2006 - January 16
COL5 CD. C. ;;>..3,
January 16, 2006
Planning Commission Minutes
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
January 16, 2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett, and Bonina
None
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner
Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 7, 2005, SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 AND OCTOBER 3, 2005.
Commissioner Bilodeau moved to approve the Minutes of Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS:
(2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) NO. 3998-05 AND
ADMINSTRA TIVE ADJUSTMENT FOR CANELL RESIDENCE. A
PROPOSAL TO REPLACE A ONE-CAR DETACHED GARAGE
(DEMOLISHED IN 1999) WITH A NEW ONE-CAR ATTACHED
GARAGE AND A 113 SQ. FT. MASTER BATHROOM ADDITION TO
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
THE SINGLE-FAMILY RRESIDENCE LOCATED AT 303 N.
CAMBRIDGE STREET. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM CEQA. RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO APPROVE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4019-05.
Ms. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, noted that this was not a Public Hearing for
this project, although it was a Public Meeting, and the Planning Commission did want to
hear from the applicant and any interested parties.
Mr. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, provided the Staff Report to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ryan explained the original dwelling had a detached garage, and there was no way to
meet the setback requirements to construct a detached garage, and still have a garage to
meet the separation for the rear property line; the separation between the garage and the
house. Therefore, he added, the garage is now attached, and the design ofthe garage is to
create a feeling as a detached separate structure even though it's attached to the dwelling.
Chair Bonina asked if there was a minimum size garage irrespective of Administrative
Adjustments that cannot be adjusted, i.e.; it's a minimum size and they don't have the
discretion to take it to a smaller size that would make it as a non-functional garage.
Mr. Ryan stated that 10 x 20 is the interior dimension requirement, and to make it any
smaller would make it difficult to open doors, and get out of the car once it was parked in
the garage.
Mr. Ryan eXplained that many of the garages constructed in the 50s and 60s were only 16
to 18 foot depth. He said the issue is more with the width, and the applicant was able to
get her vehicle in the garage. He stated they were trying to accomplish having enough
space with the garage with a setback of2.6 feet back farther from the house which would
allow another 16 feet past the property line so the car could stack in front of the garage
without blocking the street. He said it was a compromise to both adjust the depth ofthe
interior dimension of the garage of the rear setback and to get the car off the street at the
same time.
Chair Bonina asked ifthis was being proposed with a five foot setback on the side.
Mr. Ryan replied the side yard setback was four feet and was one ofthe Administrative
Adjustments.
Chair Bonina thought what was driving this was the bathroom in the back. He said ifthe
bathroom wasn't part of the project, you could get the depth and requisite standard
setback off the street.
Mr. Ryan said applying the interior depth of the garage and the rear setbacks allows the
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
applicant to have the bathroom addition and also get the vehicle in the garage and
accommodates the car so it doesn't block the sidewalk.
Commissioner Pruett asked if the previous garage that was demolished in 1999 was
setback on the property line on both the rear and side property.
Mr. Ryan stated it was setback even with the house.
Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Cathv Cannell, 303 N. Cambridge Street, Orange. She thanked the DRC and Mr.
Dan Ryan for their help and support. She stated she agreed with the Conditions in the
Staff Report, and agreed the revised plans made the garage appear less attached. She said
they loved Old Town Orange, and thanked the Commission for taking the time to review
her plans and looked forward to a favorable decision. She added in regard to the size of
the existing slab is almost the size of her car, and ifthere were walls there, she would not
be able to open the car doors.
Mr. Jeff Frankel. OTPA. address on file. Mr. Frankel mentioned the packet with the
photographs is what was submitted to the Commission in conjunction with his comments.
He then stated that OTPA's position on this project was it was inappropriate to add an
attached garage to the structure. He pointed out the DRC continued the project and
instructed the applicant to come back with revised plans without the bathroom so the
garage would be setback from the wall plane of the existing structure. He continued that
the applicant came back to DRC with plans that still included the bathroom, but the
addition was setback a foot or so. He added that OTPA's position was there was a
precedent set with the approved project located at 403 E. Palmyra, (which were the
photos he provided to the PC) where a new garage was permitted to be built on or close
to the property line in the approximate footprint of the previous garage. He commented
that these two projects were almost identical as they were both on a comer lot with the
garage and house configuration about the same. The only difference, he said, was that
the Palmyra project had room to accommodate a setback, and this project does not. He
said the subject of consistency is continually brought up, and evaluation approvals within
Old Towne, but this seems to be another inconsistency implying City Ordinance and
Code through similar projects. He felt the City should show consistency and make
concessions as they have in previous accessory structure projects to accommodate a
single detached garage.
