Loading...
2005 - September 7 ~ CSDO. C,.;;2.3 September 7, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange September 7, 2005 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina None Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Christine Kelly, Contract Staff Planner Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner Sherman Jones, Associate Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Tom Mahood, Traffic Engineer Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF AUGUST 8, 2005 AND AUGUST 15,2005. Commissioner Bilodeau moved to approve the Minutes from the regular meetings of August 8, 2005, and August 15,2005. Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) MAPLE WALK TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT; MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1737-04, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-0006, SANTA FE DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1230-04, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16786, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 358-04, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3944-04, AND A DEMOLITION REVIEW FOR A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AT 501 WEST MAPLE AVENUE. Contract Planner, Christine Kelly gave the staff report providing information on several actions to be brought before the Commission. She mentioned that a project at this same location was before the Planning Commission on April 18, 2005. She stated at that time, it was designed as a 40-unit three-story transit oriented development. Additionally there was a density bonus associated with the Major Site Plan review. She further explained that at this time, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval to the City Council. However, prior to the City Council Hearing, in response to issues that continued to arise from citizen input, the applicants requested continuance and substantially revised the plan to what was before the Commission this evening. Ms. Kelly stated the plan continues to be a transit-oriented development with 32 for-sale residential lofts, three of which are proposed as live-work units. She said that the subject property continues to be 1.82 acres in area, and that five of the units are reserved as affordable units. She explained that the significance of the five units was that since this project is in a redevelopment project area, the redevelopment agency was required to provide replacement housing at 15% for a project ifit's built within the project area. She continued by stating the units will be affordable to moderate income buyers through affordability covenants. Ms. Kelly also mentioned there are 81 parking spaces, and each unit will have a two-car garage equaling 64 spaces, there are seven open guest parking spaces which meets Code, nine open retail spaces that also meets Code and there's an additional open space. She said access to the site continues to be off of Maple. Ms. Kelly went on to say that the proposed development is a maximum of 32 feet in height, and the buildings are two full stories and each unit has a mezzanine. She then explained the project has eight separate buildings; four three-plexes, and four five-plexes on the site. She mentioned the color pallet of earth tones and also noted the black metal accent features on the non-metal part of the door, on the balconies, on the metal staircases, on the aluminum windows, and on the lighting as requested by the Design Review Committee. She stated the roofing will be a standing metal seam roof. Ms. Kelly recalled that there was a bit of discussion on the half-brick of the building. She stated the brick has been added and increased around the exterior of the buildings to follow around the comer of the buildings. She said the brick was to recognize the Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 historic materials of the adjacent buildings. Ms. Kelly mentioned that landscaping was located throughout the plan, and the issue of the trees reflecting the landscape pallet of the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan has been resolved between the previous time this was presented to the Commission and now. She noted that this has been left as a condition of Approval. Ms. Kelly stated that there are four basic unit types, but the main point she wanted to get across is that it is an open-loft style, i.e., a basic element in the floor plans and can be modified. They range in area of 1,483 sq to 1918 sq. feet. Ms. Kelly went on to discuss as the plans have evolved, decks have been added to the second and mezzanine levels. It was discovered that a few of the decks on the mezzanine level (the western edge of the property adjacent to the apartment building) could possibly impact the privacy of yards in the apartments to the west. She stated that after discussing with the applicant, Staff created Condition 13 to require that the plan be modified to include on the three-plex fronting on Maple, a view obstructing (six-foot high) feature be placed on the mezzanine deck and on the two interior three-plex, Staffrequired that those decks be removed. Additionally, all decks on the second floor can remain. Ms. Kelly continued by mentioning that because this project is amending the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, staff is proposing specific development standards for this site. She provided detailed information on the building height, the front set back, side yard, and the rear yard as well as the maximum lot coverage. She stated the proj ect meets or exceeds these development standards. She noted that in particular, the open space greatly exceeds the standard. She stated that in order for the project to proceed, the following entitlements needs to be acted on by the Planning Commission: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration 1737-04. This was circulated for 20 days beginning August 18,2005, and ending September 6, 2005. This was the second circulation ofthis Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. 2. The General Plan Amendment, which takes the property from industrial to Old Town mixed use of 16 to 24 units per acre. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate the site into the boundaries of the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan because it's currently within the sphere of influence, and to add the Site Specific Development Standards into the Specific Plan. 4. The Zone Change from M-llight industrial to R-3 residential multi-family. Ms. Kelly explained the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan is provided as an overlay. Staff recommends a mixed use overlay. 5. The Major Site Plan Review with five of the units reserved for moderate income households and Design Review. One of the things Ms. Kelly wanted to mention is this project is not requesting a density bonus at this time. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 However, they do qualify for one. 6. The Tentative Tract Map has been filed to allow the units to be sold as condominium units. 