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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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