Mrs. Janet Crenshaw. 200 N. Cleveland, Orange. She mentioned that tonight's Agenda
stated that this project was exempt from CEQA guidelines, but it is not exempt from Old
Towne Design Standards. She added that a sign this project was not meant to be was the
utility pole standing in the middle of the proposed driveway apron. She asked who would
be responsible for the cost of moving this pole, and was it even included in the plans.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Chair Bonina asked if the applicant wanted to address any of the items mentioned by the
speakers, and she declined.
Commissioner Imboden wanted to address a few discrepancies he saw on the plans; a
couple of the items the DRC had conditioned. He spoke of the comer boards to be
removed, yet the plans show it. He wasn't sure if these were the same plans the DRC
looked at. He mentioned at the north elevation, the eave appears to move straight across
from the new to the existing, but when you look at the west elevation, you can see a
difference in the eave. He thought the project was within F.A.R., and the existing
residence was listed as 885 square feet, but if you multiply 39 x 261, there is actually
1,017 square feet, and this is a considerable difference, but still within F.A.R. reason. He
thought OTP A had brought up an important issue, and that was consistency. He stated
when he looked at this project, the City had discouraged detached garages, so he
approached this with caution. He understood the accessory structures the minimum
setbacks could be reduced. He referenced Page 751 of the Ordinance that spoke of side
yard setbacks as well as rear setbacks at zero for R 1 properties. He wanted clarification
from Staff if this applied in this case.
Ms. Roseberry replied on Footnote B, the last sentence stated, "A minimum five foot rear
yard setback is required for comer or reverse comer lots."
Commissioner Imboden stated he understood this, but was there any other situation
where in theory, it is possible to go to a zero.
Ms. Roseberry replied, in theory, based on the height and the use of the structure, yes.
Commissioner Imboden mentioned in the Staff Report, it stated other than the two
Administrative Adjustments that it met all the requirements that they have. However, he
had a question regarding RI-6 where it is required to have a 900 square foot minimum
useable open space, but did not see it addressed in the packet. He also asked about Item
Two in the Staff Report's Administrative Adjustments, Item B is asking to approve a
reduction of other developmental standards including parking dimensions provided the
adjustments does not exceed 10% ofthe requirement. He thought the requirement behind
the garage for the driveway is 20, and the Administrative Adjustment is asking for 16.
He stated it seemed like they were outside of the 10% that would be allowed under the
Administrative Adjustment.
Ms. Roseberry stated the reduction in the yard requirements is 20% for either a front, side
or rear yard. She said the requirement spoke of a reduction in the required front yard and
rear setbacks as 20%.
Ms. Roseberry commented that where a garage opening faces onto a street, a minimum
20-foot side yard should be provided. She said it doesn't talk about it in terms of the
length ofthe driveway, but in terms of a side yard, but if you go back to the
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Administrative Adjustment Section, it states the Administrative Adjustment can be up to
20% and anything more than that has to be a Variance so going from 20 feet to 16 feet is
20% and within the parameters of an Administrative Adjustment.
Chair Bonina stated that even if this is within the parameters of an Administrative
Adjustment, it still did not mean that the Commission did not have the ability to change
this if they chose to do so.
Ms. Roseberry responded that this was a discretionary decision to be made by the
Commission.
Commissioner Pruett asked if what was being said was the area of the driveway was a
building setback, therefore, they could go with the 20% rule versus a parking area
setback, which would be limited to 10%.
Mr. Ryan explained that a comer lot is a setback reduced by 20%. If the setback is for
parking or a building, then this was the gray area.
Ms. Roseberry believed the gray area is if the Planning Commission interprets this as it
does not fall under an Administrative Adjustment, it falls under a Variance, the project
would have to be continued, it would have to be re-noticed as a Variance, and then the
Planning Commission would have to determine Findings in order to approve it, and the
findings for an Administrative Adjustment are a little bit different than they are for a
Variance.
Chair Bonina asked what the Administrative Adjustment findings would be.
Mr. Ryan replied that the Reduction Standards would not be detrimental to the public
health, welfare or safety or the general welfare of persons residing or working on the
property or in the vicinity and the issuance ofthe permit does not compromise the intent
ofthe Code. He added these were the findings of an Administrative Adjustment.
Commissioner Pruett asked how many parking spaces were required for a single dwelling
such as this.
Mr. Ryan stated they were required to have two.
Ms. Roseberry pointed out that when you apply for a demolition, you have to have your
replacement structure drawings, elevations, and such as part of the request. In this case,
they do not have this, but in the case Mr. Frankel brought up, that was a very different
type of case where it was brought forward as a repair and ended up being a demolition.
Commissioner Pruett asked if it could be argued since the original slab was still there,
could this not be considered a complete demolition.
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Mr. Ryan responded that they had argued this with the Building Official and because of
the time involved, they could not go in this direction. He added they had tried, and
certainly looked at this, because he did not want to start with a detached garage. He
stated they had inquired whether they could build on the slab even though it was too
small, it was past the two-year period, and he had some latitude at that point.
Chair Bonina commented he thought Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Frankel's comment that
an attached garage isn't typical of this type of structure, and ifit weren't for the
circumstance, he wouldn't be going this route.
