night, next to 522 vehicles, near vehicles that had propane tanks that could be possible bombs if they exploded, she would not have purchased her home there. At the neighborhood meeting the applicant did not disclose that the lot on Batavia was next to an industrial park on one side, and a mobile home park on the other side, with a 100' clearing and railroad tracks between the lot and the residential area. Other R V complexes were surrounded by industrial parks. She added with $120.00 per space, 522 times per Page 12 of29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 13 of 29 month, she was certain Mr. Goreal was not concerned with the residents and their gnevances. Sam Miller, 1444 E. Chestnut, Orange stated he was concerned with the noise and the proposal for a right turn in and out which would create traffic on Chestnut. His fence was low and he had pictures showing what his view was. He had the view of the Nursery and the green houses. He was concerned with the ambient lighting that would reflect off of the recreational vehicles. There was no tax benefit to the City. Village Nursery had been an O.K. neighbor and he was opposed to the RV storage facility. He passed out the photos to the Commissioners for their review. John Maloney, 857 N. Helena, Anaheim stated he was speaking on behalf of his parents. His parents chose to be responsible property owners. In other cities there were areas that had been incorporated and it brought urban blight and commercialism into neighborhoods. He felt the RV storage was an incompatible use for his parent's neighborhood. Larry Honikel, 1600 N. Maplewood, Orange stated he had been a resident since 1967. He was north of the property in question. There would be 522 motor homes invading the neighborhood and bringing motor home traffic to the area, which would be unavoidable. If they were thinking green, the acreage of green foliage would not be changed to asphalt and 522 motor homes spewing exhaust fumes. Bruce Baslee, 1125 E. Trenton Avenue, Orange stated regarding the traffic, with the right hand turns, the main exit would be Katella and the 55 freeway; the RV traffic would be on a two lane road to Chestnut. He had gone days, where he could not exit, because traffic was so bad. There was an R V park in Chatsworth where vagrants had entered a motor home, and in trying to keep warm blew the propane tank. Some cars burned in a parking lot behind the site that was approximately 50' away. Several thousands of dollars of motor homes burned. He felt there was a safety problem with the propane. Regarding the manhole covers at the site, he believed they went directly to the flood control channel, and sewage tanks could be drained there and that should be considered. He was opposed to the R V storage lot. Marianne Bertoni, 4041 Santa Barbara, Orange stated she was in favor of the RV lot; the demand at the Batavia lot was overwhelming. The R V and boats were there and they needed one locally. Mr. Goreal ran a beautiful clean lot. She had nothing but praise for the lot and they needed one in Orange. Bill Kerfoot, 1773 Greengrove, Orange asked where in the City of Orange was RV parking allowed? There were very few open parcels left in the city. When the City had passed the Ordinance for no RV parking on residential streets they had identified the SCE property as a potential open space for an RV storage facility. The property had been rezoned for that specific use. He felt the applicant had done a very good job on addressing the landscape issue and it was a very creative idea. He was in support of the RV lot and wanted them to move forward with the project. Page 13 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 14 of 29 Chris May, 7474 E. Calico, Orange stated he was representing his parents who were residents of Orange. People needed to get their R V s off of the streets to a well managed RV program. He knew the operation, and the owner, Mr. Goreal, took pride in ownership. He stated if the residents took the opportunity to look at the Batavia lot, they would see it was a very low impact and well-run operation. If you looked at the lot you would see that there was nothing going on, people had RVs stored there, and some sat there for 1 to 2 years at a time. He had been there and had looked at the operation, people came in, left their vehicle and took their RV, there was not constant traffic going in and out. Mike Fenderson, 1807 Orange, Anaheim stated he was an RV owner, representing RV owners. Cities had developed Ordinances that prohibited RVs from parking on the streets of private property. At an RV lot there was nothing going on; the impression made was that people were constantly coming and going. During 90% of the time there was no one there, occasionally you would park in front of your RV to pick up something or drive it out. There was not in and out traffic, and he felt there was a misconception of what an RV park was. In regards to dust, he had not seen the occurrence of dust. It was not a high end use. The nursery would have more of an impact than the RV storage lot. Floyd Bedsoul, 408 W. Walnut, Orange stated he was an RV owner and had lived in the City of Orange for 10 years. He previously lived in Anaheim and there had always been a problem with RV parking. He felt Mr. Goreal had a well-maintained lot and was very much in favor of the project. Dan Slater, 278 N. Pine Street, Orange stated RV parking was needed in Orange. He could not think of a better place to put one with the planning and zoning issue. He wanted to keep industrial area zones open as places of employment, which would generate jobs and sales tax revenue. The property under the Edison easement was a perfect place to put that type of usage. If he lived on Trenton or Chestnut he would have no problem with the