2006 - December 18
C-a500. G: -;).3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
18 December 2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
None.
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 20,2006.
Chair Bonina made a motion to approve the consent calendar.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
Commissioner Whitaker
None
MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2598-06, VARIANCE NO. 2161-06
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 118-06 - SWIM SAFE SWIM
SCHOOL
A request to allow for the conversion of a 4, III square foot office building into a private
swim school, on a property zoned O-P (Office Professional). In association with the
CUP, the applicant is requesting the variance and administrative adjustment approval to
allow a reduction in dimensions for the depth of the parking stalls and the back-up area.
This item was continued from the October 16, 2006 meeting and November 20, 2006
meetings.
LOCATION: The site is located at 1722 East Rose Avenue.
Planning Commission Minutes
18 December 2006
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 44-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2598-06, Variance 2161-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 118-06.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that parking spaces 11-20 were modified to
to be 8'8". Ms. Thakur acknowledged that was correct and space 10 retained the 10'
width. Commissioner Steiner asked if these spaces were still larger than the standard.
Ms. Thakur responded affirmatively and noted that the standard parking stall is 8'6" wide
and 18' in depth.
Commissioner Whitaker asked for an explanation as to why the landscape was factored
back into the parking lot rather than providing greater space size for parking SUV type
vehicles as he thought was the preference of the Commission at the two previous
meetings. Ms. Thakur responded that the proposed solution enabled the applicant to
comply with the 10% landscape requirement while still providing ample depth and width
to accommodate an SUV.
Chair Bonina asked how the Fire Safety Specialist approval is documented. Ms. Thakur
responded that the applicant had told her they had met with Wendy Saunders, Fire Safety
Specialist and furthermore, Ms. Thakur spoke with Mark Ibrahim, Senior Plan Check
Engineer who recalled looking at the plans and working with the applicant.
Commissioner Steiner asked if Wendy Saunders, a Fire Safety Specialist is a City
employee. Ms. Thakur responded affirmatively. Commissioner Steiner asked Ms.
Thakur if she was familiar with the job description of a Fire Safety Specialist. Ms.
Thakur responded she did not know what the specific qualifications were; however, Ms.
Saunders is the representative in the Staff Review Committee so anytime there is a
proposed project going through a Minor Site Plan Review she is the representative with
Fire that identifies concerns or whether or not the proposal complies with code. Ms.
Thakur added that there are memorandums prepared that document those concerns.
The applicant, Jim Flahive stated:
. He has been at the Ridgeline Country Club since 1995.
. He has looked for a pool for a number of years that could be rented or purchased.
The applicant's architect, Don Lee stated:
. Ms. Thakur had gone through the project pretty thoroughly.
Commissioner Whitaker asked the applicant if the Commission favored increasing the
width of the parking spaces back to 9' 1" (as was specified in the original Plan 3) by
reducing the landscaping requirement if they would have any objection. Mr. Lee
responded they would be comfortable either way.
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 December 2006
Commissioner Imboden asked the applicant if they would be open to using a plant
material such as ivy along the CMU wall in order to pick up some greenery that they
would be losing through reduction in the landscape area. The applicant responded that
would be fine.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Lee if he could walk the Commission through the modifications
done to the bathrooms. Mr. Lee responded they made the changes in Plan 3, Exhibit A
based on the Commission's previous recommendations. In this plan the doors are moved
to the side, a wall is moved forward a little bit so they could meet ADA requirements and
an electrical panel was moved. This gets the door away from the pool and enabled them
to add a couple of dressing rooms.
Mr. Knight interjected that regarding the 10% landscape provision, he recalled advising
the Commission at the previous meeting that there wasn't a concern at having the
landscaping at 7.5% based on the fact that it was already non-conforming; however, after
further discussion with Staff it was recognized that since the building hadn't been
occupied for some time it would have lost whatever rights it had to be non-conforming.
This is why Staff worked with the applicant to restore the 10%. Mr. Knight noted that if
it was the desire of the Planning Commission, it could be reduced to 9% and approved as
part of this package and while 9% wouldn't enable getting all the spaces to 9'1" it would
certainly get them wider. Mr. Knight concluded by stating they couldn't go lower than
9% without requiring a variance and a variance would require another notice.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Chair
Bonina made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2598-06, Variance 2161-
06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 118-06 with the following conditions:
(I) The landscape requirement would be reduced to 9% to provide for widening the
parking stalls on the east side to be in excess of 8'8".
(2) The landscaping plan would be brought forward with some type of plant that has
vertical growth along the CMU wall at the perimeter of the property to mitigate the
diminished amount of square footage for landscaping.
(3) An Administrative Adjustment would be done for the 5% reduction in the required
parking lot back up area.
(4) A variance would be done to waive the requirement of the 18' depth of the parking
stalls.
Commissioner Imboden expressed appreciation to the applicant and his architect for
working so diligently to meet the concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Steiner
and Chair Bonina echoed the laudatory comments made by Commissioner Imboden.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 3 of7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 December 2006
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2615-06 - WINERZ
A request for an Alcohol Beverage Control License Type 17/20 Beer & Wine Wholesaler
with Off Sale Beer & Wine License for a proposed online wine website to operate from a
336 sq. ft. office within an existing office building. This item was continued from the
December 4, 2006 meeting.
LOCATION: The site is located at 1107 E. Chapman Avenue.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1
- Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 56-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2615-06.
Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight provided a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report prepared by Planning Consultant deKoven James.
