Loading...
2006 - June 19 (l ~'r"'A6 G ,~, ;;; \. .c)'..Ju ...;{ 70' >J Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 19 June 2006 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, and Pruett Commissioner Enderby Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Chairman Bonina opened the meeting acknowledging the passing of former Planning Commissioner Mara Brandman. Ms. Brandman was a very active participant in the City and will be missed greatly. Condolences are conveyed to her husband Michael and the family. A change in the agenda occurred as follows: Item (8) on the agenda was heard as the 4th item and Item (7) on the agenda was heard as the 5th item; however, the items in the minutes appear in the same chronology as they appear on the agenda. IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2006. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to approve the consent calendar. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4048-05, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 99-05 - MARTELLI RESIDENCE Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 A proposal to add a 446 square foot addition to an existing one-story, 440 square foot 1916 Bungalow. The site is located at 495 N. Olive Street, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. This item was continued from the June 5, 2006 meeting. NOTE: A proposal to add a 446 square foot addition to an existing one-story, 440 square foot 1916 Bungalow. The site is located at 495 N. Olive Street, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. This item was continued from the June 5, 2006 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4048-05 and Administrative Adjustment No. 99-05. Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview during which he advised that at the June 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission asked Staff to look at three items: (I) the historic status of the garage (2) the calculation of open space (3) current and future parking options on this property The item was continued to give Staff an opportunity to provide additional information. The existing clapboard sided, flat roofed detached garage is about 15'xI8' and was constructed between 1915 and 1922 according to the 1922 Sanborn Insurance Maps. Per Mr. Ryan, Staff took the site plan and calculated all the open space (this did not include the front porch). Unit I, which fronts on Walnut Avenue, has 461 sq. ft. Unit 2 which fronts on Olive Street has 380 sq. ft. Code requires a minimum of 350 sq. feet of usable open space per unit. The applicant explored several options for development of the site, including demolition of the garage and one of the smaller units on Olive and constructing a 2-story project. When they looked at the parking issues and demolition of the historic structures on this site they deferred this decision and decided to pursue a small addition onto the bungalow on Olive Street. The addition is 446 sq. ft. They also looked at ways to maximize parking on the site and explored attaching the garage to the new addition. This option presented design issues and also reduced the available open space on the property. Staff also examined expanding the width of the garage which would permit the parking of two vehicles and allow sufficient setback distance to the two adjoining structures. The demolition of both sides of the flat roofed, single-wall garage would require rebuilding the structure to such an extent that it would be considered a demolition. Expanding the existing garage would also reduce the useable open space to less than 350 sq. feet per unit. Based on the above restraints, the applicant proposed to construct the 446 sq. ft. addition on the Olive bungalow and maintain the existing garage and open space. Further, Mr. Ryan stated: Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 · the existing detached garage is located approximately 11 feet back from the property line along Olive Street, between the two bungalow residences · there is approximately 11 '0" separation between the garage and the bungalow on the north side · there is approximately 9'8" separation on the south side · at the rear of the garage there will be 5'6" (per the Administrative Adjustment) between the new addition and the east side of the garage In conclusion Mr. Ryan stated "with the clarification of these three items we are still looking at the same conditions of approval that were presented on June 5, 2006." The addition cannot be seen from the street and the streetscape from Olive looks fine. Commissioner Pruett questioned if the side yard setback of 5' is applicable for Olive. Planner Ryan responded "corner setbacks are 10'." Commissioner Imboden asked if the front yard was used in the open space calculation. Planner Ryan responded "no". The applicant had no additional comments to share. Janet Crenshaw. OTPA wished to express the wishes of OTPA that consistency be followed in the City's decisions regarding additions to existing historical properties. The project is supported as proposed with the DRC conditions and recommendations. The applicant has been very accommodating as to the use of materials and DRC direction. They believe this project will enhance the corner of Olive and Walnut. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the City's position is that the garage cannot be demolished or modified. Planner Ryan responded they did examine widening the garage which would turn into a demolition and this would result in the loss of open space. Commissioner Imboden stated that since the addition is less than 500 sq. feet he understands it does not require the parking be brought up to current Code. He stated he thought the exemption was for single-family residences only and he asked for clarification that the exemption still apply for R2 zoning and R2 use applications. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry responded that the Code indicates any single family dwelling that does not conform to the provisions of the parking ordinance would not have to be brought up to Code if it was less than 500 sq. feet. It has applied to individual units with R2 zones in the past. The way the Code is written it does not indicate RI or R2, instead it refers to a single-family residence, which has been interpreted to be one building with one unit. Chair Bonina made a motion to recommend approval of Design Review Committee No. 4048-05, and Administrative Adjustment No. 99-05. SECOND: Commissioner Bilodeau Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2006 Commissioner Pruett stated he had concern about the garage in terms of the setback from the building and he is still not comfortable with the parking situation. Chair Bonina added that the motion includes the recommendation and conditions that are included on Pages 5 and 6 ofthe Staff Report. Commissioner Imboden applauded the applicant for bringing forth an application that attempts to work with historic preservation and creates an addition that has the least visual impact; however, he is still not comfortable with the entire package. He added that supporting this would potentially create impacts for others in the neighborhood and therefore he cannot support the project as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Pruett Commissioner Imboden None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4019-05 - CAFE LUCCA RESTAURANT The applicant requests approval of the as built fayade remodel of an existing 2,268 sq. ft., first-floor retail tenant space as part of the development of a new restaurant. The Planning Commission originally approved DRC 4019-05 on October 17, 2005. The as built condition differs from the Planning Commission approved plans. The site is located at 106 No. Glassell Street, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the proVISIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold original approval of Design Review Committee No. 4019-05. Planner Ryan provided a project overview during which he advised: · The applicant had completed a fayade remodel of an existing 2,268 sq. ft., first floor retail tenant space within the Masonic Temple building as part of the development of a new restaurant, Cafe Lucca. · The fayade that was constructed included an arched window (above the front entrance) and an awning. · Additional fayade changes included the addition of Spanish colonial style lanterns and an exterior tin ceiling. · The additional fayade changes were not approved according to the plans previously Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 approved by the Planning Commission · This project is before the Planning Commission due to its proximity to the location of offices of three of the four Design Review Committee (DRC) members. · The applicant purveyed two sets of classical residential doors (which included an arched window) and wanted to install those. The prior development had a noncontributing fayade built in the 1960's, which was removed. · The original proposal included the installation of the residential wood doors with the arch at the front fayade and the DRC concluded these would not match the building (the architectural period); however, they did allow the applicant to install the second set of doors further back in the restaurant---within the restaurant area, creating an open patio area · The DRC approved the project with the original stucco transom at the top, three transom windows and the doors the applicant had which included movable windows that opened to the side and a wood bulkhead. This would result in a fayade that would give an open, airy, light patio affect to the restaurant. · The Cafe Lucca sign should be a wood sign on the stucco area above the transom. This would fit in with the theme of the restaurant and match the historic architecture of the Masonic building. Chair Bonina asked for clarification that the package provided to the Commissioners for this meeting included what was approved several months ago by the Pc. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry confirmed these were the same Plans they had seen and now they included the Staff Report and the conditions under which the project has been approved. Mr. Ryan added three transom windows were approved. The Masonic building does have some transom windows, so the PC recommended that the design be compatible. The applicant concurred this is what he wanted to build. The plans were then changed in the field so consequently work was stopped. Mr. Ryan reiterated the recommendations included in the October 17, 2005 Staff Report which included that the arched window element be eliminated and three new glass transoms be installed in the lower half of the existing stucco opening. The new glass transom would be a minimum of 2' 6" high and extend across the front fayade, the new wood sign would cover the top part of the existing stucco panel above the new transom windows, and the ceiling would be full height along the front and then transition down to a dropped ceiling within the restaurant. Mr. Ryan stated Staff is recommending the project be approved with the original recommendations. The Spanish lights don't fit the architectural style so they should be changed, the tin ceiling may not be an issue, and the fayade visible from the street should be changed back to the original recommendation. Mr. Ryan thanked the applicant for repainting one corner of the original entrance black and commented that the restaurant interior looks great. He reiterated the issue is mainly with the fayade and the characteristics of trying to maintain similar architectural treatments to match the Masonic building. Chair Bonina asked for clarification of where the project stands today In terms of construction. Planner Ryan responded it is basically completed. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 The applicant, Richard Coleman, address on file, introduced himself as the proprietor of Cafe Lucca. He stated there were some changes necessitated in the field. A review of those changes followed: (I) The original overhang was removed. When it was removed there was a significant amount of light in the morning that would be annoying to their customers. The afternoon light reflecting off the building across the street prohibited them from seeing their customers as they entered. Even though the awning was not planned it was used to try to manage the offending light. (2) The offending arch is not visible from the street. Although there were no arches on the original structure, it does match the door. The applicant believes it would look architecturally unusual to have one an arch and one a rectangle. (3) There were no transoms on the original building so the transoms should not be required today. (4) There were no lights mentioned in the original plan; however, the Police and Fire Departments require lights out front. Initially he purchased four antique lights to make the inside area appear garden like, to satisfy the Police Department they moved two of them outside. (5) He counted 25 storefronts on his side of the street, 21 have aluminum doors, 4 are 1960'ish, and he has the only period door on his side of the street. Chair Bonina asked the