setbacks. He had attended the DRC meeting and the Edison representative present at that meeting was very much in favor of the project and thought the palms trees made a good choice for the screen. Mr. Goreal's RV lot on Batavia was clean, well run, and every time he had been to the location, there was absolutely no one picking up their RV. It had very low activity. He was very involved in Keep Orange Clean, and wanted people to own RVs in Orange and wanted residents to properly store them. They were against blight and those types of things and having the RV storage in that location would eliminate blight in Orange. He thought it was a great location and solution. It was a well thought out and designed plan. Mel Vernon, 2301 E. Hoover, Orange stated he was a member of Keep Orange Clean and was in support of the project. He had toured Mr. Goreal's facility and found it to be very professionally run, and he had no complaints or suggestions for improvement. He felt he was doing an excellent job and wished that other storage yards did the same. There were 100's ofRVs in Orange, and many were parked in the front set back areas, in areas that should have been reserved for open space. The impact on the neighborhoods in Orange had been significant; impacts that affected safety, esthetics and property values. The potential that the RVs could be moved into a central location was a benefit to the City. He wished that other projects that came before the City had as extensive landscaping as Page 14 of29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 15 of 29 the proposed project. He felt they should move forward on the project as there was less impact on the City with this project vs. the nursery and it would also generate less traffic than the nursery. Chair Imboden invited the applicant to address the comments and questions raised by the public. Mr. Tindall stated he appreciated the hard work the Commission did. He wanted to clarify that the zone for the site allowed an RV storage and parking facility. They were not asking for a zone change. He reiterated comments made by Mr. Kerfoot, how the site had been chosen when the City had gone through the process of RV restrictions. They had noted this specific site for RV use. He felt the site would be far more secure than what currently existed at the site. They would have security guards and T.V. cameras and the site would be secure. They had no problems at their other sites. There was an issue brought up about RVs dripping oil and grease on the site, there had been an extensive water quality plan completed. They were way out in front on the water quality control plans. They had developed a best management practices plan and the proposed site would be cleaner than most public parking facilities. There were no sewer manholes or drains on the site. Chair Imboden asked in using the inventory of Village Nursery for the landscape mitigation, in the event Village Nursery relocated or went out of business what would occur? Mr. Tindall stated there was a CUP that obligated them to place 4500-4600 palm trees on the site and maintain them. Chair Imboden stated there was an issue regarding the light standards. He asked for clarification on the ambient light. Mr. Tindall stated there had been a very extensive photometric survey done. There would be low profile lights that would be angled and directed to minimize the glare. Chair Imboden stated he was concerned with the evening lighting that would be reflected back up into the sky, and the light pollution, or ambient light level. Environmental Analyst, Phil Martin, 18551 Von Karmen, Irvine stated there would be some light spillage into the air, as Mr. Tindall indicated the photometric study showed the off site light level was less than a foot candle. It was less than the City standard. There would be a glow; however, the photometric study took into account the glow. Chair Imboden stated he felt it was a legitimate concern. It was not a regular parking lot as there were large vehicles with flat, light colored roofs. Did the study take into account the light that would be reflected back off of the site? Mr. Martin stated it did take into account the reflection, and that was how a .4' candle to the off site property was determined. Page 15 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 16 of 29 Chair Imboden stated a term that came up was permanent walls or permanent fences, he asked what would be the difference between a permanent and non-permanent fence? Mr. Tindall stated SCE would not allow parallel fences to be constructed in the right of way. On the boundary of the right of way it was allowed. Chair Imboden asked for clarification; was a mobile structure allowed on the site, but a chain link fence was not? Mr. Tindall stated a modular office was allowed, but they had not allowed them to build a parallel feI).ce. If they had allowed a fence it would have been in their plans. Commissioner Whitaker stated the plans called for a wrought iron fence abutting the heavy landscaping with the trees to prevent people from going through the trees. Mr. Tindall stated a wrought iron fence was on the boundary lines on the landscaping at Tustin and Cambridge, but not on the north boundary line. A six-foot wrought iron fence was proposed at the entrance on Tustin and at the back of the landscape set back on Cambridge. Commissioner Whitaker stated theoretically someone could walk through the landscape area and walk into the storage facility. Mr. Tindall stated the area was fenced off and the area was not accessible. There was a wrought iron fence that went north south from the south property line to the right of way, to the north property line of the residential homes on Cambridge. On Tustin the wholesale nursery would remain, with a wrought iron fence