7. Lastly she mentioned the Request for Demolition of a Non-Contributing Structure and Approval of the Replacement Structure. Ms. Kelly stated the location of the project provides the opportunity for a successful transit-oriented development. She stated the site is in the sphere of influence for the Santa Fe Depot Plan, and the Depot Specific Plan does support the concept ofresidents with mixed-use units for this area. She mentioned that three proposed live-work units are proposed along Maple Ave. Ms. Kelly stated that a list of residential and commercial land uses were provided that Staff is proposing be approved in the CC&Rs. Ms. Kelly stated that the replacement of the industrial use with the mixed-use residential will create a more uniformed residential character to the neighborhood, and will actually protect the integrity of the multi-family to the west ofthis site from further intrusion. Ms. Kelly said as part of the analysis the Highest and Best Use Review was requested by Staff. She stated the following findings: the highest land value results from a medium density residential; the surrounding uses and general plan indicate the existing use of the subject property is incompatible with the surrounding uses; the existing industrial development consists of obsolete buildings and blighted conditions; and that it is not economically feasible to demolish existing outdated industrial development and industrial use because the rents for new structures would not be sufficient to induce a new industrial development. Ms. Kelly then brought up the subject of traffic, and how the City of Orange Public Works reviewed the project and determined that traffic impacts would be insignificant due to the number of vehicle trips generated. She explained the amount of traffic generated for this project would be less than current industrial use. Ms. Kelly went on to say that both the Staff Review and the Design Review Committees have recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission, and there are conditions of approval as a result. Additionally, DRC recommended approval of the project as a replacement structure within the historic Old Town District. Ms. Kelly commented that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 27, 2005. Property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius were notified of this meeting with16 people in attendance. Issues discussed at that time related to the height of the buildings, validity oftraffic counts, and questions regarding design of the units. Subsequent to the meeting, applicant responded to traffic counts by providing data to concerned residents, and worked with OTP A. She mentioned at the last DRC meeting, OTP A continues to be concerned about the height of the building. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Ms. Kelly concluded her presentation by stating that Staff believes the project would be a positive addition to the Maple/Pixly location and would serve as a positive transition between the Santa Fe Depot Plan area to the east, the industrial buildings along the railroad spine, and the multi-family to the north and the west. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approval of the requested entitlements for the housing development as proposed this evening. She stated the required findings were detailed in the Draft Resolution. Chairman Bonina asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of Staff on what was presented and review of the Staff Report. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff about the mezzanine issue and the definition of mezzanmes. Ms. Kelly responded that a mezzanine meets the definition of a three story in the Zoning Code. In the Building Code, it's called a mezzanine, and is not considered a third story. She explained that Staff wrote it both ways in the Staff Report as "..two stories with a mezzanine", and they wrote third story in parenthesis. She stated it depended on what you're looking at; if you're looking from a structural standpoint, it's two stories. Chairman Bonina asked if looking at it from a planning perspective, is it considered a two-story or a three-story. Ms. Kelly replied that from the Zoning Code, it would be considered a three story. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the additional traffic data provided to the residents was available to the Commission as well. Ms. Kelly answered that this data was not requested by Staff, but was put together by the applicant. She stated she was sure the applicant would be happy to provide the Commission with this data. She added that it was not necessary for Staffs environmental review, so it was not required. Chairman Bonina requested that Staff provide a brief overview of the height concerns. Ms. Kelly replied that in looking at the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, there is reference to height in several locations. She had previously mentioned that the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan tends to be site specific as it sets the design standards. There is reference to mixed use as it relates to the North Lemon area. She stated the document mentions 25 feet in height or two stories along the frontage, and allows for two and a half stories to the rear of the building. She also explained in other locations within the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, there's discussion about future development as it's incorporated into the area being two to three story residential or condominiums. She mentioned there was another section that talks about two and a half stories. Staff recognized that this was an older plan that has some conflicting information. Nonetheless, Staff looked at it as a plan Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 that provided development standards that were site specific. She explained that Staff looked at the location, and to the north of the property is the Chapman University Specific Plan and the parking lot has a permitted height for future development of 32 feet, and looked at other surrounding properties including industrial buildings, and made a determination that they would recommend the 32 feet. She stated that Staff was attempting to make it more in line with the industrial than the residential, and viewed it as a transitional use between the two. CHAIRMAN BONINA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING- Speakers - John Reekston, Senior Vice President of The Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751. Mr. Reekston thanked the Planning Commission for their support of the project dating back to April. He commented on how the Olson Company had consciously pulled the item from the City Council agenda even though the project had been approved after it became apparent there were concerns from the neighborhood regarding the height of the units as well as the amount of parking provided. He mentioned how they had gone through an extensive redesign process after meeting with the OTP A and the community. He thanked the members of the community who gave their input, concerns and support. Mr. Reekston provided information about the Olson Company, and then presented the revised project as earlier presented by Ms. Christine Kelly. He explained the site plan, with different perspectives and how it currently sits in the neighborhood. He also presented the different plan options of the project along with the landscape plan. Commissioner Bilodeau mentioned when the applicant met with the community and traffic was one of the concerns, did the applicant have any additional data to provide regarding the existing trip generation was on the site. Mr. Reekston replied that no there was not any other data in addition to the reports provided by Staff. Commissioner Bilodeau then asked if the applicant ever attempted to monitor the existing trip generation compared to what they are proposing. Mr. Reekston answered that there was just the studies that they prepared in terms of trip generation of what was monitored. Chairman Bonina mentioned that he had not seen any reference to the overhead utilities in front of the project to be underground. He asked if they would in fact be underground. Vincent Scarpetti, Civil Engineer, answered that it was his understanding that along Maple, the above ground utility poles would remain. But, there are some power poles eastly and westly within the project limits would be underground. