2006 - February 22
C--OJ5 OO..Ct. ~3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22,2006
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
February 22,2006
Wednesday - 7:00
Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett, and Bonina
None
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Christopher Cames, Senior Planner
Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary
IN RE: COMMISSION REORGANIZATION:
Chair Bonina began by stating the first order of business was to elect a Chairperson and
Vice Chairperson for the Commission. He added that whomever was elected as the
Chairperson, their Chairmanship would be effective at the end of this meeting.
Commissioner Pruett nominated Chair Bonina to another term.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the nomination.
Commissioner Bilodeu moved to close the nominations.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Bonina was re-elected as Chairman of the Commission.
Chair Bonina opened the floor to nominate a Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Pruett nominated Commissioner Enderby as the Vice-Chair for another
year.
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Chair Bonina seconded the nomination.
Commissioner Bilodeu moved to close the nominations.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Vice-Chair Enderby was re-elected as Vice-Chairman of the Commission.
INRE:
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2568-05 - GABBI'S MEXICAN KITCHEN
TO BE CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
Commissioner Pruett made a motion to accept Staffs recommendation for continuation.
Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(2) THERE WERE NO MINUTES THIS EVENING ON THE CONSENT
CALDENDAR.
(3) MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0401-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4013-05 - KAISER PERMANENTE REHAB PAVILLION
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22,2006
Chair Bonina mentioned an email had been received from Mr. Rodriguez, and asked ifhe
was in the audience, and he was not.
Commissioner Pruett moved for the approval of the Consent Calendar.
Chair Bonina seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2571-05, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 391-05, AND DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1765-05 - CITRUS
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
Chair Bonina mentioned this item was Continued from the January 16, 2006 Meeting.
Mr. Christopher Cames, Senior Planner, read the Staff Report for this item.
Chair Bonina opened up the Public Hearing.
Mr. Jack Selman. Architects Orange. 144 North Orange St., Orange. He stated he was
representing the applicant this evening. He commented the issues outlined in the Staff
Report responded to the concerns of the Commission. He wanted to add a minor item;
when they moved the building forward eight foot, six inches, there was an existing fir
tree on the corner that will have to be removed as they had to over excavate around the
building five feet. He added the Palm trees along the front of the building would be
saved and incorporated into the landscape.
Chair Bonina mentioned they had received an email regarding this item from Mrs.
Kimberly Bottomly. She had some concerns regarding the project. He stated this would
be part of the record.
Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Pruett thanked Staff and the applicant for addressing his concern
regarding the shadowing effect on the building that may have created the adjacent
property owner.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Commissioner Bilodeau also thanked Staff and the applicant for addressing his concern
regarding the parking, the pick-up/drop-offzone, and the loading zone. He thought the
project was ready to move forward.
Chair Bonina thanked both the applicant and Staff for providing the different scenarios
on the project and making the adjustments that he thought were appropriate, and
obviously made this a better project.
Commissioner Pruett stated this project was Negative Declaration No. 1765-05 in
accordance with provisions of CEQA, therefore, he moved to adopt Resolution No. 05-06
approving the Negative Declaration No. 1765-05, Conditional Use Permit 2571-05, and
Major Site Plan Review No. 391-05.
Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS:
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2573-05 - BACKHAUS
CONTEMPORARY DANCE CENTER. A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A DANCE
SCHOOL AND SHARED PARKING FACILITIES WITHIN AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 327 WEST
COLLINS AVENUE. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
CEQA.
Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Planner provided a full reading of the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission. She mentioned this Item was similar to a project the Commission
had reviewed not too long ago relating to a performing arts academy located within a
multi-tenant building.
Commissioner Enderby asked Staff the address ofthe shared parking.
Ms. Fox replied the shared parking occurred at the same site as the tenant at 327 West
Collins and they would be sharing parking with 323 and 325 West Collins which was all
on the same parcel of the property. She added there was some reciprocal access in
driveways that occurs between all the parcels, but the applicant would only be using the
parking.
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22,2006
Commissioner Pruett stated he had a concern with this type of mixed use for this type of
property. He understood there was a previous mixed use in an industrial area dealing
with a school, but this use was on an industrial site that did not have shared parking and
easements for ingress and egress across the back of the property. His concern was the
shared ingress and egress with the other businesses on this property. He said there were
vehicles that were traversing this lot adjacent to the building, and he was concerned for
the safety of the children in an industrial use environment. He also mentioned the exits
on the side of the building opened up to the traffic lane. He asked Staff if these issues
were considered.
Ms. Fox explained in regard to the multi-industrial use was the applicant provided a
comprehensive space by space analysis of each tenant as requested by Staff. They also
considered that this was a corner site, and the access was somewhat controlled coming
off of Collins Ave. The parking lot the applicant would be using was much further away,
and the times they would be using it, (where children would come to the site) would
occur after hours. She added that one option for the Commission to consider would be to
have a designated drop-off spot close to the entrance door. Another option would be to
Condition that parents must escort the children into the building. She addressed the exits,
and perhaps the architect could provide some options. She added these exists were
required and in other similar situations where there was potential interface with the
vehicle that perhaps there was the possibility installing an alarm for the doors, and the
applicant might be interested in doing this as a safety issue. She also noted that they had
received email correspondence to the Staff from a property owner. She stated if the
Commissioners were to look at their Vicinity Map in the Staff Report, the property owner
was east of the mobile estates on the C4 lots. The property owner wanted to ensure the
shared parking would not affect him, and she said it would not.
Chair Bonina asked Staff if the tenant in Building A, Central Records, was a storage
business, and Staffreplied yes and they would little use of the parking lot.
Chair Bonina asked how long they had been a tenant there.
Ms. Fox said she thought they had been there for a while because she did not notice they
were a new tenant, and perhaps the applicant would know.
