Loading...
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 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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