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Chairman Bonina asked how the decision was made to leave the utility lines along Maple. Mr. Scarpetti answered that he did not know the answer. He stated that perhaps it was the magnitude of the poles along Maple made it difficult to move them underground, but he really could not provide a knowledgeable answer. Chairman Bonina replied that he would like to get an answer from the applicant or through Staff. It was his opinion that the utility poles should be underground if a project of this quality was being developed. Mr. John Baker, address on file. Mr. Baker stated that he opposed the project. He stated the project was far too dense for the General Plan Amendment it seeks. He voiced his concerns regarding how the project does not fit the surrounding historical buildings in height and massing and he felt it would not be complimentary to the flavor of the City's rich Old Town theme. Additionally, he had many questions regarding the Old Town mixed use, and asked the Planning Commission to vote for non-approval ofthis project. Mr. Jeff Frankel, Old Town Preservation Association, address on file. Mr. Frankel thanked the Olson Company for meeting with OTP A as well as holding community meetings to iron out issues with the Maple Walk Project. He continued that while he thanked them for including them and implementing some of the suggestions made by OTPA, there are still issues with the height. In the opinion ofOTPA, the project is still three stories, which is in conflict with the Old Town Design Standards. He stated that the Mezzanine structure is a full story ofliving area, which constitutes the third story. He explained that the Specific Plan references a 25 foot height limit for residential whereas this project has a height of 32 feet. He also mentioned the traffic concerns as far as count studies, and future impact on Chapman University. He hopes the Commission can resolve some of these remaining issues as they feel this can be a viable project. Todd Denning, 628 W. Maple. Mr. Denning expressed concerns about the decks which he was not aware of previously. He also expressed concerns about the height, and traffic study. He commented that he never saw any cables laid for counting or people counting the traffic. He also mentioned concerns about the parking. Chairman Bonina asked about the third-story decks and the mezzanine area. Ms. Kelly replied that there are decks on the second level, as well as the mezzanine level. This was presented to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Brad Mansfield, Architect. Mr. Mansfield explained that the decks are on the second floor as well as the mezzanine level. They are four by six decks that occur in the very back. There are no decks in the front or on the roof. Chairman Bonina asked if the mezzanine units could be seen from Maple St. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Mr. Mansfield answered he did not believe so. Commissioner Pruett mentioned that Section B showed the parapet, and asked what the difference was. Mr. Mansfield replied that a particular area on the site plan was the highest part of the roof was 31.6 feet. He also mentioned a step on the parapet and that there are varying levels with the majority being 24.6 feet. Chairman Bonina asked iflooking from Maple if the closest mezzanine that is visible is 22 feet. Mr. Mansfield answered that it varies from 17 to 22 feet. Chairman Bonina asked if the building is set back 15 feet from Maple. Mr. Mansfield answered yes. He also added that the definition of a mezzanine by Code is that it is not a story. It can only be one-third of the floor space below so it cannot be considered a true story. From the original design, about 14 feet was cut from the height of the building. It started at 44 and is now at 31.6 feet. Ms. Kelly stated that one of the renderings done, gives the view of the mezzanine as seen from Pixley. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff to clarify the overall height as well as the parapet heights. He mentioned the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan and that there are numerous references to two stories with a parapet not to exceed 25 feet. He also looked at the analysis from the Mitigated Negative Declaration, that the project complies with all appropriate development standards per the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan. He stated he was concerned about what was being asked to consider for approval and how it does or does not fit into this plan. Ms. Kelly responded by stating Commissioner Imboden is correct; there are sections in the Santa Fe Depot Plan that mention two stories with a 25 feet limit. She commented there was a question of why this project is being done in this area, and she referenced Page 31 that says "..recognizing the value of a mixed use concept, the City will consider an amendment to a specific plan when residential project plans have been prepared for the area north of Maple." It's in the Specific Plan, and coming forward with a residential plan on the north side of Maple. The Plan says to consider amending it so that is what is being done. She stated that the area in the SFDSP that talks about 25 feet in height, it is referencing the area along North Lemon. She was reading from Page 11 of an Appendix and stated the building height should be two stories, a parapet not to exceed 25, the front yard set back along Lemon-zero feet, the side yard set back along Maple-l 0 feet, and the side yard set back from a budding property is five feet for the rear portion of the lot behind the retail, zero feet for the front portion of the lot adjacent to the retail and talks about a maximum lot coverage of 60% and recreational leisure area of 100 square feet. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 She specifically cited these to demonstrate that it is clear that it is site specific. She also mentioned Appendix D, Page Four that states a residential plan anticipates residential densities in the range of 16 to 24 dwelling units per acre. The range for a medium- density residential category in the Orange General Plan, which allows for two to three story plans or condominiums. Finally, she referenced Residential Architectural Guidelines, Appendix D, Page Nine, Item 12, maximum structural height may extend to two and a half stories for the interior non-street fronting units on Parcel C and D. Again, Parcel C and D are site specific parcels. These parcels are considered to be the Anaconda Building. Ms. Kelly stated her purpose in going through all this explanation was to demonstrate that there are several different references within the Plan, and it is not automatically clear that you stay with two stories or 25 feet. Chairman Bonina asked Ms. Kelly to speak to the decision process. Ms. Kelly explained that the decision process first required looking at the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan and seeing that there were several references throughout the Plan that varied. Second, Stafflooked at the residential code, which allows 32 feet. She stated