The applicant, Adam Kranson apologized for not attending the previous Commission
meeting and stated he agreed with all the recommendations in the Staff Report. Mr.
Kranson thanked City Staff for their support and assistance with his application.
Furthermore, Mr. Kranson stated:
. He is planning to open an on-line wine business for consumers.
. It is also a wholesale business whereby he would sell to retailers and other wholesalers.
. At the office location wine would come to him, he would package it and ship it out in a
just in time fashion so he wouldn't be doing any stocking.
. On the wholesale end he could have everything shipped directly to the
retailer/wholsalers.
. He started and ran a business like this for the past two years in South County business
called Web Wine. Com. That business is still up and running.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Kranson how long the wine is held in his possession. Mr.
Kranson replied the wine will all be listed; people would put in their orders; he would
receive the orders, call his supplier, the supplier then ships it usually within 24 hours
depending on their delivery days; it comes in and hopefully it is shipped in the same day,
as long as UPS didn't arrive before that. If so, it would ship the next day. Chair Bonina
asked for confirmation there is no intention to stockpile it. Mr. Kranson replied there
would be hopefully zero inventory.
Commissioner Steiner stated that one of his initial concerns was that no one wants a wine
warehouse on Chapman Avenue so he asked for the benefit of all, if the applicant would
explain what is meant by "just in time" inventory. Mr. Kranson replied that he only has
336 square feet and 2 shelves. Just in time meant to him that when the order comes in is
when he orders the inventory; so the definition would be he is ordering to fill orders.
Commissioner Steiner stated to Mr. Kranson since he indicated, "hopefully" he would
have no inventory", ifhe was really operating by this system there should be "no"
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 December 2006
instance when there would be inventory other than the brief timeframe between when it
was delivered and shipped out. Mr. Kranson replied that the only instances should be if
something was returned or if something showed up that was the wrong product altogether
or the wrong vintage. In those instances the inventory would only be held until it was
returned to the supplier. Chair Bonina asked how often this would occur. Mr. Kranson
replied it is minimal, comparable to one day worth of inventory.
Commissioner Whitaker indicated he drove by the site and noticed the Winerz.Com sign
was up and the web site looks like the business is up and running. He asked the applicant
if he had already started selling. Mr. Kranson replied, no, there is really only a classified,
informational type of web page that doesn't have any retail part to it at all. (He provided
an example of what the front end will ultimately look like.)
Commissioner Whitaker asked the applicant if he had received any feedback, either
positive or negative, from the other tenants in the building. Mr. Kranson replied,
"everyone seems to be positive, from everything I've heard."
No public comment was provided on this item.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provISIOns of CEQA,
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2615-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS:
(4) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4160-06 - SOMEPLACE IN TIME _
TEA ROOM
A proposal to eliminate the covered parking area at the rear of the building and install
facilities to permit a new restaurant for an existing tea room. The proposal includes
exterior changes, facade changes and approval of signage at the rear of the building.
LOCATION: The site is located at 119 S. Glassell Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the prOVISIOns of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 - Class
31.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4160-06.
Commissioner Imboden recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
Page 5 on Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 December 2006
Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report
and highlighted that this project is located within 500 feet of the offices of three of the
five Design Review Committee (DRC) members, automatically disqualifying them from
participation, and the reason it was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision
on the design review aspects of the project.
Commissioner Whitaker asked how the in-lieu parking was calculated. Mr. Ryan
responded that he believed the tenants currently have parking permits to park in the
Orange Street parking lot and the in-lieu parking fee program has a two-prong effect:
(I) if you add square footage you pay into a fund
(2) you pay a higher amount into the fund when you remove existing parking
These funds will eventually pay for a new parking structure.
Chair Bonina asked if deliveries are made to the rear of the building. Mr. Ryan
responded that the alley is wide enough and his experience is that delivery trucks pull up
to unload.
Chair Bonina asked for further detail on the recessed rear entrance. Mr. Ryan replied the
entrance doors are approximately 19' back from the edge of the building and they will
remain in place. In addition there is a stairway that goes up to the apartments so there is
no plan to change that. What they are asking for is permission to put in additional
security lighting and a gate.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the gate was at the alley. Mr. Ryan responded the gate
would be recessed; however, exact detail of the gate placement was not available---it will
probably be at the building edge.
The applicant, Cheryl Turner stated:
. The idea of putting the tea room in was something they had thought about for 2 years.
. Recently the Economic Development Department contacted her to let her know about
some programs they had that would help with the in-lieu fees and other things they
wanted to do.
. They have received overwhelming support from people. There are a lot of people very
anxious to see this happen.
. Regarding the two spaces underneath: the biggest reason she parks there is to stop
people from dumping trash and living in there. That is also a reason why they want to
put up the security gates (to stop vagrancy and trash dumping).
. As far as signage goes, she is happy to comply with whatever is needed.
Susan Secoy, the architect on the project stated the storefront improvement was done a
couple of years ago and they would like to be consistent with the upgrade of the
architecture of the building. Ms. Secoy pointed out that the parking clearance right now
would not be standard.
Public input was provided as follows:
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 December 2006
Janet Crenshaw. OTP A stated:
. Most of her questions were answered.
. Her concern with signage (because there is another issue with an awning downtown that
has a bad sign on it) has already been addressed and the necessary change has been
agreed to.
. How does charging someone a fee make another parking space available has already
been addressed as well.
. She wished the applicant good luck.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provISIOns of CEQA,
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 4160-
06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday,
January 3, 2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:49 p.m.
Page 7 on Pages