2005 - November 7
c.9-S DO. Gt .;;13
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
November 7, 2005
Monday-7:1O p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett, and Bonina
None
PRESENT:
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation
Anna, Pehoushek, AICP, Principal Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
INRE:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) THERE ARE NO MINUTES TO REVIEW FOR TONITE'S MEETING.
INRE:
CONTINUED ITEM:
(2) AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
PARKING AND STORAGE STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AN
ORDINANCE OF CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 17-14-090 OF THE
ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO RESTRICT THE PARKING OR STORAGE
OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE FRONT LOT
LINE OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY WITH ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR VISTORS, LOADING, UNLOADING AND VEHICLES THAT SERVE AS A
SOLE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED FROM
THE OCTOBER 3, 2005 MEETING. THIS ITEM IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
Chair Bonina provided background on this item. He explained that this Item was
Continued from the PC Meeting of October 3,2005, and Staff had read through the Item
and provided their presentation to the Commission with three Commissioners in
attendance. The Commissioners in attendance engaged the Staff, went through a Q & A
relative to what was presented, had public comments from many folks who shared their
concerns and comments relative to this issue, had questions regarding these comments,
closed the Public Hearing, further discussed the issue with the Planning Commission, and
carne up with some questions where Staff would provide some clarifications on these
Page I
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
questions and those issues as well as other questions and issues brought up by the public
to the Planning Commission this evening. He further explained that it was not their intent
to open up the Public Hearing again since this would be information previously reviewed.
However, ifthere was new information that carne to light that needed to be discussed,
they could open up the Public Hearing. He stated the other reason this Item had been
Continued was due to the absence oftwo Planning Commissioners at the October 3, 2005
meeting. He further stated that both of these Commissioners had an opportunity to
review the video, the Staff Report, and Draft Minutes, and were fully prepared to review
the Issue and come to some recommendation. He then asked for a reading of the
comments and response to the issues that the Planning Commission had brought up at the
October 3, 2005 PC meeting.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, provided clarification of all the points discussed
from the October 3,2005 PC meeting in the Staff Report presented to the Commission.
She pointed out as a reminder to the public that this Ordinance Amendment was prepared
at the request of the City Council following a review of the 2004 Ordinance establishing
new standards for RV storage and parking. She further pointed out that the Amendment
further modified front-yard parking standards, provisions related to RV loading and
unloading, R V s as a sole means of transportation, and visitor parking provisions. She
then provided detailed clarification of the many points addressed in the previous meeting
of October 3, 2005.
Chair Bonina asked Staff what was meant by applicants would not be grand-fathered in if
there was a change in property status.
Ms. Pehoushek replied that this meant ifthere were changes made to the actual property
by physical conditions.
Chair Bonina then asked if the opportunity for the RV to be parked through a grand-
fathered clause would transfer from owner to owner.
City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, clarified that the last sentence of the Section reads, 'This
section shall not apply to persons who do not occupy the property on the effective date of
this Ordinance." He stated this provision would only be applicable to current owners.
Commissioner Pruett asked if what Mr. Sheatz had just read regarding the Section was in
regard to a change in occupancy, i.e., ifit was a rental property and the renter had an RV,
would the next renter not be grandfathered in.
Mr. Sheatz replied that the Ordinance was written with homeowners in mind. He did not
know ifit had been thought through or discussed regarding tenants. He believed it was
written from the standpoint of ownership of homes.
Commissioner Pruett further asked if someone was using the property as a rental with an
RV and a new tenant moved in, would the new tenant be entitled to the same rights.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
Mr. Sheatz responded that from an enforcement standpoint, the City would have to allow
the use to continue since it would be more difficult to track tenants as opposed to owners.
He again stated the Ordinance was written with homeowners in mind.
Commissioner Pruett asked ifthose exempt were not required to have a permit. He cited
a part of the Ordinance that stated on case-by-case basis current occupants could obtain
an annual permit from the police or designate for satisfaction through the City Attorney
that significant improvements were made in good faith.