they considered the property to the north in the Chapman University Specific Plan, (which is allowed to go to 32 feet if developed), and looking at the property as the industrial spine along the railroad, and not looking at it as a pure residential use in the middle of a neighborhood. Finally, she mentioned a pedestrian bridge that is being proposed to be located right next to the property. Ms. Kelly looked at other pedestrian bridges and noted that they are three stories or more. She concluded when all this was considered, they felt a strong argument could be made that the 32' maximum height would work in that area. Chairman Bonina then asked if Staff could speak to the traffic counts. He specifically mentioned a resident's concern about not seeing the tubular device that counts traffic. Mr. Tom Mahood, Traffic Engineer stated that the Olson Company felt it was prudent to provide additional traffic studies. Staff provided them with suggestions on what could be done, but these were not required. He said he thought the results were shared with the residents. He went on to say that typically they hire traffic counting firms to perform this analysis. He stated that these traffic firms hire college students to sit in a car or may have already had data they had taken in the past. Chairman Bonina stated that Mr. Mahood had suggested the applicant had provided traffic information to Staff that resulted in no further traffic counts would be needed. He asked what was the data provided to Staff. Mr. Mahood replied that the applicant submitted trip generation studies that looked at the trip generation of an industrial use, the typical rate as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and compared that to the rate of a condominium type development. He mentioned there was concern that the existing use ofthat property might be less than the typical ITE rate for industrial use. He stated that what Staff found that over time, the vitality of a particular parcel may rise and fall. In the case of this Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 particular site, an average of an ITE rate was used and compare it to typical residential condominium, and it was essentially the same. Commissioner Pruett had a question for Staff on Attachment Four where it talks about the building height. He said it indicates that the parapet should not exceed 32 feet, and he believes this should state the roof should not exceed 32 feet because the drawing shows the parapet different than the roof line. Ms. Kelly stated that perhaps it should state the maximum height of the building to avoid any confusion. Chairman Bonina asked about the common recreation area. He mentioned it was one of the conditions that the Development Director would review the area. He wanted a sense of what this common area would look like. Ms. Kelly answered that she thought it would be geared toward adult recreation. Perhaps, a gazebo, barbecue area, a picnic area versus a children's play set area. It would be more of a passive area. Chairman Bonina then asked about the garage roll up doors. He wanted to know if they were typical residential developments or ifthey are special doors specifically designed for this proj ect. Mr. Mansfield replied that the garage doors were designed for this project. He stated that the intent was that they have an industrial feel to them, but the practicality of providing the true roll up doors would not be appropriate in regards to the sound, etc. He said that they have the appearance of being a roll-up door, but are really regular garage doors. Chairman Bonina mentioned that on the site plan there is no fence or any kind of wall on the east side of the development. He asked the applicant to explain the concept. Mr. Mansfield showed a better rendering of the development that shows a wall. He pointed this out on the site plan. He explained there would be areas of brick with the idea of showing some orange crate art. He stated there was a gate at the centerpiece. Chairman Bonina wanted to know ifthe fence went from building to building and if the development was secured from the west side. Mr. Mansfield stated yes. Commissioner Bilodeau made mention of the train noise and looking at the Mitigated Negative Deck, it appeared to him that there were no special things done to mitigate this. He wanted to know if there would be windows on the end units that would look over the parking lot or if there would be a block wall. He asked what would be done to mitigate the train noise, if anything. Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 Mr. Reekston responded that there was no block wall, but the windows were at a higher SDC rating in order to accommodate the additional noise impact. He stated to maintain the character ofthe project and properly attenuating the windows and taking the noise level down, they felt this was the proper way to mitigate the noise issue. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the square footage ofthe balcony included in the square footage open space, and secondly will they be shielded from the noise. Ms. Kelly replied that there is a mitigation measure that requires the eastern most mezzanine balconies have a barrier of six feet high. This would reduce the noise level on the deck to 63 CNEL which is below the 65 maximum. This is only along the east facing side of the balcony adjacent to the train. Chairman Bonina stated he was under the impression the screening was more visual, and was located on the east side of the development for the visual concerns of the adjacent property. Ms. Kelly stated this was on the west side, and this was for the mezzanine decks. On the east side, there is a barrier that is required in relation to noise. Chairman Bonina referred back to the areas between the property line between the east side and the units themselves. He asked about the landscape treatment of that area. The applicant replied that the landscaping would consist oftall narrow trees, all part of the Santa Fe Depot Plant List, pine trees in the back area, flower and accent trees generated toward the central courtyard. He said there would be vines and shrubs along the back walkway. Chairman Bonina asked about the landscape plan for the Maple front. The applicant replied that the Santa Fe Depot Standard Street Trees for Maple is placed within the parkway along with some flowering accent trees placed in the space between the back of the public sidewalk and the building with some planting areas. Chairman Bonina mentioned there was no information on the signage for the work/live units. He asked when that would be reviewed. Ms. Kelly answered that would be Condition of Approval No. 20. It states assigned program shall be required in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which is approved by the Community Development Department. It shall be compatible with the architectural style of the project. She stated it was under Design Review. Chairman Bonina asked if the construction hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM were typical. He asked if construction went that far into the day. Ms. Kelly stated she would check the Code, but thought it sOilllded reasonable. Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Chairman Bonina had questions about the home office restriction and the uses. He said the properties could be used for commercial use such as, a jeweler, retail sales, apparel dry goods, and sporting goods. Chairman Bonina then asked the difference between using the site for a shoe repair or a tailor versus the previous mentioned uses, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Ms. Kelly stated she would check with the Code, and provide the answers to the Commission after she checked. Chairman Bonina then asked about using the home office as a music or dance studio if a Conditional Use Permit can be obtained, but it could not be used for religious entity. He asked for clarity. Ms. Kelly responded through a conditional use permit, you could limit the size and number of clients, but with a church that would be more difficult to do. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff to clarify this same issue regarding the entry in the site plan that discusses electrical distribution systems, and with new residential construction there was an intent to see those service under grounded. Ms. Kelly suggested that if this is something the Planning Commission desires, then to condition it and put some type of a caveat that if there is an issue that precludes the under grounding that the Condition would not otherwise be in effect. Commissioner Imboden reference Page 10 of the Developmental Standards of the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan, under No. Nine under New Mixed Use Developments, Item B, it does ask that the ground level retail spaces shall have a minimum of 40 feet from back of sidewalk. He stated it appeared the plan was a little short of that. Ms. Kelly stated that what's being considered here is a lighter mixed use ofthe three units versus having the entire frontage as a commercial center. Also, residential along the back behind the commercial, Stafflooked at this as not requiring the setback of 40 feet. She further explained that since the uses was for only three units out of all the units along the front; Staff saw this as a reason for applying the residential setbacks. Commissioner Pruett replied that he was not sure he saw anything in the Staff Report that explains why the residential setback is used instead of the retail requirement. He thought the best way to clarify this would be in Attachment Four. He stated he would suggest including in Attachment Four, a change to establish the ground level retail setback at 37 feet minimum. Ms. Kelly commented that the residential in front of it, which would meet the residential setback, and then the retail behind it, which would meet the retail behind. Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Commissioner Pruett stated that the Specific Plan Requirements only states "40 feet from back of sidewalk." It does not state where it starts. He thought by including that change in Attachment Four and capture this detailed discussion as the rationale supporting the change in the Amendment. Commissioner Imboden still had concerns about the height of the units. He has reviewed the Specific Plan cover to cover and found numerous references to a 25-foot, two story maximum. He was concerned that ifthere is not verbiage that specifically addresses this outside of the envelope. He believes this is the same case as the afore mentioned retail setback, and should be done to set precedent. In his opinion, this does set a precedent. Commissioner Pruett commented that in Attachment Four, it would establish that the three-story height would not exceed 32 feet. He stated that did not correctly identify the picture that the Commission is approving because the third story has a significant setback from the face ofthe building. He commented on the fact that where it states this is a 32- foot building, it's not at the face ofthe building. He said there's a setback on the third level, and maybe the building height needs to address that. He stated that it's a three- story building with a mezzanine, and that Code defines (something to the effect) that a mezzanine shall not exceed one third of the square footage of the building. Ms. Kelly stated that was the differential between the Building Code and the Zoning Code. The Building Code refers to the unit as a second story because if you stay less than the third of the floor area, then it's not considered a story. Commissioner Pruett then stated the issue is that the third story needs to be identified as a building that includes a mezzanine as the top floor which should not exceed one-third of the floor area below it, and that it has a setback of so many feet from the face of the building. He continued to state that way, it is clearly understood to what is being approved by the Commission. He said they are not necessarily approving a three-story building; they are approving a building of a certain height with certain conditions including a mezzanine, which is a smaller area, and includes a setback from the front of the building. Commissioner Imboden stated that simply by labeling it as one third of the story below does not make it a mezzanine, and he thought "by UBC definition" should be attached because there's more to this than just the square footage that is being discussed. He said that it defines a mezzanine, and since there is no definition in their own planning language. Ms. Kelly asked the Commission for clarification on the set back for the mezzanine. She asked if they wanted the set back on every building or did they want the set back of the mezzanine from the street to be a certain distance. Commissioner Pruett answered that that they would like the set back to be from the street, and (on this particular project) from the rear property line, i.e.; from the face ofthe building. Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Ms. Kelly then answered a previous question regarding the noise ordinance for the City. She said that exterior noise standards for residential, schools and churches were from 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM. This is when activities are exempt. Chairman Bonina reiterated that construction noise could occur between 7:00 and 9:00. Ms. Kelly stated that she was hesitant to provide a definitive answer is that sometimes Code has section for construction noise, and she did not have that section of the Code in front of her. Commissioner Bilodeau noted that the parking spaces were up to 81, and that is one above Code. He thought the applicant would be sensitive to the neighbors, and not generate off-site parking demand. So, in terms of the garages, he asked what would be done to ensure that the garages would not be used for storage, but for parking. He asked if the Committee could condition something in the CC&Rs that residents could not use the garages for storage. Ms. Kelly stated that this could be conditioned. Commissioner Bilodeau also mentioned that by looking at some of the units, it would be difficult to position the vehicle to get it in the garage. He thought it would be appropriate to condition this item. Chairman Bonina asked the applicant to come forward to address any issues in the discussions, and provide closing remarks. Mr. Reekston replied that once again, it was the intent in redesigning the project was to meet the needs of the community, and to address their concerns. He understands that not all issues have been addressed to the fullest extent, but he believes they have a compromise solution that both the City Staff, and the community to be proud of. Ms. Kelly addressed a previous question as to why a jeweler and gift shop as a permitted use was allowed. She stated that the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan has a list ofland uses that it permits under certain zones. She said the property would be in the mixed use overlay zone of