Mr. Ryan stated the DRC thought this was the best compromise. He stated that even if
you got rid ofthe bathroom, that would only put the garage back about four feet and the
question here is how much different would that appear as a detached structure than an
attached structure. He said their concern was the building plane had the original
drawings right across the roof as the same direction and looked like a ranch building. So
the idea was to modify the design and accentuate the main structure and the garage as a
secondary structure and set it back and make it appear as different as possible.
Chair Bonina stated he agreed with the concept. He thought it made sense to do some
type of offset. He was concerned with two Administrative Adjustments that exaggerated
the problem, in his opinion. He said there was a garage that was substandard, and now
there is a drive that is arguably substandard. He added he would like to see a garage and
with deference to Mr. Frankel, the fact that the garage is attached versus not attached is
not as important as having a garage that is not functional.
Commissioner Imboden wanted to follow up on the comments made by Chair Bonina.
He was concerned with the historic nature of this project. He stated that attaching this
garage to the house doesn't enhance its integrity, and will diminish this. He thought they
could get the garage to the size it should be, get the drive to the size it should be, and
preserve some space between the house and the garage to be used as private useable
space. He was looking for Staffto tell him ifhis thinking was correct or not.
Mr. Ryan replied that the comer lot with the rear yard coverage is only required have a
five foot rear setback, and any building over 10 feet must have a five foot rear setback
and five foot side setback on a comer lot, so the height of the building also affects this.
The other issue is where you set a building on a property line, and there are clipped eaves
or have water draining onto adjacent property, and start wrapping the eaves and rafters.
He pointed out that where you solve one problem gives you a new set of problems. He
thought the application here was a compromise. He said the DRC was very firm in
stating they did not want to set precedence, and understood this was a compromise. They
took all those considerations into being. He said the design has evolved to address these
issues as much as possible within the restraints of what they're trying to accomplish
without doing a Variance.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Commissioner Imboden stated as much as a project evolves, it doesn't make it suitable to
him. He knew this opened up Code issues, but he thought this was a design issue that
could be solved. He was not comfortable moving ahead with potentially setting a
precedent whether it's setting a precedent or not, and compromising the historic structure.
He added that this project did not meet the requirements, and was asking for a lot of
adjustments to those requirements, so he did not know ifhe could move forward this
evening with these many adjustments. He thought there were some alternatives, and both
the Old Towne and Secretary of Interior Standards stressed one point, and that was to
think outside the box, and look at every alternative to preserve a historic structure. He
stated for himself, he was not convinced they were there yet.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he empathized with the applicant because he thought they
were trying to do the right thing by putting up a garage and make it a functional livable
house. He understood OTPA' s concern.
Commissioner Pruett stated he struggled with the Administrative Adjustment. He
thought they should ask Staffto go back and prepare a Variance and bring forward the
Variance and the project could be re-looked at to consider this request.
Ms. Roseberry thought this could be continued and add the Variance and re-hear the item.
She was not sure the Commission would want to deny the item, because sometimes a
denial will create a prejudice against the request. She thought it would be better to send it
back, and ask the applicant to take another look at the project.
Commissioner Pruett thought it was important the applicant understand the concern was
the reduction in the parking area of the garage. He added this Approval would not just be
for the applicant but for future applicants as well. He said another issue was the attached
garage.
Chair Bonina stated in addition to the substandard size of the garage, and the proposed
garage not attached to the structure, he had concern about the driveway as well. He said
that most residents today have two cars, and the driveway would be occupied more often
than not, and he did not want to have the sidewalk continuously blocked, and did not
think this was a prudent way to move forward. He wanted to move for a Continuance,
but wanted to provide clear direction to Staff and the applicant on this issue. One thing
he wanted to have considered was there was some sort of setback in front which looks
like it's away from the building for some length and then comes back so that they don't
compromise the side setback as much as they would have to if they had to move the
entire garage over. He continued it would give the appearance of being a detached
garage, but it accomplishes maintaining the side setback, and possibly the rear setback.
He stated that as they discussed to come back to see if they can get a full size garage at 20
feet and also the driveway as well.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16,2006
Chair Bonina made a motion to Continue DRC No. 3998-05.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
(3) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1231-05, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 395-05,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4035-05, AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1759-05 - TODD FLAMMER, SUNNY SLOPE
TREES. A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO PROVIDE
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE ZONING CLASSIFICATION ON A
FORMER 2.66 ACRE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SITE LOCATED ON
AN UNZONED PARCEL AT 1545 NO. GLASSELL STREET (NORTH OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL BETWEEN
GLASSELL AND CAMBRIDGE STREETS). RECOMMENDED ACTION
IS ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 02-06 RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ZONE CHANGE,
MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
NO. 4035-05.
