Loading...
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 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: NONE CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20,2006.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