the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, and jewelers and gift shops are permitted uses. That is why Staff carried it into this project. Chairman Bonina asked ifthis included shoe repair and/or tailor. Ms. Kelly replied that no staff was concerned with noise and the odor that may come from one of these businesses. Commissioner Pruett asked about the overpass over the tracks close to the Maple Walk. Ms. Kelly stated that at one time they talked about this being an underpass, but most Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 likely it would be an overpass. Mr. Mahood then explained that there is a project afoot through OCTA through a surplus of funds to provide the City of Orange with some type of crossing of the tracks to connect the two platforms on the east and west. It originally manifested as an over-crossing, but the more they looked at it, they are seeing some problems and added expenses so they are also considering and under-crossing. OCTA has the lead on the project. They will be responsible for bringing it to the OTPA to have them buy off on it. Whether it be above or below, it's still in the planning stages. The City will have the final say to whether it's an over-crossing or an under-crossing. The budget is about three million dollars. Commissioner Pruett thought that an over-crossing was preferable to the under-crossing. Chairman Bonina asked ifit was decided as an over-pass, what would be the projected height. Mr. Mahood replied that although he has not seen a sketch of it yet, it would have to be high enough to get across a train with elevators on both sides. CHAIRMAN BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING - Chairman Bonina asked before the Committee began their deliberation if Mr. Otto would speak to the affordable housing component of this project. There is a lot of discussion for a certain percentage of affordability should be in all projects, and he thought this project meet the hurdle that is not often seen. Mr. Otto began by stating when the applicant came forward on this project; the agency approached the developer to ask them if they would be willing to provide 15% affordability in the project. He stated that they accepted the requirement. He explained this was a moderate-income deed restricted for 45 years similar to the Manchester Project that the Commission saw last December. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he was happy to see the improvements made to the project. He thought many of the changes made were quite appropriate particularly there is not the parking configuration as there was before with the stacked parking. He supports Commissioner Imboden's suggestion oflooking to underground the utilities is appropriate given the change in the zoning. Now would be the time to tackle that, if possible. He would like to see some mechanism put in so that the parking garages are used for parking only because he does not want to impact the neighbors and it felt it would be too easy to park right next door at the train depot. He would have liked to see the traffic numbers, but believed that the numbers would be a push due to the fact that at one time, there may have been heavy traffic, it appears that all the tenants have been evicted, and there is very little traffic. Commissioner Bilodeau wasn't sure the garage issue could be enforced by the City, but he asked Mr. Gary Sheatz, City Attorney, ifit could be added as a Condition in the Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 CC&Rs. Mr. Sheatz answered yes. Commissioner Enderby also stated that the applicant had come back with refinements that made it more attractive than the first time. He commented the height issue concerns were addressed. He thought the applicant worked to meet the intent of what the Commission was trying to accomplish. He presented the following clarifications as conditions for Approval: 1. Commissioner Imboden's condition regarding the power poles. 2. Commissioner Pruett's commercial setback in reference to the building height should be site specific as a reference in Attachment Four. 3. Commissioner Bilodeau's suggestion that the garages be used for parking only. Commissioner Imboden referenced some previous issues he had and thought the Olson Company had brought back a greatly improved project. He said they responded to comments from the Commission, as well as from the community and OTPA. Although he does have concerns about projects that questionably meet the intent of the Specific Plan, but he believes there is enough verbiage in this, so as the proj ect moves forward to City Council, they are aware of all the issues and deal with them as well. He does have some reservations about the traffic, however, he believes it's time to move this project forward to the Council so that they review these items and act accordingly. Commissioner Pruett thought it would be appropriate to make it clear that the garage was to be used for parking only and not for storage especially in the units that would be used for retail. He commented that mixed use is not new to Old Town. He mentioned there were quite a few apartments that were above some of the retail stores, and thought this was something they were going to see a lot more of. He stated that transit-oriented is something that he expects to see more of not only in Orange, but other communities as well. He is a big supporter of this concept because he believes it addresses many of the issues that we will face in the future. He said the project was quite a bit improved from the last time it came through the Commission. Chairman Bonina stated that the Commission has some work to do on the Specific Plans. He believed their needs to be an understanding of how they meld together with the Old Town Designs Standards and other standards as well. He hopes this is something that can be addressed as the City moves forward with their General Plan work. At the time of the first presentation, Chairman Bonina thought it was a great project, but is especially pleased with all the improvements made by the Olson Company. He also gave credit to the community coming forward, and expressing their concerns and wishes. He commended the Olson Company and cited their record of being a great developer, and he looks forward to their participation in the City. He stated he would support this project. Chairman Bonina reminded the applicant of what was said regarding the parking, underground utilities and the information on Attachment four for the height clarification Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 and the set back for the commercial. Commissioner Pruett wanted to be sure he could just refer to Attachment Four when a motion was made. He then proceed to state they have a Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1737-04 which is prepared for the project in accordance with the provision of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), he made a motion to adopt Resolution PC 41-05 recommended to City Council, the approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1737-04, the General Plan Amendment No. 2004-0006, Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Amendment No.2, Zone Change No. 1230-04, Major Site Plan Review No. 358-04, the Design Review Committee No. 3944-04, and the Tentative Tract No. 16786, and the Demolition Review of a Non-Contributing Structure in the Old Towne Historic District. The changes that are included in this motion to Attachment No.4 are: 1. Building height will be two-stories with a mezzanine as defined in the Uniform Building Code. Maximum height of the building including the mezzanine not to exceed 32 feet. The set back of the mezzanine from the front face of the building is a minimum of 17 feet, (because that's what he sees on the plans). 