Loading...
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 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2568-05 - GABBI'S MEXICAN KITCHEN TO BE CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.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