applicant to explain his thought process used in terms of addressing the issues as they were encountered. The applicant responded, he really thought the awning solved everything in terms of meeting the Planning Commission requirement and maintaining continuity within. Chair Bonina asked if the awning was retractable. The applicant responded that it is not. The applicant provided a photo of the 1930's storefront. Jeff Frankel. OTPA stated in their opinion this fayade remodel does not meet the Old Towne Design Standards for the Plaza District as it relates to materials, fayade design, windows and door treatment. He stated the Commission did previously approve the doors the OTPA thought were inappropriate in style and design; however, the applicant did not complete the fayade remodel per the Commissions conditions and the approved plan. He agreed with Staff that there are issues with the lighting style, arched window, exterior tin ceiling, awning and signage. He recalled there was some discussion on the materials used in the entryway that seem to be inappropriate and commented it extends into the public right of way. It is the OTPA position that all Standards and original conditions of approval must be met before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Mr. Ryan was asked to clarify Staffs position on the awning. He responded Staff has an issue with the signage on the awning. Planning Manager Roseberry inteljected that the Old Towne Design Standards indicate signage on awnings should be no more than 30% of the projected area of the awning itself; therefore, if the Planning Commission Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 determines the awning could stay, they would need to get some plans from the applicant indicating the sign field, the size of the letters and the size of the awning. Mr. Ryan was asked to comment about the lights. He responded they appear to be from the Spanish Colonial period and are not appropriate. There are some recessed lights over the entryway. There are other light treatments that would look very attractive and illuminate the front of the building appropriately. Mr. Ryan was asked to comment on the arch versus the transom. He stated there are smaller transom windows on the Masonic Temple fayade that were done after the 1930's and Cafe Lucca should pick up the same elements---similar design, shape and form. Chair Bonina asked if the intent was to match the height of the proposed awning to the existing awning. Mr. Ryan responded the awning was aligned to the blue stucco field and the height is 8'. This meets Code and Staff didn't particularly have an issue with the positioning of this awning. Chair Bonina asked for a response to the comment made by Mr. Frankel relative to the awning potentially encroaching into the public right of way. Mr. Ryan responded the property does extend approximately 5 feet from the front doors and although it does appear to be part of the public right of way, it is private property. This was verified with Public Works. Chair Bonina asked for added commentary from Staff about the doors. Planner Ryan responded: . They are very nice doors. . They have a scale that indicates they were from a large residential structure, likely built around 1890. . They have a pattern within the doors that reflects more of an Asian influence, including the arch which is very different from the particular period of the building they are installed in. . The second set of doors and arch are within the restaurant (about 15' back), Staff doesn't have an issue with these. . On the front fayade the arch doesn't fit the style of the building. . The applicant has finished out the foldable doors, they work well and have a wood bulkhead that matches; the colors are appropriate. Chair Bonina asked if there were any issues with the flooring in the patio area. Mr. Ryan responded there were none. Commissioner Imboden asked if the comment made by Mr. Frankel about occupancy permits meant that the construction being satisfactory to City Staff could potentially hold the owner up. Mr. Ryan deferred this question to Alice Angus, Community Development Director. Ms. Angus stated they are working with the applicant and that they do not like to hold up businesses coming to the downtown area. If the building is deemed ready for occupancy unless there are health and/or safety issues, the intent is to get the applicant in and operating. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 The applicant stated he believed the photo he provided illustrates there were no transoms and that the statement made regarding potential encroachment into the right of way has been resolved. Chair Bonina stated that the he wanted to clarify that the photo suggests the fayade is flat and the design approved at the previous Planning Commission had an indentation. The applicant interjected that he wanted to clarify the facade had glass panels that angled back to where the doors were. When the windows were removed there was an automatic setback, which is why the plans depicted them that way. Chair Bonina stated the lettering on the awning is not acceptable. Commissioner Pruett interjected it doesn't meet Code. The specifics as to appropriate placement of the signage and the Code were restated by Ms. Roseberry. The applicant responded that he wanted to revisit other locations to explore what currently exists. Commissioner Pruett cautioned the applicant in taking this approach as some of the other locations, which are not compliant, may have been grandfathered and they would be required to make corrections to the Code appropriate at the time they came forward with proposed changes. Commissioner Imboden stated that in his opinion as long as the doors remain in the mix this project is not a restoration; rather, it is a rehabilitation. He recalled the plan as it came to the Commission previously had all of the storefront in one line and expressed that he would definitely like to see the transom constructed as originally proposed and approved. Commissioner Imboden stated he didn't understand the black paint that was added to the front entrance. He didn't know if black is appropriate in terms of color for a historic building and he added Staff may need to work with them the applicant on color palettes. He agreed with Staffs position on the lighting and would like to see them changed to be appropriate to the period. He stated the awning plan should be consistent with what was previously approved and asked the applicant to keep in mind that building owners install awnings without approval. He stated the tin ceiling