Mr. Sheatz replied that this could be done by the owner of the property.
Commissioner Pruett asked if the permit was assigned to the R V or to the property.
Mr. Sheatz answered that it was assigned to the property. He explained that the City was
attempting to track this for non-conforming uses.
Chair Bonina inquired (if this Item was approved) how the 12-month ramp-up period was
established versus an 18-month or six month period.
Ms. Pehoushek replied the 12-month period was a reasonable amount oftime for the
applicant to come forward under the Companion Ordinance with the C.D.P. application
and go through the Hearing Process. Since there would be no building permits and the
Site Plan would be straight forward, a reasonable timefrarne for processing this type of
c.u.P. would be a few months and this would allow for property improvements to be
made, and the person to advertise the availability of the facility to start leasing spaces.
Commissioner Pruett asked if this was tied more to the availability of future recreational
storage sites that would become available with the companion Ordinance that was passed
at the last meeting.
Ms. Pehoushek replied this was correct with the likelihood that within the first year
something would be developed.
Chair Bonina stated he hoped there would be some consideration for the public to budget
on an annual basis. He wasn't sure if 12 months was a sufficient arnount oftime, and
wanted to explore with the Commission something a little more generous than this
timeframe.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff to explain what the current rules were in regard to on
street parking.
Ms. Pehoushek deferred to Building Official, Mr. Brent Mullins. He stated that currently
an RV was allowed to park in a driveway, and it was allowed to park an RV on the street
immediately adjacent to your property. He qualified that parking on the public right-of-
way was allowable only for loading and unloading during a 48 hour period. The
exception to this was a permit by the Police Department to allow a seven day stay on the
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
public property.
Chair Bonina asked if this was specifically for RV parking or other types of parking.
Mr. Mullins replied that he was specifically addressing RV parking, but he believed the
public property Ordinance addressed over-sized vehicles.
Chair Bonina asked what the thought process was behind the seven day permit for
parking with the distribution of the two-day limit in the driveway and the balance in the
street.
Mr. Mullins explained that the discussion for the seven days was brought about by the
opportunity for people to visit and the City allowed a process for this to occur. Without
this process, the exemption would not allow visitors and RVs to park near the relatives
they would visit. He stated he was not sure how this progressed to the two day limit, but
he thought this might allow for street sweeping to occur.
Mrs. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, further explained what Mr.
Mullins had commented on was correct in terms ofthe street parking. She added that as
they are coming forward with the new Ordinance and emanating from Council's
direction, the City was looking for guests to be able to load and unload items if they were
spending time in the house as opposed to not wanting the visitors to live in the RV, and it
might be more convenient for them to park in the driveway. This was done as two
consecutive days for convenience sake. She also explained in terms of this
recommendation by the Council was also considered for the public who had concerns
about RVs, and they thought it was reasonable for guests to have some ability to pull on-
site for a limited arnount of time. Stafftried to contain it within the seven day total so
there was no one allowed on the street, then a couple of days on the driveway and back to
parking on the street for an elongated period of time.
Chair Bonina asked if the process just described made for any further Code enforcement
challenges.
Mrs. Angus replied that the applicant would obtain a permit from the Police Department
for visitor parking. If there was a complaint to Code Enforcement in terms ofRV
parking, the City would contact the homeowner, determine the ownership of the R V, and
check with the Police to see if a permit existed. Then, it would be a matter of diligence
and follow-up to see if the RV was moved or in violation. She believed this provided
enough ability to track it under a permit or get the homeowner to obtain a permit given
that the first day the City was able to verify a permit would count as day one of parking.
Chair Bonina asked if as the permit was issued, there was an automatic follow-up of the
applicant within a two to three day period.