Mr. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, provided a full reading of the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Bilodeau mentioned that the applicant is a tenant of the Orange County
Water District, and leases 19 acres from the Water District. He added this was off the 91
Freeway and Imperial, and they had not encountered any problems or issues from him
ever. He stated this project looked like a similar project.
Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Bilodeau if the relationship he had just described, was
he in a position to be unbiased in terms ofthis item.
Commissioner Bilodeau replied yes.
Commissioner Imboden said in reviewing the DRC minutes, he noticed one of the
neighbors had raised the issue of lights, and the applicant had answered there would be
no lights at night. He wondered if there were light requirements for security purposes or
would the sign be lit.
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Mr. Ryan answered that they had spoke with the Police Department regarding lighting,
and their requirement was a light over each window and door on the office area for
security purposes. Since there were no nighttime operations, they were not concerned
about light in the parking lot. He did not think the sign was lit.
Commissioner Pruett asked how the gravel road parking area would be maintained, and
wanted to ensure this was one of the things to be maintained to keep dirt or mud off to the
public right of way.
Mr. Ryan replied that yes, this would be part of their Soil Erosion Control Plan for the
parking area.
Chair Bonina asked Staff to re-state the deliveries and circulation schedules.
Mr. Ryan explained that the deliveries would be Tuesdays and Saturdays, two semi-
trucks, 45 foot stake beds. He added typically smaller trucks that belong to contractors
would use a forklift to lift and load a particular species. This would happen on an
occasional basis as customers come to the facility. He stated initially there would be a
three week period where they would be loading nursery stock, and will be quite busy with
eight hours a day of delivery. After that, they would expect two deliveries a week.
Chair Bonina asked if the access to the property was both ingress and egress on both
Glassell and Cambridge.
Mr. Ryan stated the customers would enter on Glassell and trucks would deliver from
Cambridge to Glassell. He added they would also exit from Glassell.
Chair Bonina mentioned he thought he saw some overhead wires.
Mr. Ryan said his understanding was there weren't any, but the applicant could speak on
this.
Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Todd Flammer, applicant, 6449 E. Hightree Lane. Orange. He wanted to thank Staff,
the Planning Department. He stated that Sunny Slope Trees was a family owned
company that has been in business in Orange for 25 years. He said there had been no
complaints at either the Anaheim location or the previous location in Orange off of
Riverdale and Glassell. He explained he wanted to keep his Orange County base due to
all the customers they have acquired over the last 22 years. He stated there were no
overhead power lines on his property.
Mr. Ryan mentioned that in discussions with the Public Works Department with the
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Water Quality Management Plan, it was determined that the decomposed granite would
be the best solution as far as water run-off, so this was the other reason for not having
asphalt or some other material for paving and to keep the existing conditions for limited
soil movement.
Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Imboden mentioned the person who attended the DRC Meeting and asked
about lights and were told there would be no lights. Now, due to a requirement by the
Police Department, there will have to be lights on the property. He asked if this item
goes forward, would it be reasonable to put a condition on the approval that the security
lights to be used not have the point source of light be visible because if the light is outside
this person's bedroom window, it would be an issue to this individual.
Chair Bonina wanted it clarified the security lights were only on the building, and Staff
replied yes.
Ms. Roseberry stated that all the light would have to be confined onto the site, and they
were trying to light only the area around the access points; the doors and windows. She
did not believe they wanted to light up the whole area.
Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Imboden if this was satisfactory, and he stated yes.
Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
02-06 recommending to the City Council approval of: Negative Declaration No. 1759-
05, adopt PC Resolution 02-06 recommending approval of the Zone Change No. 1231-
05, Minor Site Plan Review No. 395-05 and the Design Review Committee No. 4035-05.
Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2549-05 - VELOCITY SPORTS
PERMANCE CENTER. A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION
OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL
USE (BY APPOINTMENT ONLY -SPORTS TRAINING FACILITY).
PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1748 W. BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE.
PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
RECOMMENDED ACTION IS ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2549-05
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2549-05.
Mr. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, provided the Staff Report to the Commission.
Chair Bonina opened up the Public Hearing.
Mr. Phillip Schwartze, 31682 El Camino Real. SJc. He stated that Velocity Sports was a
national franchise, and wondered if the Commission had any questions about the
business. He said that recognizing that Velocity is a national franchise with great
experience and had a variety oflocations; he referenced them to the Irvine site, which is
almost the same size as the present project. He explained it was unusual ifthere were 15
cars on the parking lot at one time because 13 to 15 year olds did not drive much. He
believed that parking would be the least oftheir issues because they would have 48
spaces on site, and could not imagine they would use anywhere near these spaces.
Commissioner Enderby stated that in the description of Velocity, it did not indicate the
general age of the athletes that attend Velocity.
Mr. Schwartze replied it was 13 to 14 years old.
Chair Bonina asked if there was any proposed outdoor activity.
Mr. Schwartze replied there was none, and the picture provided and in their floor plan, it
is all indoor work. He explained their training was focused on speed and agility.