treatment doesn't bring the project any closer to a rehabilitation project. Mr. Ryan was asked to restate the variances to the original plan while the Commissioners explored available options for the fayade. Ms. Roseberry stated the available options to conclude are: (I) Restate the same motion that was approved previously. This would cause the applicant to make all corrections to conform to the exact plan previously approved. (2) Pick and choose from what the applicant has done that is appropriate, what can be kept, what should be changed and what was already approved. Understanding that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 4019- 05 with conditions stated in the Staff Report dated October 17, 2005 and with additional recommendations to correct subsequent modifications to the original approval: Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 (I) Remove the condition ofthe brick wainscoting. (2) The paint colors and finishes of the stucco on the fayade must be approved by City Staff. (3) If additional lighting is required by the Orange Police Department that this requirement be reviewed with City Staff for approval of style and location prior to installation. (4) The tin ceiling elements should be removed entirely from the fayade - no tin ceiling should be used. (5) The doors should be moved forward to be in line with the storefront, flanking either side of the doors as originally proposed and approved. (6) The signage plan should be sent to City Staff for approval. (7) The fayade color change made to the Masonic Temple entrance reqUires Staff approval or returned to its previous color. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. Chair Bonina announced that the item has been approved based on the recommendations stipulated. He stated to the applicant they have the ability to appeal if they choose and the procedure to appeal appears on the agenda. INRE: NEW BUSINESS: (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2565-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4054-05 - SAUERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. (TOYOTA OF ORANGE) A request to remodel an existing commercial structure and its related site improvements to create a 52-bay service facility as an ancillary use to an existing Toyota automotive sales business. The site is located at 1485 North Tustin Street. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Exemption). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 24-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2565-05 and Design Review Committee No. 4054-05. Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview during which she advised the existing site previously housed a bowling alley and has had the parking lot area used for inventory overstock by Toyota of Orange. The existing commercial structure (referred to as the Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 east lot) will be renovated on the interior to accommodate a 52-bay service facility; it's related offices and parts storage functions. The primary business location is still proposed to remain at the existing dealership (referred to as the west lot). Direct customer interface will continue to occur at the west lot. Only employees will conduct business between the two properties. Ms. Fox advised that the City's Staff Review Committee (SRC) as well as the Design Review Committee (DRC) have both reviewed the plans and have endorsed the project to move forward with conditions. Ms. Fox noted there was a specific condition from the DRC that additional information be provided to the Planning Commission for consideration related to some of the mechanical features and functions of the rear portion of the repair facility. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if customers would continue to drop off autos for service on the west side. Ms. Fox responded affirmatively. Commissioner Bilodeau asked how additional trip generation due to the shuttling of vehicles for service would impact traffic. Ms. Fox advised the City Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and the applicant did their own traffic study though it was not required to be submitted to The City. Chair Bonina asked the applicant to explain the relationship between each facility on a day-to-day basis in terms of employees and traffic across Tustin Avenue. The applicant responded that the service stalls will remain on the west lot and used for higher turn over applications (i.e. oil changes) and the new facility (the east lot) will be used for the extended care operations (where a car will be left overnight). The customer will drop off the car at the west lot and a Toyota employee will take it across to the east lot, positioning it in one of the service bays. There is a potential for 52 trips per day associated with the service bays. The continuing sales operation where a vehicle is moved from the east lot to the west lot for a customer to test drive occurs approximately 30-40 times per day. Chair Bonina asked the applicant if the hoists for the service bays are underground. The applicant responded they are below ground lifts. Public comment was provided as follows: Siobhan Bvrne (address on file) is with GVD Commercial Properties representing the Ralph's project directly adjacent to the Toyota dealership. Ms. Bryne's stated: · They were informed of this project on Monday, 12 June 2006. · They have not had adequate time to review the plans and consequently are asking that the proposed resolution and CUP not be approved at this time. · The proposed auto repair and storage warehouse are pure industrial uses-this property is not zoned for industrial use. · If the property were not owned by the dealership across the street, the proposed use would not be allowed. · The proposed use cannot be considered as ancillary to the Toyota business across the Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 street because it is separated by an 8 lane thorough-fare that moves over 75,000 cars per day. · It cannot be considered ancillary as it is almost as large as the original Toyota business across the street---the proposed project is 5.3 acres and the original is just slightly over 6 acres. · This property requires an environmental review and a full traffic study. · The closure of the access point on Tustin Avenue will change the traffic patterns and overburden Van Owen Avenue. The changes in the traffic patterns should be studied. · This is not a minor alteration as a minor alteration does not exceed over $8,000,000. in projected remodeling expenses; nor does it cost half of the total