Mr. Mullins replied that he had not thought through what could happen since currently, as
a matter of convenience, the Police Department responded to these situations, and could
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
enforce the seven-day parking permit on public property easily, so Staff was not involved
in this enforcement. He mentioned that once the two day parking on private property
happens, there will be a coordination issue, and perhaps multi-visit to the site issue where
it could be established the applicant is parked on the private property, and follow-up in
two days to verify the RV has moved. He envisioned a lot more coordination and more
Code Enforcement work associated with this new change, where previously this was not
an Issue.
Chair Bonina asked if they had quantified any additional Staff time or activity or effort.
Mrs. Angus replied that they had not looked at this, but in terms of the number of permits
issued by the Police Department, she thought it was fairly low. She continued that when
Staff had reported to City Council earlier in the year in terms of how the process worked,
the Police Department responded that it had worked very well. She added that with the
new Ordinance being considered, today a visitor might choose to park on the street and
go through the permit process, but by the sarne token, ifthere was room on the driveway,
legally they could park there. Once the new Ordinance takes place, and they cannot do
this, then it is by an exception. She stated that most of the Code Enforcement cases
regarding RV complaints tends to be the owner or the renter, and not the visitor.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked what the current law of parking on the public right-of-way
was.
Mr. Mullins replied that an oversized vehicle is allowed to park in the immediate adjacent
vicinity of the property owner of that oversized vehicle for loading and unloading for a
48 hour period.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked ifthis meant the property owner could not park an RV in
front of their house, and Mr. Mullins replied that this was correct.
Commissioner Imboden wanted to know if the parking permit just discussed, he did not
find where it stated frequency of the issuance of these types of permits. He wanted to
know if there was a timeframe of how long before they could reapply for a new seven-
day permit. He also wanted to know if the permit belonged to the vehicle or the property
of a conjunction thereof, i.e., was there a requirement if the vehicle is parked in front of a
specific property.
Mr. Mullins responded that the vehicle must be parked adjacent to the owner property,
and the Ordinance reads that any person applying for a permit assumes it is for that
person who is applying, but he stated he would read further into the Ordinance to provide
a better answer.
Chair Bonina then asked if the person who applied for the permit would also have the
address of where they would visit, and Mr. Mullins replied yes.
Commissioner Bilodeau commented he had previously asked Ms. Pehoushek to provide a
summary ofthe rules on other locales, and she provided a chart prepared in 2002. He
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
noted that Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Santa
Ana were surveyed and all these entities allowed parking on the driveway. He was
curious to know if there was any entities surveyed that did not allow this type of parking,
and how they have been working.
Mr. Mullins replied that a survey had been done in the first go round, and tried to pick
jurisdictions that had similar balance that did not have an all master plan, but some
master plan and some non-master plans. They found a garnut of findings where there
were various restrictions, and some with no restrictions at all. They complied these
findings in a table. He cited the above cities mentioned, and what the various cities
allowed and disallowed in regard to parking RVs in driveways. He also mentioned that
he was contacted by the cities of San Clemente and Stanton, and they were having some
struggles with RV parking.
Commissioner Pruett asked ifthe survey done outlining the different communities
allowing RV s to be parked in the driveways, if this was allowed throughout the city in
every situation.
Mr. Mullins stated he assumed with the exception of where CC&Rs are in location, the
answer was yes this was allowed.
Commissioner Pruett further clarified that it was generally the newer areas within these
cities have restrictions through CC&Rs and other requirements that would not allow this,
and Mr. Mullins stated yes.
Mr. Mullins further stated that Staff had concluded there were a total of six permits
allowed for off-site parking through the permitting process within a l2-month period. He
also mentioned there was further language where ifthere was abuse of the system, there
would be no reapplication for six months upon violation.
Chair Bonina asked if there was any criteria if the permit is issued immediately after the
initial seven days, and have the ability to park there for six weeks. Mr. Mullins replied
yes.
Commissioner Pruett asked Mrs. Angus why (from a planning standpoint) the newer
jurisdictions whc:re new developments have occurred exclude RVs from parking in the
driveway.