2. A ground level retail set back will be a minimum of 37 feet from back of sidewalk. 3. Underground of the utilities along Maple. 4. Recommendation be added to the CC&Rs requiring the garages be available for the parking of two cars at all times. Chairman Bonina seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2535-05 FOR THE BEACON DAY SCHOOL Associate Planner, Sherman Jones provided the Staff report to the Commission. Mr. Jones added that he wanted the Commission to know that the applicant had worked closely with the Building and Planning Division to resolve the issues that came up previously; among them the compliance of the ADA issues as well as issues on the Site Plan not being clear enough such as security fencing and the pick-up and drop-off area. The applicant has indicated that the pick-up and drop-off area will be administered through a staggered system where parents will be assigned specific times in ten-minute integrals. He stated the applicant has already revised their Site Plan in the reconfiguration ofthe parking plan to allow better access and circulation. Page 17 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Mr. Jones added that Staff continues to recommend Approval, and would like the Planning Commission to adopt PC Resolution 3605, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Section 2535-05. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Speakers: Mike Connell. applicant. Mr. Connell reiterated that they had been working closely with Staff, Planning and Building Departments regarding issues of security fencing, traffic flow, and ADA compliance, and to resolve these issues. He stated that adjustments had been made to the Site Plan relating to the fencing and parking showing access between the two buildings, accessible parking space, and access back to the primary building as well as clarifying the security fencing. He also added that the drop-offlocations were more clearly depicted and revised the parking layout to accommodate a better traffic flow. Commissioner Imboden stated that although the plans were greatly improved, he still had concerns that he thought would be ADA issues most notably the entrance to the north of the site, and the 36'foot door with a four foot dimension. He stated these issues would have to be handled through the Building Department. He wished that there was a complete plan to approve that he knew would be built as planned. Chair Bonina mentioned that the applicant was meeting with the Building Department as they spoke, and were reviewing these issues and working to resolve them. Commissioner Pruett stated that there was no fence line delineated between the southerly building on the northwest comer and the block wall. He said there was a six inch space, there should be a fence there to prevent children from trying to squeeze through there and getting caught. He thinks there should be a fence delineated on the drawing plan. He also mentioned that the plans are not clear where the fence ends, and should be clarified. He stated that besides the two clarifications he mentioned, he thought the applicant had done a good job of answering the Commission's questions. Chair Bonina congratulated the applicant for working with Staff to address these issues. He asked for clarification on the driveway width of 25 feet. He asked if the drop-off area was just for a moment's time, and not a parking area, and the applicant answered yes. John Baker. 1051 W. Arbor Wav. Orange. He mentioned that he spoke at the last meeting for this item. He also stated that he was the father of an autistic son, and the need for a school like this was immense. He was grateful to see the commitment to the service of autistic individuals in the community, and how Staff has gone out of their way to see this happen. Page 18 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 Jeff Frankel. address on file. OTPA. He stated that two structures were listed as contributing structures on the Staff Report, and wanted it clarified if the buildings were being altered in any way. If changes were to be made, OTPA asked that the applicant be in compliance with the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation and if they would go through the necessary Design Review Process. Chair Bonina asked Staff if the building was being altered in any way other than maintenance. Staff replied that no changes were to be made other than two ramps to be built, and these were not considered as alterations to the building. Commissioner Imboden commented on the exterior of the structure. He said that based on his personal experience, he looked at the plan and could see the entrance at the northern portion of the building will not meet ADA compliance. He stated that this meant the building will require some exterior alterations. He wanted clarification to the process on how this process will be reviewed in terms of exterior alterations rather than dismissing it that there will be none. Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Imboden for clarification about an area on the Site Plan where there is a ramp with two doors. Commissioner Imboden stated that the lower door would meet compliance and the door goes to the enclosed porch would not meet compliance due to the required clearance on doors. He further explained that the accessibility was different for interior and exterior doors. Commissioner Imboden stated that his ultimate concern to Staff was what the review process will be for these particular structures should changes become necessary. Planning Manager, Leslie Roseberry commented there were certain changes that could be reviewed over the counter. She stated that the two structures were not in Old Town, and were not listed. They were being looked at to be listed with the General Plan update. She mentioned that the project could be conditioned to have the applicant supply existing and proposed elevations for Staff s review prior to pulling building permits, and if they see there are substantial changes that would change the form or character ofthe building, it would then go to DRC. Otherwise, they would be stopping the process sending it back to DRC to see what would happen if they had to provide for the additional clearance, what it would do to the building and it may do virtually nothing. She stated they wouldn't know until the applicant was done working with the building official on retrofitting an older building. She thought there may some sort of allowances for the older building when they're trying to retrofit them, but knew that the building official certainly knew. Commissioner Imboden then stated he was confused because he thought the Staff Report listed the buildings as contributing structures, and this is what he thought Mr. Frankel was referencing. Page 19 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 Ms. Roseberry replied she did not believe they were. She thought they were built in 1920. Mr. Jones also stated that Building A was built in 1910 and Building B was circa 1920's. He said that just for clarification, they were outside of the Old Town District and were not technically considered contributing structures because they were not listed on the city's historic lists, and were not within the Old Town area although they were