investment made when the original proj ect was purchased · This project does not meet the qualifications to be eligible for a categorical exemption. · A CUP should not be granted as 52 auto service bays do not help the City of Orange. · This project will cause problems with the adjacent property owners and a deterioration of the bordering land uses. · The Staff Report states the operational characteristics are conditioned to minimize impacts, but Staff does not indicate what the impacts are and what is being done to minimize them. · This property will primarily be used as an auto mechanic repair shop with 52 bays---an industrial type of business is normally situated in the industrial section of The City of Orange. Stephen Miles. address on file stated: · He was an Attorney in attendance on behalfofGVD Properties. · He wanted to discuss the use of the Class I Categorical Exemption for the proposed project. · He wanted to point out that CEQA guidelines, Section 15301 states that an exempt project is one that involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time ofthe lead agency's determination. · He does not know how there is any evidence in the record to support the use of this categorical exemption for this project because it is certainly not in the ballpark of negligible. · A Class I does not apply to this project - by way of example, CEQA does allow the conversion of a small structure i.e. a store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure in an urban area that does not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. and floor area for a site that is zoned for such use ifnot involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. · 10,000 sq. ft. is somewhat the threshold for converting a small structure; this project is a 69,500 sq. ft. building that includes the use of hazardous materials on a daily basis. This is no doubt why the conditions of approval include a Water Quality Management plan and some other measures. · An environmental review under a Class I Categorical Exemption is not founded in the record before the Commission. · The traffic study referenced was for the bowling alley and it should be done based on Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 an abandoned bowling area as the basis for the number of traffic trips. Chair Bonina asked Staff what timeline was used for the public notice and if it met the City's standard criteria. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry responded "as indicated in the June 8th Staff Report, the public hearing notices were sent to the property owners and tenants within a 300 foot radius of the project site. This was according to the City procedure, so it was noticed adequately. We do not do radius notices for the Design Review Committee although the agendas are posted and they also appear on the website." Chair Bonina asked for a summary why this project would not require a full EIR. Ms. Roseberry responded there are three different levels of environmental documentation and she reviewed each of the three criteria. Ms. Fox added that as a normal course of review for any City project, in addition to reviewing the plans, the Staff Review Committee (comprised of various City department representatives), meets to discuss the environmental considerations. They do notify (prior to that meeting) on their internal agenda of the anticipated environmental determination that would likely follow the project through its review process until it reaches the decision makers. In this particular case, the particular categorical exemption found to be sufficient is in the Resolution. The traffic interface was a concern discussed with the City's Traffic Engineers. Traffic and any potential noise issues were dealt with at the design phase, which is where the determination was made. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz asked Ms. Fox to fill in the Commission as to what factors were used to arrive at the determinations made. Mr. Sheatz also offered clarification that although Mr. Meyers categorized the existing use as a vacant bowling alley the existing use is primarily for storage of vehicles and there are runners currently shuttling vehicles across Tustin Avenue. Absent the service bays, this is a very similar use to what is being proposed. Ms. Fox elaborated on the meetings conducted with the applicant and advised Staff direction to the applicant was to keep the more westerly portion of the east lot looking as though it was a commercial application. Ms. Fox advised they reviewed the plans and looked at things such as the elimination of curb cuts (particularly on Tustin Street), that eliminate the traffic pattern and reduce the impacts as well as the reduction of the two driveways on Van Owen to one. These were factors used to formulate how much of an environmental review the project would need. Chair Bonina asked if the size of the building would cause Staff to consider something different? Ms. Fox stated no, as there was no change in overall square footage. Ms. Fox reviewed the other categorizations, including the Class 3 mentioned by Mr. Meyers and discussed why they were not considered appropriate for this application. Mr. Sheatz offered to have Staff provide more detail as was provided by Ms. Fox verbally and in the Staff Report to Mr. Miles in written form, prior to the finalization of the resolution. Chair Bonina acknowledged this would be a very prudent thing to do. Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 Commissioner Pruett offered some comments regarding the CEQA issue and indicated his opinion is the traffic impact is really not that great. Further, an important factor not mentioned is that Van Owen and Tustin A venue is a signalized intersection so in essence his opinion is that any traffic that may be encountered is being controlled through signalization. He recommended further articulation of the signalization of the intersection into the resolution information. Chair Bonina asked the Assistant City Engineer, Roger Hohnbaum to comment on the pedestrian traffic between the two facilities. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that the service valets would be crossing at a signalized intersection and he added he is quite pleased with the elimination of the driveway off Tustin Avenue. Chair Bonina made a motion to approve adoption of Resolution No. PC 24-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2565-05 and Design Review Committee No. 4054-05, understanding this project is categorically CEQA exempt. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. Chair Bonina advised the appeal process can be found on the agenda. (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2581-06 ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC A proposal for a co-location of six (6) antennas to an existing monopole wireless communications structure and new ground equipment on the property of an existing automotive service center (Midas Auto Center) located at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and the 55-Orange Freeway (1922 E. Chapman Avenue). NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 21-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2581-06. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry provided a brief project overview. Chair Bonina expressed concern over the lack of greenery at this location and stated the visibility of this antenna is far more heightened than the other application being Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 presented. Chair Bonina stated he would not want to support the addition of antennas to an existing pole that is already rather offensive to the area. Ms. Roseberry interjected that Staffs preference is for a stealth antenna but a co-located non-stealth antenna is permitted via a CUP to the Planning Commission. Ms. Roseberry advised that Staff did look at the problem with the aesthetics and believed the problem is really with the existing pole as opposed to the addition of the six (6) antennas. She stated if the Planning Commission would like to have the applicant go back to the drawing board Staff would be happy to work with them but she doesn't believe they own that pole so it would be a matter of working with the owner as well and the owner may not be amenable to removing and replacing that pole. Commissioner Pruett interjected that according to the application the pole is owned by someone else and he believed it is highly unlikely they would take it down and replace it with another for this applicant. Commissioner Bilodeau stated this interchange is basically the gateway to Orange and he believes the pole location is sublet to the cell provider by the property owner. Commissioner Bilodeau's opinion is that ultimately it is the property owner's responsibility to enhance the streetscape and he thinks that would be an appropriate comprise to be worked. He did not think it would be reasonable to have the pole replaced as it would represent a significant investment. Jason Handley, the applicant's representative commented he read the conditions of approval and they are acceptable as written. Further, stealth is always a consideration and it ultimately comes down to space on the pole and the cost involved. There is no other space whatsoever and to replace the pole would require Verizon to be taken off line in order for Royal Street to put up a new pole. Mr. Handley believes this would be unacceptable. Commissioner Bilodeau commented that on Page 3 of the Staff Report it is specified that the ground equipment enclosure will be improved with two 83 sq. ft. landscape planters located on the north and south sides of the rod iron fence. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 21-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2581-06. SECOND: Commissioner Bilodeau Chair Bonina commented that if this does move forward he believes it would be a shame that we don't take an opportunity to enhance an area in our City that needs it. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett Commissioners Bonina None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2586-06 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC A proposal for a co-location of six (6) antennas to an existing non-stealth monopole wireless communications structure and new ground equipment on property located on the west side of Cypress between Collins Avenue and Walnut Avenue (764 N. Cypress Street). NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 22-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2586-06. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry provided a brief project overview during which advised the City's wireless ordinance has several options for carriers. The City's preference is that they have co-locatable monopoles that are stealth. Chair questioned the reason for this project continuing as a non-stealth monopole. Ms. Roseberry responded it happens to be in a manufacturing zone and a non-stealth wireless facility tends to work better in manufacturing zones but they are permitted through the CUP process in any zone. No public comment was provided on this item. Jason Handley, the applicant's representative commented he read over the Resolution as well as the conditions of approval and everything looked fine; Royal Street Communications agrees with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Pruett stated he was not familiar with Royal Street Communications and asked if they service other providers. Mr. Handley responded that Royal Street Communications is actually in a joint partnership with Metro PCS and that Metro PCS is going to be the brand name that will be seen in 2007. Royal Street Communications is basically the funding in the project. They are a fairly new company. Commissioner Imboden stated he noted Royal Street Communications are primarily seen in the lower tier and he asked if the upper tier devices are current technology being used today. Mr. Handley stated they are being used by Sprint. Commissioner Pruett asked if they co-locate with the facilities on the ground when they co-locate on the antenna. Mr. Handley responded they try to and in this instance their equipment will be within the existing enclosure. Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 Commissioner Pruett made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 22-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2586-06. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. (7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2585-06 - JOHNNY CARINO'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 47 (On-Sale General for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license for a new restaurant and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. The site is located at 1625 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 23-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2585-06. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry provided a brief project overview advising that Staff as well as the Orange Police Department have reviewed the project. The Police Department is recommending approval; they have no issues with it as presented. The project went before the DRC, some changes were made and it was approved. A letter was received today from a nearby property owner (copy was provided to the Commission) indicating they would prefer the Planning Commission approve the restaurant with an Alcohol 41 license which is beer and wine. They did not elaborate as to why. No public comment was provided on this item. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 23-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2585-06. SECOND: AYES: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2006 NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. (8) SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO'S. 2379-01 AND 2380-01, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO'S. 107-99 AND 108-99 - CA- THE CITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELA WARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (AN AFFILIATE OF EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES (EOP)) A request for approval of a second amendment to the approved Development Agreement (DA) by and between the City of Orange and CA- The City Limited Partnership (herein referred to as "Equity") by extending certain dates related to reaching an agreement with Orange City Mills Limited Partnership (herein referred to as "Mills") regarding development adjacent to properties owned by EOP and for the payment of certain "Public Benefit Fees" related to approved projects. NOTE: The environmental impacts of the approved office buildings and DA were analyzed by Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 1612-01 and an approved Addendum to the FEIR, respectively. Because the amendments do not involve any change in land uses or entitlements no further environmental analysis is required. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 12-06 recommending approval to the City Council of the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Orange and CA-The City Limited Partnership. A project overview as provided by Planner Christopher Carnes. Mr. Carnes advised: . The Development Agreement was originally approved in 2004 to maintain entitlements for four office buildings that Equity was proposing to build in the vicinity of the Block at Orange. · The original Development Agreement included a requirement that Equity work with the Mills Corporation on coordinating development on properties located between Equity's and the west side of The Block at Orange. · Mills Corporation was originally proposing an apartment complex with 500 units and a multi-level parking structure with approximately 1200 parking spaces. · The original Development Agreement stated the Equity and Mills were to reach an agreement on the development by October 2005. By this time neither party were able to reach or complete an agreement due to a change in marketing conditions and Mills changed the ideas of what they were proposing to do. Consequently the City Council approved the first amendment to the Development Agreement, which moved the required date to January 30, 2006. A Public Benefit Fee was to be payable if agreement with the Mills Corp. was not reached by the initial resolution date. The fee of $100,000 was to be paid to the City of Orange Public Library Foundation and City of Orange Community Foundation. Page 17 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 · Equity and Mills have been working in good faith to complete the agreement---Iast year they did reach an agreement in principle but because of changing conditions with Mills, they have not been able to reach a final agreement. · This second amendment includes some minor modifications to the original DA, which includes: updating, changes that the Mills has changed the residential project to 403 condominiums from 500 apartments and the size of the parking structure from 1200 spaces to approximately 1700 spaces, and changing the Mills title to Mills Entities. · There are no changes from the original entitlements. · Presently there are two of four office buildings still left as a possibility to be built by Equity. · The requested extension is to January 30, 2007. Mr. Carnes concluded by stating the requested action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Bonina asked Mr. Carnes if Equity has review authority over Mills. Planner Carnes replied affirmatively. Commissioner Bilodeau asked how it came about the EOP would have to pay the fees, specifically, what was the bargained for benefit? Planner Carnes replied that for the City to agree to the original Development Agreement, which extended their approvals out to October 2014, the benefit to the City included that Equity would work with Mills to resolve their differences and the original Development Agreement included requirement of the incentive. If they couldn't reach an agreement, Equity would have to pay into the City Foundations. Commissioner Bilodeau asked for clarification that part of the agreement included the shared parking agreements that are still not in place that the City wants to have in place to eliminate the parking problems. Mr. Carnes responded that was correct. In the past it was indicated Equity and Mills have reached a private agreement to where the Mills can use the parking fields for the office towers to the west of the Block in the evening and on weekends. This new shared parking plan is not yet submitted as Mills has not pulled permits or proceeded with the residential development. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he failed to see how any urgency (on the part of either party) would be created if the Commission continues to grant extensions. Chair Bonina asked for clarification that the entitlements for EOP are good until 2014. Mr. Carnes responded that was correct. Chair Bonina then asked for concurrence that the extension is solely to extend the time in which the penalty is paid. Mr. Carnes agreed. Commissioner Pruett stated he thought it was important to point out that the responsibility to resolve the problem does not lie just with Equity properties and to not provide the extension imposes the penalty on just one party. He asked Planner Carnes if this was a correct statement. Mr. Carnes responded it does require an agreement between both parties and The Mills Corporation has stated they are working in good faith with the Equity to reach an agreement and Mills representatives have recommended approval of Page 18 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 the second amendment. Commissioner Imboden stated he agreed with Commissioner Bilodeau in that there was an incentive in place to move the project