Mrs. Angus stated this was due to aesthetics with the newer planned communities. She
explained that one of two things could happen. Sometimes an area is carved out for RV
storage for the community, and there is one example of that in Orange. In other cases,
there are more restrictions, not only in terms ofRV parking, but the color of your home,
the maintenance, from a planning stance or home association is seen as something that
lends itself for having a higher value for that community.
Commissioner Pruett asked if allowing large motor homes in the driveway (the 20 foot
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
set back), and considering that they are parked there all week, he considered these a fixed
structure, (although they are on wheels and are mobile) when they are parked, would the
City allow the bulk and mass that is created by this structure to be constructed within that
set back area, and if not, would the City be in violation of the set back Code that they
have, was this correct.
Mrs. Angus addressed this question to the front set back area. First, she stated, although
some of the RVs are parked there on a semi-permanent basis, they are clearly non-
structures by the City's definition. They are not on a permanent foundation so the normal
set back requirements do not apply to them, but in regard to Mr. Pruett's question, she
stated that the City would not allow a permanent structure to be erected within the front
set back area. The concern with a permanent structure would be the sight lines, visibility
in the front set back creating a streetscape feeling of openness between the street and
homes itself in terms of both aesthetics and safety concerns.
Commissioner Pruett said he thought just from the bulk and mass standpoint, even if it
were a temporary structure, this would be a concern to the City. Although he was
referring to an RV, even ifthere was another type of structure, they would be concerned
with the bulk and mass of that structure in that location.
Mrs. Angus replied that yes there would be concern ifit was indeed a structure. She also
equated this with smaller accessory structures where typically set backs don't just apply
to just the front, but to the sides and rear set backs as well as detached garages and other
smaller structures up to a limited height that are allowed to go into the interior set back
areas whether it is a side or rear set back, away from the street not affecting the visibility
along the street or streetscape or the type of aesthetic that the City is trying to establish or
preserve.
Chair Bonina asked what the height limit of the garages or secondary units on the side set
back was.
Mrs. Angus answered that it was 10 feet within the set back area.
Chair Bonina then clarified that with the R V s there was 12 feet allowable, and Mrs.
Angus agreed this was true.
Commissioner Imboden asked about the side and rear set backs previously mentioned if
there was any discussion about parking adjacent to properties where there was another
structure five feet away.
Mrs. Angus stated this was not discussed in terms of what was being presented today.
She also mentioned that some of the Commissioners may remember that the last time this
Ordinance was revarnped, there was some discussion about the front and set back area as
well as the side yard area with a two to three foot buffer along this area, the Council did
not adopt either of these items with the Ordinance currently in place. This time,
Council's direction was to specifically address only the front set back.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
Commissioner Imboden then asked if required exterior parking was allowed to take place
in the setbacks.
Mrs. Angus replied no in terms of required parking, but any additional parking such as in
the private driveway (if it's not required) and you have either enclosed or open parking,
and it meets the requirements, additional excess parking can be within the set backs.
Commissioner Imboden restated that any required parking by the City must be done
outside the set back area, and Mrs. Angus concurred.
Chair Bonina asked if the RV is beyond the 20 foot set back to the house is there any
requirement for shielding or fencing?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the screening of the vehicles is required in the side and rear yard
set back areas with a six-foot high solid fence or wall, but in the front set back, it would
not be required.
Chair Bonina wanted to discuss the l2-month rarnp up for the motion today. He wanted
to discuss with the Commissioners the possibility of extending this timeframe to a
minimum of 18 months or as much as 24 months. He explained that in the event this
Ordinance passes, residents that have RVs within the 20 foot set back would have the
opportunity to look for alternative ways to store their RV either to create an alternate
location on their existing property and/or look for off-site storage of their RV.
understanding that there is a Companion Ordinance of the residential opportunity to
develop RV parking in residential zones within the Edison easement.
Commissioner Enderby asked if Chair Bonina wanted to give the residents more time.