that went from the right of way to the entry gates and back to Tustin where it turned to a chain link fence at the nursery. Chair Imboden asked in regard to security, would there be someone on site? He also asked why a SCE representative was not present? Mr. Tindall stated there would be security through a private firm that would patrol in a vehicle. No one would be able to live on the site, as it was not allowed as a part of the lease term. He stated he did not know the reason for the absence of an SCE representative, they had submitted their letter for clarification, however, could not be present. A SCE representative was at the DRC meeting. Commissioner Merino stated that the speakers in favor of the project referred to the Batavia facility as the type of lot that worked. He asked if the Batavia facility was in an SCE right of way and was it next to a residential area. Mr. Tindall stated that it did fall in an SCE right of way. There was no residential area surrounding the Batavia facility. Commissioner Bonina stated that SCE allowed 30' trees, but preferred to have them cut to 15'. Page 16 of29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 17 of 29 Mr. Goreal stated SCE did not allow trees in excess of 15' . Commissioner Bonina asked with the maturity of the trees would they be at 15' heights? Mr. Tindall stated the average height of the trees would be at 11 to 12'; they would grow an average of a foot per year and would need to be kept at under 15'. Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification on the ability to trim the palm trees? Mr. Goreal stated when a tree would reach a height over 15' they would be replaced. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and opened hearing for discussion or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Bonina asked Staff if the Fire Department had looked at the project and what comments did they make specifically in terms of access, egress in/out, circulation and the scenario of a potential fire in an RV? Mr. Ortlieb stated throughout the process the Fire Department's review of the project was during access to the site. The Fire Department wanted to ensure that there was an adequate turning radius identified on the plans and the required access, and fire lane markings noted. The standard catch all and review of the minute details of the plan at plan check and their conditions of approval were added at that time. In looking at the potential for a fire in an RV they looked at it from a standpoint of making sure the emergency vehicles would be able to enter and maneuver adequately on the site. The Fire Department felt it appropriate to have the project go before the Commission. Commissioner Bonina stated in the Staff s review the applicant provided a template of the backing up of the RV's in relationship to the spaces that were anywhere from 30 to 50' deep. Had the City completed an analysis or review to verify what the applicant had submitted? Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff had no study; they did look at it and asked the applicant to demonstrate the backing distance. The applicant returned with their information and Staff took into account that they were reviewing something that there was no standard for. It was now available for the Commission's review. Commissioner Bonina stated Staff essentially took what the applicant had submitted at face value. Mr. Ortlieb stated Public Works Traffic Division did review the information, and they thought it was a possibility that it would work with different operational variables. Commissioner Bonina asked if the review of the project was completed by the Traffic Engineer who had been present earlier? Mr. Ortlieb conferred with the Mr. Farahani and clarified that the Traffic Division Staff was going through a transitional period and it was reviewed by a prior employee. Page 17 of29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 18of29 Commissioner Bonina asked on Condition No. 14 there was a suggestion regarding RV back up alarms and having them disengaged on the north side of the property and would the Fire Department or Police Department have an issue with that? Chair Imboden clarified it did not state they would be disengaged, but referred to RVs with back up alarms would not be assigned storage spaces in the northern area of the site. Commissioner Bonina asked if it was the norm to not provide for trash pick up? Mr. Ortlieb stated it was not typical for most projects. It was approved by Public Works and found it to be possible in the site's scenario. The applicant would have their customers, security or management personnel remove the trash from the site. There was a provision in the plan, in the event it became a problem, to review the issue at a later date. An inspection would be prompted from a visual inspection or a complaint. Commissioner Whitaker stated on Conditions No. 12 and 13, of page 8, there was reference to 25% of box trees were required to be 24" boxed and Condition No.13 stated that there would be at least 121 boxes, the mitigated negative declaration stated there would be approximately 4600 trees and the applicant spoke about 1 % variability and he was unable to find that anywhere. He felt there was some inconsistency in the numbers and wanted clarification from Staff. Mr. Ortlieb stated on page 6 of the Staff Report it was indicated what was required by the code, which was the 25% tree requirement by the landscaping code, which would be in 24" boxes and the other 75% of the trees on site would need to be in at least 15 gallon containers. On the bullet point that followed the report described what the applicant was providing on site. To clarify, Staff was stating what was shown on the landscape plans by the applicant was that everything was at least a 