forward and they have heard they are moving ahead in good faith, yet the timeframes are not being met. Commissioner Pruett responded to Commissioner Imboden by stating this is a recommendation to the City Council and the recommendation could be one that expresses concern about the project not moving forward to the degree preferable; however, from another viewpoint there is more than one party involved here. The applicant's representative, Mark Valentine (address on file) stated the first extension for the first resolution to January 30, 2007 is justified and short based on the complexity of the agreement, the number of entities involved and the current changes going on at the corporate level at the Mills Corp. Further he stated that unfortunately Mills is suffering some financial hardships in the well-chronicled newspaper accounts and they are exploring strategic alternatives, the details are not known at this time. An amendment to EOP's Development Agreement has become essential to allow more time to conclude the transaction and not penalize the EOP for the inability to obtain closure when the future of the Mills Corp. is uncertain. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Valentine if the Mills Corp. is having active discussions with EOP now. Mr. Valentine responded the attorneys are having active conversations about the agreements in principle. Chair Bonina asked if it is reasonable to expect there will be a resolution by the requested extension date. Mr. Valentine responded it is reasonable. Chair Bonina asked if once it was resolved if the payments would be made to the foundations? Mr. Valentine stated "no." Chair Bonina stated if the second amendment was approved it would be at the expense of the Foundations. Mr. Valentine replied "with all due respect I believe the onus was put on us to bring EOP and Mills together to get us to the table as there was an issue at the time because of the deed restrictions. It was meant to get us to the table and I believe, in earnest, we've done so." Commissioner Bilodeau asked if there is a penalty provision in the Development Agreement signed with Mills? Alice Angus, Community Development Director provided clarification there is not a similar penalty with Mills Corp. If Mills Corporation moved ahead with their development the additional public benefit, additional tax dollars as part of the commercial expansion and property tax was seen to be enough. When EOP came forward asking for a Development Agreement since they had the ability to stall or stop the development, the City wanted to bring EOP to the table to negotiate in good faith with Mills. The penalty of having to pay into the Foundations was to hold their feet to the fire to get to the table and negotiate. They've done that. Since Mills is going through some potential restructuring and through no fault of EOP, Mills is not really stepping up, Page 19 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 Staffis supportive of extending EOP's Development Agreement. In extending out to the requested time period the hope is this will be a reasonable period to resolve the issues and find out if there is a deal between the two companies and whether or not the developments will proceed. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he discussed this project a couple of months ago with the Councilman who placed him on the Commission and they were pondering, "where's the money." He added that since the applicant already received an extension the bill should have been sent last January. He therefore cannot support an additional extension. Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to deny the request to the City Council for the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement Relating to Approved Conditional Use Permit No's. 2379-01 and 2380-01, and Major Site Plan Review No's. 107-99 and 108-99 - CA- The City Limited Partnership, a Delaware Limited Partnership (An Affiliate of Equity Office Properties (EOP)). SECOND: Commissioner Imboden Commission Imboden added commentary that he is not supportive as the Agreement was to motivate parties to come to agreement and he wants to maintain the urgency of the issue. Commissioner Pruett opposed the motion stating that although he appreciates the concern expressed by fellow Commissioners to have this project moved forward expeditiously; responsibility for what is occurring in terms of the delay does not lie solely on the applicant, EOP. He stated he thought they were being penalized unfairly. Commissioner Pruett believes it is important to give the applicant an opportunity to try to conclude this within the extended time period and he thinks it is incumbent on the Commission to allow that to occur. In terms of moving forward in an expedient manner the other party has the issues that has caused the delay. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Imboden, Commissioner Pruett Commissioner Bonina Commissioner Enderby Chair Bonina was asked by Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz if he would clarify the reason for his abstention. Chair Bonina stated he believed there might be some interests he was not comfortable with, not necessarily property interest or anything like that. Mr. Sheatz asked if they were driven by a conflict and Chair Bonina responded no; he was just not fully comfortable that EOP has the level of urgency; he understands there are two positions to this transaction and he is more comfortable with an abstention. Ms. Roseberry clarified that the motion carried. Page 20 Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2006 Commissioner Pruett announced that he had submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission after thirteen (13) years of service. His last meeting will be July 5th, 2006 and his resignation will be effective July loth, 2006. Commissioner Pruett stated that former Planning Commissioner Mara Brandman took her job to heart and really invested herself in the job she did. Commissioner Pruett asked that we remember the dedication Mara had to the Commission and the community and that the meeting be adjourned in her memory. Chair Bonina added that Ms. Brandman took every application with a great deal of enthusiasm and interest and she will be greatly missed. Chair Bonina announced it is regrettable Commissioner Pruett is leaving as he has served honorably for thirteen years, he will be missed greatly and hopefully we will see him in another capacity within the City. The meeting was adjourned in Mara Brandman's honor to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:17 p.m. Page 21