Chair Bonina's response was that he wanted to give the residents more time from a
budgeting perspective. He wanted them to be able to shop around for available locations
off-site. He did not want to create a short time crunch since there was only one RV
storage facility developed and there is no competition in terms of competitive rates. He
wanted to allow the residents additional time to find RV storage.
Commissioner Bilodeau commented that he had spoke with the owner of the newest RV
storage facility located off Main Street and Batavia. He had indicated to Commissioner
Bilodeau that the facility is full, and he receives up to five phone calls a day from
residents looking for RV storage, and there are no other places to store RVs. He believed
that Chair Bonina's thoughts were well founded, and if this Ordinance is passed by the
City Council, it would criminalize parking RVs in their driveway. He added the City has
to give people an opportunity to find a place to store their RVs particularly when he is not
aware of any other storage facilities currently under development, and that the City would
have to reasonable accommodate people coming in and developing storage facilities.
Commissioner Pruett stated there were two ways to address the problem. He said if the
timefrarne was extended, then people would think they had a lot oftime to take action,
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
and then there was nothing available. He continued if people had a specific window, and
they had to take action within that window, then they would be looking to make this
happen. He added that there was a project that was coming forward in this regard in one
ofthe Agendas. If this project comes forward, and people feel that they have two years
to take action, that project is done, and then gone, and the opportunity is passed basically
creating a situation where people thought they did not have anything to worry about,
there was no reason to act, and there is something else coming down the pike. He
thought this was misleading the public. He said the Commission needed to set a
reasonable timefrarne and that most of these people would be grandfathered in. He
believes the issue is the ones that will have to take action will not be many, but that
people should take advantage of this new location, and get on the waiting list. He did not
want to create a false expectation with a two year plan that says there may be more
storage available.
Chair Bonina stated these were good comments although he did not necessarily agree
with them. He thought people would get on a waiting list irrespective ifit's 12, 18 or 24
months, and he believes that 24 months would provide that leeway.
Commissioner Imboden added to Commissioner Pruett's comments that he thought it
may worsen the situation by lengthening that time because then there would be two years
worth ofRVs moving forward where existing conditions are being considered for grand
fathering so what falls after that may compound the problem if a longer time frame is
added allowing more R V s and having to find storage for those.
Chair Bonina stated that this type of change takes time, and did not think that 18 to 24
months was unreasonable.
Commissioner Enderby concurred with Commissioners Pruett and Imboden. He thought
the timefrarne laid out in the Ordinance was adequate, and would help people to
prioritize, and prevent complacency.
Commissioner Pruett stated he would support the Ordinance. He mentioned all the
comments made regarding the restriction of individual use oftheir property and a variety
of other things to justify parking RVs in the driveway in the 20 foot set back. He did not
subscribe to this thinking and could not understand how an individual could impose a
large structure on their neighbor even though it is not a permanent structure. He said it
could be months before it's moved or used, and he thought it should be taken into
consideration that people bought these homes with the understanding they would have a
20 foot set back, to where they could enjoy their streetscape and the area in which they
live. He said what is happening is that this was being taken away from these people. He
thought it was important to maintain the open space. He continued this was being done
in the newer areas of the city where in the newer developments they're saying that the
open space is so important; they're including it in the CC&Rs. He added ifit's that
important, then it should be that important to all the residents to enjoy that set back area.
He thought the 12 month grace period was sufficient time, and that people who need to
rarnp up, they will begin to do so as there are other people who are under pressure to find
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
locations close to their home.