24" boxed tree. In Condition No. 12 they were looking at the fact that the landscape plans did not show exactly where every single boxed tree was proposed on the site. It showed a heavy landscape area, and the intent was to show heavy landscape, with the absence of every tree being physically shown. There needed to be some assurance by the time the project went to plan check, that the code required number of trees to be provided would be listed. The applicant was providing more than the required trees and that was noted in the environmental document. The Commission could indicate, as a condition the 4600 trees to be noted on the site plan ifthey chose to. Commissioner Bonina asked if the 4600, 24" boxed trees were sufficient to cover the 1700 linear feet area, 20 to 30' in depth? Mr. Ortlieb stated in Staffs opinion it was a sufficient amount. They had discussed an angled orientation to provide more of a buffer. Commissioner Bonina asked if the angled orientation would require more trees? Mr. Ortlieb stated no. The result would be an effect of a more dense buffer. In looking in at the site you would not see directly between the trees with the angled orientation. Page 18 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 19of29 Commissioner Bonina asked from the resident's perspective, if they were standing in their backyard, looking at the angled row of trees, would they see an RV, assuming the trees would be 15' in height? He also asked why palm trees were chosen? Mr. Ortlieb stated it would be quite likely they would, as there was space between the trees. He did not know why palm trees were chosen and would need to differ that question to the applicant. Commissioner Merino asked if a level of service for Batavia had been determined? Mr. Ortlieb stated Batavia was a level of service A, and Tustin was operating at a Band C range. Chair Imboden looked to the Commission for discussion and deliberation. He stated there were a lot of loose ends and he needed further clarification. Commissioner Whitaker stated he thought the project was good in its conception. He had concerns on the execution of the project and especially the heavy landscaping to the north. He had not heard a good answer with respect to how the landscape would be monitored. A condition was being made on a CUP on one applicant, with another entity that was reducing its lease hold space and providing the landscape which moved in and out of the site. He could not be in support of the project unless there was permanent landscape in the 20', 23' and 30 'l1 ' buffer area and would be sufficiently full as to screen the RVs. He felt the palm trees were not full enough to sufficiently screen the RVs. He wanted to see a landscape plan that showed foliage of trees to a height of 15' that would be permanently placed to screen the view. The project was a wonderful concept and it was definitely needed in the City. It was a location that was identified by the City Planners and the City Plan that would be appropriate for that use. Low impact such as this would not be developed in commercial or industrial areas, this property under the Edison easement would not be used for any other purpose. The nursery usage was reducing its space and it was an appropriate place for the storage facility. They had completed an adequate job of parking and other concerns; however, the execution of the screening was too little. Commissioner Bonina stated he agreed with Commissioner Whitaker and the City needed off site R V parking. The question being, would this be an appropriate spot? He had a few concerns. He agreed that they needed a more permanent landscape buffer, and the palm trees and their type of foliage did not screen completely. If a permanent fence was not allowed, there needed to be something in the set back that needed to be of a permanent nature. He had concerns over the parking stalls, and appreciated the study the applicant had put together, the City had not reviewed that and he felt it was very tight. It was suggested that there be a right in and right out, he thought it was the right thing to do, however, the surrounding streets would experience enhanced traffic. There was a lot of reflective light and he needed further research on that issue. There were some inconsistencies in the plan. He felt the residents of Orange needed the R V storage; however, the neighbors should not bare the burden of having the off site, off street parking. The issue with two different entities involved in the project needed to be addressed more fully. Page 19 of29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 20 of 29 Commissioner Merino stated it was clearer for him. The applicant had brought Batavia up as a comparison; however, there was not residential areas bordering the Batavia project. He would have been more impressed if a resident adjacent to that property came forward and stated they had no issues, it was well managed, but it was not the same. He felt it was not a valid comparison. The process in evaluating this project was clear with the required findings, under major findings asking if the project design was compatible with surrounding developments and neighborhoods, he felt it was not. On item #5 was the project designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental affects - clearly it was not. Development standards and design guidelines were based on the Batavia project that was given to Staff and the two sites were not compatible. In reviewing the CUP, which stated it shall not be granted if it caused deterioration of bordering land uses or creates special problems for the area in which it was located. Clearly the residents who came to speak felt that was the case. A CUP needed to be considered in relationship to the effect on the community or neighborhood for the