Mr. Dave Pauluzzi. 1748 West Business Center Drive. He wanted to provide more
description of Velocity. He stated this was a nationally brand franchise with over 70 in
the United States. They learned about the business through their children attending the
one in Irvine. He mentioned this business was by appointment only. He stated they had
an over abundance of parking at the Orange facility. He pointed out this business
promotes youth, community, sports, and fitness, and is not sports specific. He mentioned
that it focused on the children's long-term athletic and personal development building on
their confidence and self esteem. He continued that they tried to stay away from being
overly competitive and in some cases where a kid has never played a sport and working
on their training which sometimes leads to something very positive. He ended by stating
the coaches at the facility maintained a high level of attention to detail, which is why it's
by appointment only and the ratio of kids to coaches is six to one. He pointed out they
did not want to have any parking issues as there are kids waiting to be picked up by their
parents, and don't want the parents to be waiting in the street in order to pick up their
children.
Chair Bonina asked ifby appointment only, is there was a set schedule that certain
athletes come in to a set schedule or would someone call in and stated they wanted to
Page 11
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
come in at a particular time.
Mr. Pauluzzi stated it could be both. For instance, on a Monday, there could be
appointments by age or parents could call in to set up an appointment.
Chair Bonina asked about the trainers and if they attended some type of training.
Mr. Pauluzzi stated that all the trainers had to have a Bachelor's Degree and the majority
of them either had or were working on their Master's Degree in Kiniseology or in
Exercise Physiology. He added their trainers or coaches as they are called, are California
educated and were the Top Coaches at Cal State Fullerton and UCLA. He said the other
coaches must go through a one month training program administered by Velocity Sport
Performance Corporate and the Sports Performance Director. Additionally, he said, the
Sports Performance Director attended Initial Franchise training where he spends two
weeks with a consultant to the U.S. Olympic team.
Mr. George Kovacks. 1810 Business Center Drive. He stated he was the owner of a
machinery business for 20 years in Orange. He was concerned about what would happen
in the future regarding zoning, and worried how this would affect his business. He
wanted to know if businesses such as Velocity came in and brought in more business,
would the zoning be changed to move out his business. He also was concerned with
safety. He said the applicant had a small entrance to the area. He was worried what
would happen when the parents drop off their child, and the child ran off in the wrong
direction, and there was a lot of traffic in this area with many cars and trucks. He
believed there was a serious traffic problem and thought there was a possibility for a
child to get run over if they are not careful. He added that at Commerce and Business
Center Drive, there should be a Stop Sign installed there due to the heavy traffic. Other
than these two issues, he welcomed the applicant.
Chair Bonina asked Staff to provide some detailed response understanding this is an M2
manufacturing district, and they're proposing a business that is more retail-oriented. He
also wanted to know the long-term implication to this property they are considering vis-a-
vis to the property next door.
Ms. Roseberry explained the Zoning Ordinance provides for a number of different uses
for industrial areas for both Ml and M2 zones, and this project is in the M2 zone. She
added there are a number of different uses, not solely industrial research and development
or heavy industrial uses only because it also provides for banks or a drive-through
restaurant. She said the ability to have a recreational facility like Velocity goes with the
land as long as there is a business that is Velocity or exactly like it, it can remain that way
in perpetuity until it goes away. She stated it doesn't make the zones start to change its
use, even if you get a restaurant or bank on your street, it won't make the zoning change.
She said the City had no intention of changing this zone at this point.
Page 12
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Commissioner Pruett added that an individual, who has applied for a Conditional Use
Permit for the uses Ms. Roseberry described, just can't come in and make a request and
then it's granted. There has to be certain legal findings to support their request, and if
they meet those legal findings, the Condition can be granted. He thought it was
important that the public understood that something didn't just automatically happen.
Chair Bonina also stated that not only were there initial hurdles to go through in terms of
Conditions, but there were ongoing Conditions that needed to be continually satisfied to
keep the Conditional Use Permit in place. He said this was not a one-shot deal, but there
are continued requirements the property owner needs to satisfy in terms of running their
business. He mentioned the more important item was the traffic in the street
understanding there will be parents dropping off children. He asked Staff what the
understanding was of the traffic situation.
Ms. Roseberry responded that although she had no traffic information before her, the
Commission could easily condition the project that all student drop-offs and pick-ups
would have to happen on-site. They could also condition the applicant that as part of the
information they provide that the students must be dropped off on-site.
Commissioner Pruett wanted to hear from the applicant to get a better understanding of
how the kids will arrive and how they will be released.
Mr. Schwartze replied they did not allow the kids to be outside. This was not a good
practice, because some of the kids would be leaving at night. He thought the drop off
area could be easily accommodated, and if the Commission felt strongly about this, they
could implement a sign in/sign out process. He said there had not been a problem in the
past at the other facilities.