Commissioner Imboden had the following comments as a matter of public record for City
Council to consider in their final review. The first issue was what he considered to be a
burden on the City in terms of enforcing this Ordinance. He hoped there could be some
type of permit that could be displayed where it was easily recognized to show these RVs
were parked in compliance with the City Code with an expiration date so that it's clear to
those that would enforce this. He was also concerned about the renewal where an RV
could be parked on the street for up to six weeks in front of a house. He was also
concerned about the seven day parking permit in terms of safety. He mentioned his next-
door neighbor parking his 30-foot RV in front of his house, and Mr. Imboden was unable
to see his house from the street. He thought there were some safety issues to be
considered, and to leave it open to a six-week run was dangerous. His greatest concern
was leaving RVs in the 20 foot set back. He thought this was an infringement on the
ideals on which these set backs were founded. However, he thought when this goes to
the side and rear yard set backs, they were still looking at the sarne issues. He stated
when structures are built near these set backs, there are Code requirements that go with
this. They must be built to specifications depending on the circumstances where they're
located. He continued that simply parking an RV a foot away from a property line
doesn't meet those sarne restrictions that go into when a building is built there. He
mentioned the lO-foot restriction on buildings within the set back, yet the RVs have a 12-
foot height. He believes that they become a structure when they are parked for a period
of time or have the same rarnifications. He did not necessarily feel that the Commission
needs to make these Conditions unless other Commissioners agree, but he wanted to
bring these points up on the record so the Council does consider some of the safety issues
connected with those items.
Commissioner Enderby commented that he was in support of this Ordinance. He thought
that Staff had done a diligent job of addressing all the various aspects of this Ordinance.
He believes it boils down to aesthetics and safety and what is best for the community. He
stated this Ordinance goes a long way in accomplishing these goals and making the
community a better place for all the citizens. He thought the 12 months was adequate
time for all the present owners not covered by the grandfathering to address their
concerns as far as storage.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he would not be supporting this Ordinance as it was
proposed for a variety ofreasons. He thanked all the groups and various people he had
met with. He said everyone was very spirited and well intentioned. He believed the
Ordinance as proposed was quite confusing. For instance, if someone bought their RV in
1994, they would be grand fathered in, if they bought it in 1996, they would not be grand
fathered in, if they bought it today, they would be grand fathered in because there is no
rule today. He felt the only way for the City to enact this, is to say today going forward,
you could not park an RV in your driveway once the property is turned over. He felt this
was fair to everyone. He has heard people bought their homes with the expectation with
the 20 foot set back going all the way down the street. He looked at it the other way, that
people bought their homes with the expectation they would be able to use their property.
Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
He said there were two sides to the story, and would hope people would have respect for
one another. He's reviewed letters to this effect, and did not think it was good for the
City to encourage people to shoehorn an RV between their house, and their block wall.
He said there was a reason for a five-foot set back on a house, and he is not sure this
Ordinance covers this. He thought the Planning Commission got this right the last time it
was reviewed. He believed that the set back of three to five foot was reasonable and was
a compromIse.
Commissioner Pruett asked Staff for clarification of who would be grandfathered and
who would not be grandfathered.
Ms. Pehoushek replied that the Ordinance is presented as any condition established in
conformance with the RV standards that were in place at the particular time the
conditions were established would be grand fathered in. The only exception to this is any
situation that was established following the adoption of the 2004 standards. Those
particular situations would not be grand fathered unless the property owner had made
some substantial investment on the property to bring the situation into conformance with
the 2004 standards. So, the historical situation would be grandfathered if it were legally
established.
Commissioner Pruett asked if this was tied to the improvements to the property in terms
ofthe grand fathering after 2004.
Ms. Pehoushek again stated that anything prior to 2004 would be grand fathered if it was
established in conformance with the standards in place at the time the conditions were
established. Anything that was post the 2004 standards would NOT be grandfathered
unless some type of major investment was made on the property.