area it was located in, the neighbors in the adjacent properties would not agree with that. The major site plan and the CUP were not supportable based on what he had seen in the project and he could not support the project. Commissioner Steiner stated the Commission listened to issues like this and one of the speakers had indicated it was difficult to weigh these types of issue. He would never want anyone to be under the misimpression that they didn't care about what happened in some ones backyard, he wanted people to understand it was not an effective way to make policy based on how they would like the project in their own backyard. As City officials elected or otherwise a decision had to be made for the greater good and the City, your elected officials, had made the determination that RVs could not be parked on City streets and residential zones were appropriate locations for RV storage. He was not permitted to make the decision based on what he would personally like. He needed to apply the facts to the law; it was appropriate and it was better for the City, than it was bad for the City. He believed specifically on the Edison property use issue, he could not be persuaded that Edison was opposed to these types of projects when the article was about Edison banning particular conduct on their property. We had a letter from Edison supporting the proposed use. The one hang up he had was the 4500 trees on the site, and to be effectively shielded from the residents it would require permanent landscape. He would be supportive of the project if there would be a condition of permanent landscape and that was the only area where he had concerns on the project. Chair Imboden stated his concerns would reflect what was already stated. He had concerns and needed more convincing on traffic comparisons, on the parking, the safety, routing of the RVs, and there had been issues that had been presented that were not included as part of the documentation. He wanted to see a stronger comment from the Fire Authority addressing some of the concerns that were brought up. He had concerns about the lighting and would be very sensitive that the lighting be controlled very, very carefully. He was disappointed that an SCE representative was not present; they were seriously compromising the City standards due to a landlord limitation that they were placing on a potential tenant. They had not received an Edison policy, but a letter stating what the agreement was on the issue and he felt that they needed Edison present to pose questions directly to them. Lastly, he agreed the biggest issue was the screening; the intent of the ordinance was clear and the proposal in front of them skirted the issue and Page 20 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 21 of 29 did not provide full protection to the neighboring properties. He had fully supported restricting RV parking in Orange, and Orange needed a parking facility. They needed to take into consideration the neighboring properties and he would like to see the applicant come back addressing their concerns. Commissioner Whitaker stated the sense he was getting from the Commission was to have the applicant return with a revised plan for consideration, he would not like to see the applicant have to go back to square one. Chair Imboden stated, addressing the applicant, the consensus was that the Commission would not be voting favorably to approve the project and asked if they would consider a continuance. The applicant agreed with continuance. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue to a date certain of February 20, 2008 Major Site Plan No. 0405-05; Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1790-07; Conditional Use Permit No. 2554-05; Variance No. 2173-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4220-07- Chapman RV #4 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker Merino None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2535-05- BEACON DAY SCHOOL The applicant is requesting Commission consideration and approval of one of four fence design and material options (vinyl/chain link) for a six foot high fence surrounding the school's sensory play area. This request is for an alternative material to the wood fence that was originally required by the Commission for CUP 2535-05.tive Tract Map for condominium purposes. LOCATION: 576 N. Glassell NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines 15305 (Class 1- Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the approval of an existing chain link fence (and/or removal of an existing chain link fence, to be replaced with a wood fence). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Final Determination by Minute Order. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, gave a project overvIew consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none. Page 21 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 22 of 29 Chair Imboden opened the public hearing. Dr. Mary Lang, 588 N. Glassell, Orange stated she had Eric Renezegor prepare an informational document to be read to the Commission. Chair Imboden asked if they had come to a determination on the safety of vinyl for use at the school? Dr. Lang stated their research showed that very inexpensive vinyl produced in China contained lead, and those types were eliminated. Chair Imboden asked if she believed there was a resource that would be safe? Dr. Lang stated yes. Commissioner Steiner asked if she had a preference in the options that were presented for the fence? Dr. Lang stated that the fence they had now was working, and she wanted to work with the Commission and go with what they suggested. Commissioner Whitaker asked if option 4 was chosen, which was the lattice placed over the chain link, would the green slats be removed? Dr. Lang