Mr. Pauluzzi stated the safety of the kids was at the top of their list. He also mentioned
some technological advances they had at their facility when a child comes into the
facility; they have a lanyard with a barcode. They wand themselves in which identifies
by appointment only, and when they leave, it is electronically registered. He stated at the
Irvine facility, the parents park and take their children in. When the child drives
themselves to the facility, they park and come in. He stated they would write this policy
into their guidelines and thought it was a good recommendation.
Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Pruett moved a motion that this is categorically exempt from CEQA and
moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 2549-05 approving C.U.P. No. 2549-05 with the
findings that are included in the Resolution and added a Condition to capture the idea
given complaints or concerns the pickup and drop-off of children, the applicant would
develop a Plan that's acceptable to the City. He stated that he would leave this to Staff to
come up with the language.
Page 13
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Ms. Roseberry asked if the Commission would be satisfied with the Staff approval, and
Commissioner Pruett stated yes.
Commissioner Enderby noted on Condition No. Four that should read... "the maximum
number of athletes" not athletics. He then seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Pruett, and Imboden
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2564-05 - GINZAYA SUSHI. A
REQUEST FOR A ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL TYPE 41
LICENTSE TO ALLOW THE ON-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WIND IN
AN EXISTING, BONA-FIDE PUBLIC EATING ESTABLISHMENT
LOCATED AT 7522-7524 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE. THIS PROJECT IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
Ms Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, stated they had discussed with the Planning
Commission a couple of months ago that a representative of Public Safety would not be
here unless there were issues with the Conditional Use Permit application. She added
that Public Safety did support this particular C.U.P application for beer and wine,
therefore, there is not a representative here. They signed off on the Alcohol Management
Plan and gave Community Development Staff their support for the project. She said
there was the standard type of conditions.
Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Jai, 200 Tanfora Ave.. Placentia. He stated his restaurant was Japanese and they
served the traditional Japanese cuisine. He said that sake, imported Japanese beer, and
wine have become very popular to go with the traditional Japanese dishes. He stated he
had another restaurant in Yorba Linda and had not experienced any problems at this
location.
Commissioner Pruett asked the applicant if he had reviewed the conditions of the
approval, and asked him ifhe realized one of the conditions was to cease serving alcohol
one hour prior to closing and the applicant stated yes.
Chair Bonina asked if his other location in Y orba Linda had an ABC license.
Page 14
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
The applicant replied yes, he had one for three and a half years.
Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Pruett stated this project was categorically exempt from CEQA so he
moved adoption of Resolution No. PC 01-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2564-05.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Pruett, and Imboden
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2571-05, MAJOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 391-05, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 103-
05- CITRUS MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING _
Mr. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, provided a full reading ofthe Staff Report to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if any study had been done to support the reduction in
parking.
Mr. Carnes replied no. He explained that when Staff reviews these Administrative
Adjustments, they look at the scale ofthe project in terms of the number of spaces and
the size of the building.
Chair Bonina asked ifthe configuration of the property were unusual that would drive an
equivalence ofa Variance.
Mr. Carnes replied that Administrative Adjustments did not have findings required
similar to a Variance. He stated the two mentioned in the Report are the intent of the
Code is still met by the reduction in parking which Staff believes can be met with the 100
spaces provided on site.
Mr. Carnes stated the maximum height established is 32 feet. However, he said
Conditional Use Permits are allowed to exceed the maximum height, and is not like a
Variance where you have to make findings that something unique exists. He explained
the Conditional Use Permit allows it to be considered subject to not having an adverse
impact on surrounding properties and serves a particular purpose with additional height.
In this particular case, it provides a unique architectural feature for this building as a
Page 15
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
transitional zone between what's considered larger commercial and retail uses on West
Chapman and the more detail and smaller scale projects in downtown Orange.
Commissioner Pruett wanted a better understanding of Item One in the Major Site Plan
Review when Staff stated the project was compatible with surrounding developments.
He asked Staff to describe the relationship of the adjoining multi-family building
mentioned in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Pruett said he was looking at was the impact of a building of this size had
in terms of the adjoining property being put in the shadow ofthe building. He continued
that it created a significant shadowing effect on the adjoining property.
Commissioner Pruett stated that they could go ahead and still construct this and be within
Code and if they didn't put the peak on the roof, they would be within Code with this
height and this distance from the property, and Mr. Carnes stated yes.
Chair Bonina said it seemed to him if the building was plotted further in the middle of the
property, the impact would be all the way around, at least from the adjacent single family
home, it would be far less than that. He asked if there was any thought to this.
Mr. Carnes stated it would require an entrance to the property close to Citrus Street. He
continued the Traffic Division approved of this particular layout because the entrance
was further from Citrus Street.
Chair Bonina asked what the required setback from the street for the building.
Mr. Carnes explained the property had two setbacks; from Citrus Street, it was required
to be the same as the residential setback to the north which is 15 feet, and from Chapman
Avenue, it was 10 feet.