Chair Bonina stated the idea was to make the community aesthetically more pleasing. He
said by eliminating or restricting R V parking within the first 20 foot set back was a step
in this direction. He wasn't sure it was the right step because he believed that this
Ordinance will force many RVs to be parked off site, and there is a limited number of
off-site parking, but what concerned him more was forcing the RVs to be parked
"sandwiched" between a side yard and the home. He thought this presented a larger and
significant concern. He said this would maintain the aesthetic issue, and there was a
further issue that could restrict the fire in terms of the circulation around the house. He
does not believe this is being taken in the right direction. He does agree that the
Ordinance is confusing, and there is a lot of ebb and flow to it. While Staff has done a
great effort, he thought it was still rather confusing. He stated it would provide further
Staff time in terms of the monitoring, and hopefully with the restrictive budgets, it has
been accounted for. He believes that a longer rarnp up period beyond the 12 months. He
thought people needed a longer time and opportunity to plan where their RV s will go if
they are not in fact allowed to park within an area has been endorsed by the City for
many years. He thought the ramp up period should be extended to 18 months. He
concluded by stating he wanted City Council to consider the Companion Ordinance, the
opportunity to develop off-site parking in residential zones, specifically in the Edison
Page II
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
easements. He hoped the City had the wisdom to manage this and allow some advantage
to the City of Orange. He thought a right was being taken away from the Orange
residents, and were obligated to replace to some extent the opportunity in some favorable
fashion. It was his opinion that the City was giving Edison an opportunity for a nice
income stream on property they would not otherwise be able to use. He thought there
should be some advantage back to the City for that privilege.
Commissioner Pruett stated that the issue before the Commission was for the front yard
set back only. When this issue was previously presented, the Commission dealt with the
side yard set backs, and there was significant discussion over the safety issues. He
mentioned that the Fire Department did not have a concern (at that time) with the RV
parking in the side yards, so the side yard issue was dealt with the last time around. He
said ifthere was a strong concern about safety, the side yard set back could be looked at
again, and set more stringent standards for the side yard set backs. He did not think the
RV owners and the Fire Department would necessarily agree that this needed to be
revisited. But, this could happen ifthere was a strong opinion on the part ofthe public
that this needs to be addressed again.
Chair Bonina interjected by stating there was a great deal of conversation in the Planning
Commission minutes regarding the 20- foot set back ofthe side yard. He said at the
Planning Commission level, it had been agreed there would be a minimum of a three-foot
set back both on the side and the front yard ifhe recalled. This was changed at the City
Council level, but certainly there was a concern and concurrence at the Planning
Commission level and made the Ordinance appropriate to address this concern.
Commissioner Pruett stated he agreed with this, and if Council feels it needs to be
revisited, then they could direct the Commission to do so. He said what Council wanted
the Commission to revisit was the front yard 20 foot set back. He then stated this project
is categorically exempt from the provisions ofCEQA and moved to adopt Resolution No.
PC 46-05 recommend to the City Council approval of the Ordinance Amendment
modifying Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage Standards in residential zones and
also include a recommendation that Staff provide to Council some alternatives in terms of
the visitor's permit. He mentioned ifthere would be a time frame between or how many
permits might be issued within a period oftime so that visitor's permits are not issued on
a weekly basis at the same residence.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Pruett to consider an adjustment to his motion to
allow for a 24-month ramp up period versus the 12 month time period.
Commissioner Pruett stated that he wanted to stay with the 12 month time period.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina
None
Page 12
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED
(3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4029-05 - BAGEL ME RESTAURANT.
A PROPOSAL FOR A COMPLETE REMODEL OF THE EXISTING 1 ST FLOOR
RETAIL TENANT SPACE AT 60 PLAZA SQUARE (HISTORIC NAME:
"PIXLEY NEWSPAPER OFFICE" BUILDING) AS PART OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW RESTAURANT. THIS PROJECT WAS
CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 17, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING. THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
Chair Bonina stated that before Mr. Ryan started, there was a speaker on this Item, and
the Public Hearing was closed, and unless a new item carne up, the Public Hearing would
not be opened again.
Ms. Leslie Roseberry explained to Chair Bonina that the DRC items are not Public
Hearings when they are heard by the DRC. They are simply an item before the DRC, and
this is an item before the Commission, and if they wished to hear additional testimony,
they could do so.