stated yes. Commissioner Bonina asked on option 4 what would be the mechanism for attaching the lattice? Dr. Lang stated they would use zip ties. Commissioner Merino asked in using zip ties were there any concerns for student safety? Erik Renezegor, 2357 N. Riverside Drive, San Diego, stated the method of attachment would be to use zip ties on the outside of the fence. They had looked at other options and this had been the best solution. Commissioner Merino asked Dr. Lang if she felt that method of attachment was satisfactory and if it would provide the safety required? Dr. Lang stated with the zip ties on the outside, and not in the inside it would be a safe method of attachment. It was the method of attachment recommended by the manufacturer. Mr. Renezegor stated when you looked at the fence from the street it presented a prominent design line and to add white lattice over that large of a mass in order to comply with the wood like condition would seem to detract from the property. The fence in its present form was green and blended in, and was not an obvious form. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Page 22 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 23 of 29 Commissioner Whitaker stated he felt option 4, with the wood lattice treatment was the best option in maintaining that the fence had a wood character. It complied with the Old Towne standard and kept the strong chain link which provided safety to the children. He did not feel the color should be dictated to the applicant. Commissioner Bonina stated he concurred with Commissioner Whitaker. He hoped it was the most cost effective and the least disruptive and suggested the use of option 4. Commissioner Steiner stated option 4 was the most practical and reasonable approach in resolving the issue. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt CUP No. 2535-05 Beacon Day School by minute order to recommend option #4 with the lattice color to be chosen by the applicant, noting the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2618-06; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2635-07; AND VARIANCE NO. 2184-07 - DANCE PARTNER A proposal to operate a dance school and banquet hall with a dance floor within an existing commercial establishment. In association with the banquet hall with accessory dance floor, the applicants are requesting a variance in the required parking. LOCATION: 347-349 E. Grove NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines 15301 Class 1- Existing Facilities) because the project involves the operation of a dance school and a banquet/dance hall in an existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 52-07 approving the dance school and Planning Commission Resolution No. 53-07 denying the banquet hall and variance. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Page 23 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 24 of 29 applicant been operating Commissioner Steiner asked how many years had the unlawfully? Ms. Thakur stated the applicant had been operating from the facility for 7 years. There was an issue where the Business License Department and the Building Department issued a certificate of occupancy and a business license without a CUP. It was possible that there was a lack of communication between the departments. Commissioner Steiner asked given that there may have been a lack of communication, at some point was the applicant instructed that a certain type of activity needed to cease? Was it the case that within the last 7 days City officials had been to the location and the repeated admonitions to the violations had continued? Ms. Thakur stated that recently there were advertisements that showed a banquet hall event was being offered, Staff contacted the Code Enforcement Department to send a patrol out to the venue, other issues arose which prevented Staff from determining what took place. The fact remained that there was advertisement for a banquet hall event. Commissioner Steiner stated in looking at the Police Dispatch log he was able to determine that at least 4 separate crimes occurred just from one incident that happened on September 9, 2006. The crimes were disturbing the peace, brandishing of a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a deadly weapon. The records suggested that upwards of 80 subjects were inside the hall, there were physical descriptions provided, and a reference to D.U.K.E. which was the O.c. Sheriffs helicopter which used its infrared to determine the source of a subject who had brandished a pistol, suspected to be a 9mm, at or around the location. There was also notation of 10 males standing by a black Acura all wearing black jackets. There was that type of activity in a place where the applicant was still insisting on the need for a banquet hall. What was it about the applicant's behavior in the last week that would believe us to conclude that they would abide by the conditions set forth in the CUP for just the dance hall? Ms. Thakur stated Staff had similar concerns, the only reason Staff was recommending approval of the dance school was because there were not conditions before and Staff felt that this CUP with all of the conditions would make it abundantly clear to the applicant what would be considered a dance school, and what was closer to the lines of a banquet facility. Commissioner Steiner asked if Staff considered a dance school to be open until 11 :00 p.m. and open 7 days a week? Ms. Thakur stated Staff understood classes could be offered at different times, and it was possible that classes could be offered closer to 9:00 p.m. if the Commission wanted to make that a condition. Commissioner Steiner stated erroneously in his judgment, which would surmise that the condition would be abided by. He asked the