Chair Bonina then asked if there was a drop-off plan because he understood there could
be children as young as three years old.
Ms. Fox answered that no drop-off plan was required, but Traffic did review this as part
of the normal Staff Review Committee. They believed that parents would use the
parking lot, but the Commission may want to add a Condition relating to escorting the
children into the building.
Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing.
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22,2006
Ms. Jenny Backhaus. applicant. 4365 Johanna Avenue. Lakewood. She stated she had
taught dance in the Orange area for 12 years, and her colleague had been teaching dance
in the area for 40 years, which made for a nice client base. She said the building suited
their needs in terms of size and structure and were looking forward to having the project
approved.
Mr. Douglas Elv. architect. 112 E. Chapman. Suite E. Orange. He stated it was difficult
to find this quality of space for a dance studio. He said this was not the first building his
client had looked for, and the difficulty was this type of use required a Conditional Use
Permit no matter where they were, and most land lords were not willing to wait for the
time it took to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. He stated they had no objections to the
Conditions for the class sizes. He wanted to stress they were nowhere near utilizing the
40 parking spaces at night or the 20 spaces during the day. He mentioned this because of
the issue raised regarding the fire sprinkler requirements and fire hydrant. He said this
type of an upgrade would encumber the tenant financially. After discussion with the Fire
Department, he said there was not much leeway for the fire sprinklers in the building. He
mentioned this because he wasn't sure it was appropriate to label this business as
assembly usage because the number of students and teachers did not exceed 40 people.
He encouraged the City to look at this issue from a standpoint of suitability for this
particular type of tenant and it was a financial hardship for the tenant.
Chair Bonina stated this body was not in a position to negotiate away these Conditions,
but encouraged further discussion with the Fire Department.
Mr. Ely then addressed Commissioner Pruett's concern about the exits, and stated he had
no objections to installing an alarm on the side door and was probably appropriate to
include in the proj ect. He said the front entry was perfect for a drop-off area for the
students, and if they looked at the parking lot, the cars could turn into the driveway from
Lemon and pull against the curb on the passenger side, the children could get out of the
car. He added it was not a double loaded parking lot. The only issue he could see was if
people exited from the required fire exit doors on the west side, but he did not think they
should ever be used except in case of emergency.
Commissioner Pruett thought the alarm on the door was a good idea, but his concern was
outside of the building. He wondered if there was some way to install a flashing light
that when the door is opened, not only would the alarm go off, but there would also be
lighting to alert someone driving by to use caution. He asked if this was agreeable to the
applicant.
Ms. Backhaus replied she did not have an issue with this as the students were signed in
via a computer, and the smaller children were not allowed to go outside without their
parents. She asked about the 16 year olds who drive themselves to and from class.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22,2006
Commissioner Pruett stated his concern was the minor children, and they could state
students who were 15 years older and less. He again asked the applicant if she would
have a problem with this, and she replied no.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff to make sure this complied with Title 24 on the
numbers for handicap spaces. He asked if there was a Parking Study made in terms of
current demand at the site.
Ms. Fox replied that no, and at the Staff Review Committee, this was discussed, but
because the applicant had provided a detailed list of who occupied the site, they did not
believe one was necessary. She mentioned as a visual, it was used less than the amount
of parking provided. She added the Police Department had never had a problem with the
Church parking on Sunday.
Chair Bonina commented to Staff they were entertaining a Conditional Use Permit that
runs with the land and part of the Conditional Use Permit is the shared parking; he asked
if this was ingrained in the C.U.P, i.e., would be transferred to a replacement tenant on a
re-certification or does this automatically go to the next tenant.
Ms. Fox replied it would run with the land so long as it did not reach the expiration
parameters within the Municipal Code. She added this was a valid point, but there was a
Code requirement that is recorded with the shared parking use at the site against the
property so as the tenants change in or out, they could look up this information.
Commissioner Pruett asked Staff about Condition Six regarding the operating hours. He
wanted to add some language to the Condition that should they decide to modify their
schedule in the future, they could do so with Staffs approval, thus, allowing them to
change their class schedule without having to come back to the Planning Commission for
approval. He asked if Staff was agreeable to this.
Ms. Fox replied yes, this was Staffs intent. Their intent was not so much to have classes
at a specific time, but the numbers matched for the attendance times to accommodate the
shared parking, and as long as they stayed in conformance with that, they could change
the class schedule.
Commissioner Pruett stated the way he understood Condition Three was to have the
applicant revise their existing schedule to conform with the over lapse to adjust for the
parking, and Condition Five is seeking to have that approved. What he suggested was
there be something in the Condition that states if the applicant wants to make another
modification, and still meet the requirements, they can do so. He would like to add some
clarification to Condition Six to give the applicant flexibility.
Commissioner Imboden wanted clarification on whether the tenant use could change
under the Conditional Use Permit. He asked if the use would have to be the same or
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes
similar.
February 22,2006
Ms. Fox replied it would need to be another dance school so long as it hasn't expired, and
it would have to be at the same address of327.
Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Pruett stated this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
CEQA and moved for adoption Resolution No. 11-06 approving Conditional Use Permit
2573-05 and add the following Conditions:
Condition Seven will require the installation of a panic emergency bar that sounds inside
the building for the two exit doors on the west side of the building, and exterior lighting
that would alert automobile traffic that the doors are open. This could be either a strobe
light or a flashing light, whatever Staff thinks is suitable.
Condition Eight would require minors (children under the age of 16) be signed in and out
by their guardian or transporter.
Condition Six is to be revised by adding something to the effect: Class schedules may be
modified in the future with the approval of Staff providing they meet the requirements of
the resolution.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting to the next meeting on Monday, March 6,
2006.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 8