Commissioner Imboden commented that if there was no parking on Chapman, Staff had
previously indicated that people would not park on adjacent streets, but he stated they
would have to ifthere was no parking in front.
Mr. Carnes replied this was correct.
Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Darrvl Hebenstreet. Architects Orange. 144 N. Orange St.. Orange. He stated the
current Site Plan was in response to feedback from DRC and Planning that requested the
building be located in the location it was at. He continued that some of the early site
studies had the building more centrally located in the site, and a driveway both on
Chapman and Citrus, but there were concerns about this, especially with the driveway on
Citrus and flow over the site. He explained it was moved to the comer to engage the
Page 16
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
building onto the comer more respective of how the transitional zone feels and looking
more like something from Old Towne. He stated there is also a bus stop there so the idea
was to engage the building more towards that comer. He said it was important that the
project had an entrance point that appeared it was on the street as well as from the
parking lot and this is how the overall design evolved to have this entrance point. He
continued that from an elevation standpoint, they tried to provide a hierarchy and blend
of traditional and contemporary elements. He said they had worked well with the DRC to
implement some of the modifications they made. He referenced the Landscape Plan and
said this was the area where the peak roof was applied, and the remainder of the entire
building was within the height allowable and setback allowable. One thing he wanted to
point out in the parking ratio was all the tenants would be ophthalmologists or selling
eyeglasses and the flow through lobby space was being designed from an interior
standpoint to sell eyeglasses in this area, so that parking ration is four per thousand, not
five per thousand. He said the 21,154 square feet of the building was the gross area, and
did not take into account the stairways or any of the access quarters that occur on the
second floor as the building breaks up into multiple suites. He continued the useable area
of the building will be much less than this from a net rental square footage. He stated no
studies had been done in this area, but ophthalmology the length of stay is typically a bit
longer, the parking needs tend to be slightly less than a normal medical visit, so his
estimation is they would need to be four to five per thousand which is where they're at.
Commissioner Imboden asked the applicant ifhe was familiar with the landscaping
between the proposed building and the property to the north.
Mr. Hebenstreet replied it was a fairly vertical tree that would grow six to seven feet in
diameter, and can top out at 12 to 15 feet high. He stated there had not been any negative
feedback from the surrounding neighbors. He explained during the design process with
Planning Staff and DRC, they removed a number of windows on the second floor to
ensure there wouldn't be as much visibility from their second story into the adjacent
multi-family area, and contrary to what Mr. Carnes stated, this was a two-story building
with a kind of L-shaped with the edge that sits fairly close to them.
Commissioner Bilodeau mentioned he did not see a loading zone or drop-off area on the
site. He said looking at the Zoning Code, in terms of parking area, he read from Section
17.76.070, Subsection G.
Ms. Roseberry mentioned that Commissioner Bilodeau had an older version of the
Zoning Ordinance, and she read from the Loading Areas for non-residential uses, Section
17.34.160.
The applicant asked if this was considered to be on-site
Ms. Roseberry answered that it would be off street so it would have to be on-site.
Page 17
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Mr. Hebenstreet pointed to an area in the parking lot where the most logical place would
be for a loading area and said it was about 42 feet long.
Chair Bonina asked Staff what the minimum requirement was, and Ms. Roseberry replied
it would be 60 feet.
Mr. Hebenstreet eXplained there was not 60 feet of curb anywhere on the property that
won't be in front of a car.
Chair Bonina asked what this required in terms of access or unencumbered passage. He
asked ifthis was for material or people.
Ms. Roseberry said in looking at the group that medical offices fell under; it stated day
care centers, nursery schools, medical offices, hospitals, etc. and similar uses, loading and
unloading shall be located as close as possible to the main building entrance. She
interpreted this as loading and unloading patients. She then read from the Goods and
Services section where it spoke of retail and service commercial and professional office
uses, loading and unloading areas shall be located as close as possible to a back or service
entrance which she interpreted as loading and unloading of goods.
Chair Bonina asked if this requirement was being met on this plan.
Mr. Hebenstreet replied the requirement was not being met if they were required to
dedicate a space of 10 feet by 60 feet. However, they could provide an alternate space of
10 feet by 42 feet.
Mr. Hebenstreet stated there were a number of handicapped stalls in front of the building
and could certainly stripe one of them as a patient pickup space. He said they would have
some type of dedicated pickup area.
Mr. Hebenstreet mentioned they could reduce the size of the main entry plaza to make
more parking spaces.
Chair Bonina asked ifthe applicant could reduce the size of the building.
Mr. Hebenstreet replied that they could do this, and even reconfigure the building
completely and put the second story access on the exterior of the building and would not
count toward square footage, but this was not preferable especially by their tenants.
Chair Bonina asked Staff if the parking requirement of five per thousand was based on
net or gross.
Ms. Roseberry replied it is always based on gross.