City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, if it was customary to provide conditions that appeared on the application as Condition No. 14? Page 24 of29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 25 of 29 Mr. Sheatz stated he had not seen those conditions before. Commissioner Steiner asked if a violation of such a condition was subject to prosecution by the City and the O.C. District Attorney? Mr. Sheatz stated yes, that was correct. Ms. Thakur stated as far as Condition No. 14 was concerned it was not in every CUP, there had been cases where they were included in the CUP in the past. Commissioner Bonina asked in September 2000, did the dance studio require a CUP? Ms. Thakur stated that it did, in the Orange Municipal Code it was still a CUP requirement. Commissioner Bonina stated there appeared to be a pattern of misbehavior, clearly when Staff spoke to residents of the businesses they were pretty straightforward. In approving something like this it would be rewarding bad behavior. He was very hesitant to move forward on these items. Commissioner Merino stated assuming the complex was noticed, there were no adjacent business owners with issues and asked if Staff had been contacted by any of the business owners in the complex and did the applicant understand the recommendations and conditions, and had Staff discussed them previously with the applicant? Ms. Thakur stated she had not been contacted by any adjacent business owners. She felt the applicant understood the recommendations, when the applicant initially applied for both the dance school and the banquet facility the item was taken before the Staff Review Committee and at that time the applicant was informed that the recommendation for the banquet hall would be for denial. Initially they withdrew the application, then came back to Staff wanting to move forward with the banquet facility. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing. Grace Hansen, 22831 Via Santa Maria, Mission Viejo stated the Dance Partner studio had been in business for 7 years and the studio was designed to bring together family, friends of performers and numerous dancers from the community. The studio centered around Ball Room dancing and other dances of all ethnic groups. They wanted to continue with the venue in providing a safe and happy environment. People take dance classes for fun and it changes human well being, and that was the message they wanted to convey. Their purpose was to make a difference by providing a place where people of different ages could enjoy dance classes and exercise at the same time. The applicant's goal was to provide a place to learn and practice dancing and be the best place for everyone in the City of Orange. When it came to safety they were on the Cities side, they did not want any trouble. They wanted a safe and happy environment. Albert Hansen, 22831 Via Santa Maria, Mission Viejo stated in the year 2000 they first Page 25 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 26 of 29 applied for a permit to operate as a dance hall. At that time they were obligated to run the dance school and hall. The City gave them occupancy of 280 people. The applicant inquired if there was anything else they needed to do and they were told there was nothing else needed. They had been paying their taxes for 7 years. They had not received any complaints from their neighbors. The one incident that took place last year, they called the police and it was stated that there were 400 people, which was not correct. At that time we were told we did not have the correct permit. A year ago they applied for the permit and they had been following up with the status of the permit. They paid their lease on a month-to-month basis and they needed to know what was happening with the permit. The City notified them that the parking was unacceptable and they were forced to hire a parking surveyor. The parking survey was completed with 174 parking spaces; they had never occupied that many spaces. The occupancy was reduced to 250. They complied with everything and we were told we needed to improve safety. We added security guards to the business. Mr. Hansen stated they supported various charities and held fundraising events. The business was not a moneymaker. His wife was a registered nurse, and this business was their passion and they wanted to give people a place to go and raise money for donation purposes. The flyers were put out for fundraising events. They meant no harm and doing the right thing led them to their situation. Commissioner Whitaker stated Staffs recommendation was to allow the dance school on a CUP and not allow the banquet facility. He asked the applicant if they followed that recommendation could their business continue in that way? Mr. Hansen stated when people used the banquet facility they brought their own food and they just provided the space. For fundraising and charity work they needed the banquet hall. Commissioner Whitaker stated Staff had said no to the banquet hall and asked the applicant could they stay in business without the banquet hall? Mrs. Hansen stated no, the dance school could not survive without the banquet hall. The banquet hall helped them with having an event 2 to 3 times a month. Commissioner Merino asked if there were dance classes throughout the day, or was it more of a club with the dancing classes as part of the club? If there were instructors how many classes did they teach per day? Mr. Hansen stated there were instructors. Mrs. Hansen stated they had 4 teachers and they had group classes in the evening; 7:00-8:00 p.m. for beginners, 8:00-9:00 p.m. for medium and 9:00-10:00 p.m. for advanced. Commissioner Merino asked who taught the classes and did the applicant pay them? Mrs. Hansen stated Michelle Adams; she was one of the best and was given recognition by the City. Louie Herrera was another teacher who taught on Tuesdays. They did not pay them as they collected money directly from the students. They paid a percentage to Page 26 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 27 of 29 the applicant. Commissioner Merino stated they were not a dance school, they solely provided space to dance teachers. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for public comment. Paul Chiavatti, 1340 W. Pearl Street, Anaheim stated he was the landlord of the establishment. He had initially come to speak for the applicant, in listening to Commissioner Steiner and the police report information he had not been aware of those issues, and was seeing different people for the first time. He stated the applicant could not survive and pay the rent without the banquet facility. They had been good citizens. He monitored the shopping center and never saw a beer can lying around or any other problems. The Fire Department had allowed year after year 280 occupants in the establishment. In the last 5 11 years there had not been any code violations and he was not aware of any resident complaints. He had a problem with the parking survey that was completed by a temporary employee, and in his report he noted there were 80 cars in the lot, Mr. Chiavatti stated he had never witnessed that many cars in the lot. The report also stated there were 117 cars in the parking lot, it was a Saturday night when all the other businesses were closed and they were having a party. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and opened the hearing for discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Bonina asked the Code Enforcement Officer about a memo dated August 9, 2006, it suggested the Dance Partner studio had a live entertainment party serving alcohol, charging a cover charge and exceeding 500 occupants - was that correct? Code Enforcement Officer Michelle Echeverria stated the neighbors had called about a large party and a disturbance on August 1, 2006. Sergeant Cook was the responding law enforcement officer and the occupant estimate came from his report. The voice mail he left stated they were serving alcohol, there were a lot of people and he asked her to look into the matter. She checked with licensing and planning and realized there was a missing CUP. At that time the applicants were notified about the process they needed to go through to obtain the CUP and they were advised not to hold any more parties until the issue was resolved. Commissioner Steiner clarified that the occurrence happened in August of 2006 and asked if it was last week that they were advertising for the same type of event? Ms. Echeverria stated yes, that was correct. Commissioner Steiner stated the most damning statements made were from the applicant. They stated they had no intention of running merely, what Staff was recommending them to run. He wanted to make it clear that he did not feel the applicants were co-conspirators with gangsters in Orange and accepted their representation that they were well-intended people. The Commission could not continue to permit a business to make money on the backs of their citizens and the only way it was discovered was through the neighbors who Page 27 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 28 of 29 alerted the Police Department. In allowing the business to go forward as a dance school would not be safe, and would place the neighbors at risk. He could not allow the applicants to go forward and comply with the conditions, which by their own statements, they would not be able to. Police do not get called to most dance studios, there was documentation from peace officers that there were in excess of 500 people at the location and at that point for him the inquiry was closed. Did they have 5 to 7 years of that type of continuous behavior, they did not, however, just having one month of that behavior was indefensible, especially when public safety was at risk. Commissioner Merino stated they had a quasi dance club under the name of a dance studio, and in all defense they could not make a go of it with just the dance school. He agreed with Commissioner Steiner, and he was ready to move forward to make a finding. Commissioner Whitaker stated he agreed with the Staff recommendation to deny the banquet facility. The location was not set up for that type of business; it was adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He was conflicted on the dance school, as his two daughters went to classes at a dance studio where the instructors were paid directly and they paid the dance studio. He had a hard time with the comment from the applicant stating they could not make it as just a dance studio. If you look at the dance studios around they have hours until 11 :00 p.m. and they have instructors going non-stop and that was how they made it as a dance studio. With most dance studios the owners were generally instructors and it was their passion. They did not need to rent out the studio for parties. A dance studio with committed people could work and that permit he could justify. He was having the dilemma with these particular applicants stating they could not run it, and would deny it. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2618-06, Dance Partner. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Steiner made a motion to Adopt Planning Commission 53-07 denying Conditional Use Permit 2635-07 and Variance 2184-07 - Dance Partner, noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED Page 28 of 29 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007 29of29 (6) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers Monday, January 7, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 11:12 Page 29 of 29 Pages