working with the consultants for the General Plan to make sure these two structures and other structures outside of the district were included in the future. Ms. Roseberry added that just because the buildings are not listed did not mean that anything would be done haphazard to the buildings to move forward or do anything that would damage the integrity of the buildings because they do understand the value of the buildings to the City even though they are not in the district. Commissioner Imboden responded that through his own research, he did find that one of the buildings was listed, and the other one was not. He was not sure whether the Public Hearing had been closed, and perhaps OTPA had any answers. Chair Bonina then called Mr. Frankel of OTPA up to the podium to respond. Jeff Frankel. address on file. OTP A. He replied that the information he had that the 576 N. Glassell address was listed. He stated the original owners were Charles and Bertha Luan. He stated he spoke with the historic planner on Staff, and that they were not able to find the listing. He said he presented the Commissioners with a photo that showed the original owners in 1910. He mentioned that he could not verify this with the list that Staff has in the office. Staff also agrees that because of the terrific condition that the buildings are in, they should be listed, and it was just an oversight in the past. Chair Bonina stated that Ms. Roseberry's point that regardless whether the building is in the Old Towne District or not, there would be a process to be followed that would be reflective as if it were in the Old Towne District in terms of the alterations of the building. Ms. Roseberry stated that simply because of the age of the building, an argument could be made that ifthere are substantial alterations to the building, it would need to go back to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Pruett asked if this would have to be conditioned. Ms. Roseberry replied that it would be helpful to put a condition into the recommendation. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to move that the Planning Commission adopt Page 20 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Resolution No. PC36-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2535-05. He stated this was categorically exempt from the provisions from the California Environmental Quality Act. He also added the condition if any substantial exterior modifications become part of this project, that they are brought before City Staff for review and potential review before the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2531-05 - DAPHNE'S GREEK CAFE Ms. Roseberry provided the Staff Report to the Commission. She made mention ofthe fact that this item was referred to the Police Department, and Sgt. Miller was in attendance to answer any questions regarding the higher crime rate, and why the Police Department would support this. She also stated that Staff supported the approval of the CUP, and would answer any questions. Chair Bonina asked the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. There was no applicant that came forward. Since there was no applicant present, it was decided that this item would be deferred to the last item. (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2532-05 - ALDO'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 190 SOUTH GLASSELL STREET, SUITE C&D Ms. Ann Fox, Contract Planner gave a brief description of the Staff Report to the Commission. She stated that Staff is supportive of the application and has included all the conditions that the Police Department requested. Chair Bonina stated that Commissioner Imboden had a statement to make regarding this item. Commissioner Imboden explained in reviewing the packet for this project, he was surprised to find his name on the set of plans submitted by the applicant for this item. He Page 21 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 recognized the plans as those that he drafted while he was employed by a local architect more than a year ago for the Jensen Building. Although the applicant is a tenant in that building, at no time did he work for the applicant, at the time he drafted these plans, he had no idea the applicant would be a tenant in the building. He consulted with the City Attorney on this matter, who advised him subsequently, that he has no economic conflict of interest and may participate in this hearing and recommends this explanation to be read into the record. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Speakers - Mr. Arthur Lova. applicant. 190 South Glassell (the Jensen Building). Orange. He stated that his restaurant was established for six years on Tustin Ave, and that they were relocating to the Glasselllocation, and hoped to get a Conditional Use Permit for a Type 47 license. He said that presently they had a Type 41 license. The business was sold at the previous location, but the name and numbers would be moved to the Glassell address. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Enderby made a motion to adopt Resolution of the Planning Commission for the Conditional Use Permit No. 2532-05 to request to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control License Type 47 On-Sale General for Bona Public Eating Place and Type 58 license for Catering for new restaurant within the Jensen Building located at 190 South Glassell Street, Suite C & D. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2539-05 - FROGS BREATH CHEESE STORE LOCATED AT 143 NORTH GLASSELL STREET Senior Planner, Chris Carnes provided the full presentation of the Staff Report to the Commission. He mentioned that the decision of the Planning Commission is final tonight unless appealed to the City Council. He also stated that the Commission's decision also includes to make a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity for the sale of Alcoholic Beverages at this site. Chair Bonina then read a letter that he had received from a local merchant, Lisa Page 22 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2005 Ackerman of A&P Collectibles. The letter, in summary, stated that she looked forward to having the applicant open the store, and she would be at this store on opening day. Chair Bonina opened up the Public Hearing. Speakers - Ms. Priscilla Madrid. applicant. address on file. She was appreciative for the opportunity to be at the meeting, and looked forward to opening her business in Old Towne Orange. She explained that she would have wheels of cheese from all over the United States as well as international selections. The focus of her store would be on the cheese, with a complimentary selection of wines in addition to craft beers. She added that she would carry dried fruit, honey, balsamic vinegars, etc. Commissioner Pruett asked is the applicant could special order cheese, and she said yes. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to adopt Resolution PC 43-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2539-05. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina then redirected the Commissioners back to Item (4) Daphne's Greek Restaurant, but the applicant was not in attendance. Chair Bonina moved to continue this item to a date that Staff and the applicant can agree upon. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Page 23 Planning Commission Minutes September 7,2005 Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn the meeting to the Monday, September 19, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Page 24