Page 18
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Commissioner Pruett asked Staff to provide an explanation of why the building was
placed where it would be affected by shading.
Ms. Roseberry stated the applicant had come forward originally with the building sited
more centrally located. She added she was not involved with this part of the project. She
explained when Stafflooked at the size ofthe building, the Code allowed for a 32 foot
commercial building adjacent to an R3 zone. She said it was different if the building was
adjacent to an Rl zone. She also stated Staff did not look at the shadowing as being an
issue to the adjacent zone because it met the setback and height requirement. She asked
Commissioner Pruett ifhe was concerned with the length of it or the full massing of it.
Commissioner Pruett replied it was the mass ofthe building at 120 feet long. He said the
Site Plan Review should indicate the project is compatible the surrounding
neighborhoods, and he was not quite sure it did when it casts such a big shadow. His
concern is that the they have not evaluated the impact of the building mass meaning the
length ofthe building for the height that it is, and the impact on the adjacent property. He
also wasn't convinced the location wasn't the most prudent location in terms of the Site
Plan Review.
Ms. Roseberry explained that a different building location might cause poaching of the
parking spaces from the adjacent residents because it would have been easily accessible
to them, and this was one ofthe reasons they wanted the applicant to move the building.
Additionally, it is in a transitional zone between the more urban area of West Chapman as
it moves into Old Towne, and wanted to create a statement on the property and it would
do this if it was up closer to the street. They also looked at making it more pedestrian-
oriented.
Ms. Roseberry mentioned that both the property owner and tenants directly north were
sent notices of the Public Hearing tonight and did not receive any calls.
Chair Bonina asked the applicant ifhe had the opportunity to reach out to the property
owner mentioned by Ms. Roseberry to explain the impacts.
Mr. David Valentine. 635 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange. He stated notices had been sent
out to all the surrounding neighbors, and was quite cognizant to the history of this site.
He stated about 15 neighbors showed up to the neighborhood meeting. He said there
were two people had somewhat negative comments. He said moving the building to this
location achieved two things; it made it more pedestrian friendly and eliminated the
parking problems for the tire store. He stated the shadow effect on the building was
addressed by the Redevelopment Agency, and the applicant personally called the people.
He also mentioned there would be a 5,000 square foot surgery center for the
ophthalmology group, and thus, the parking requirements would be less. He said
everything that had been asked of them, they had done.
Page 19
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 2006
Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Imboden stated in the overall review ofthe project, he shared some of the
same concerns as the other Commissioners. He said one of the portions of the site that he
would have been most sensitive to end up with the smallest setback, and he was
concerned about this. He discussed how this was supposed to be a transitional building
from east to west, but he was not sure they had far enough to make the transition from
north to south. He was concerned about the residential structure and the eventual impact
it could have on it. He said even though some of the windows had been removed to help
with privacy, it appeared to him that the windows at the western end of the north facade
are directly onto the rear yard ofthe neighboring property. He said it just wasn't an issue
of visual intrusion, but spaces that are lit with fluorescent lighting looming over the
residence, and thought they should be sensitive to the neighbors. He was concerned
about the Conditional Use Permits for the property not for the tenants, and was not
convinced the parking did not create a potential impact on the surrounding community.
Commissioner Bilodeau still had questions about the loading area, and realized the
applicant was trying to make efficient use ofthe site. He thought it would have been nice
if a parking study had been done to see if this type of medical use has less of a parking
demand. He asked Staff ifthis would always be conditioned that it can only be this type
of medical use or any type of medical use in this building.
Ms. Roseberry replied medical use was not defined or divided into medical doctors
versus ophthalmologists.
Commissioner Pruett stated he was not satisfied with the project as proposed. He
apologized to the applicant for being led to where he was presently at. He believed they
were going to have to revisit the project, continue the item and work with Staffto address
the Commission's concerns, especially with the structure to the north of the current
building location.
Chair Bonina shared his concerns with the Committee, and thought the placement of the
building should be looked at. He echoed Commissioner Pruett's sentiments to the
applicant that it was unfortunate he received some direction from folks that might not be
consistent with the PC.
Chair Bonina moved to continue this project to a date that Staff and the applicant agree
upon, and with the direction the Site Plan be worked on in the following areas:
. Shadowing
. Lack of circulation between the proposed building and the adjacent residential use
. Parking with an Administrative Adjustment
. Height ofthe building to be looked at
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
Page 20
Planning Commission Minutes
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
January 16, 2006
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Bonina mentioned to Ms. Roseberry if she would be in contact with the applicant to
coordinate the revisions.
Ms. Roseberry commented since this item was not continued to a certain date, it would
have to be re-noticed to all the neighbors, and the Commission will have to reopen the
Public Hearing when it comes back.
Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting to the next meeting to Tuesday, January 17,
2006 for a Joint Study Session with City Council, and to the next meeting of Monday,
February 6, 2006.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 21