Mr. Dan Ryan, Senior Planner and Project Manager for this Item provided the Staff and
Planning Commission Recommendations from the October 17, 2005 meeting. He
mentioned that per the request of the Planning Commission, the building owner removed
the Tl-II siding, and discovered the original glass transom was in perfect condition with
not a broken piece of glass. He also provided a detailed report of what the applicant
intended to do. Staff has recommended the applicant remove the paint on the front
facade because the brick is in good condition. Staff is also recommending that sign
design, the mounting bracket, and the logo be more typically of a historic pattern in terms
of the finishes. Mr. Ryan mentioned there was some discussion with the applicant
regarding a location for the three phase electrical panel. One of the issues was the panel
location and access to the private alley cannot be granted to the owner at this time. He
explained there was difficulty putting power on that side of the building, and they may
have to install it at the rear ofthe building. The problem was the only place they can
install it is where it is at presently which covers one of the windows, and there would be a
problem to put in a fake window. He mentioned there were no other solutions to this
issue, and the applicant would probably want to discuss this.
Commissioner Enderby asked for clarification of where the electrical panel was located.
Mr. Ryan replied the existing electrical panel is at the rear of the building, and is mounted
over one of the windows that was filled in currently. He explained because the applicant
wanted to put in a walk in refrigerator at the rear of the building, and there is a door way
there, the only other place to have it is where the existing window is because they cannot
Page 13
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
get permission to get power over the property line because the property line is at the
alley.
Commissioner Imboden asked if the panel was required to be on the outside of the
building.
Mr. Ryan answered that for a three-phase, it may have to be because the applicant wanted
to upgrade it and it was quite a large panel.
Chair Bonina asked ifthere were any other windows at the wall.
Mr. Ryan stated there was an existing window that would become a door opening for the
walk-in freezer.
Chair Bonina asked if all the windows were essentially eliminated from being used.
Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification because there was no floor plan or
elevations of other sides of the building. He wanted to know how many windows exist,
how many ofthem would be finished with the proposed glass, how many are enclosed,
and so forth.
Mr. Ryan replied that there were four windows along the alley and two windows and a
door at the rear of the building. The window on the northwest corner would be converted
to a door opening with access to a walk in freezer. The existing door to the rear of the
building would remain the sarne, and the window closest to the alley is closed in now that
has an electrical panel over it. They are proposing to enclose and mount a new electrical
panel over that location. He stated there were six windows total with the four along the
alley would have the glazing and finish similar to the other windows.
Chair Bonina asked where the alley was in relation to the elevation shown.
Mr. Ryan explained there was access through the northwest corner ofthe Plaza, and there
was a salvage yard that was open, and on the other side of the building, there was a small
building, and behind that was an alley.
Chair Bonina asked if the front windows in the front elevation will remain and be glazed
as Mr. Ryan described, and he stated yes.
Mr. Barav Karim. 7 Designs Inc.. represented the applicant. He stated one of the two rear
windows, partially shown on the picture, would be used as an entry to the cooler. The
other one is presently used for the electrical panel. The other four windows facing the
alley will be refurbished and add more detail to match the front of the building.
Chair Bonina asked for clarification of the elevation he was looking at in regard to the
windows.
Page 14
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
Mr. Karim explained all the different windows and how they would be changed.
Mr. Steve Shafer. owner. He stated the rear windows being discussed were in a fenced-in
enclosure, and the public has no access and could not see this area. He explained where
the refrigeration and electrical panel were would be out of the sight line to the public
because it would be within the fenced closed in courtyard.
Chair Bonina asked if there was a stairway.
The applicant replied there was a fire stairway for the upstairs tenant.
Chair Bonina asked where the electrical panel would be in relation to the stairway.
The applicant stated that it would be beneath the staircase.
Commissioner Imboden asked the applicant if they had a floor plan that showed the
proposed layout.
Commissioner Pruett asked if the gas meter located on the side of the building would
remain there, and the applicant stated yes.
Commissioner Imboden also stated that the windows as they existed now had a wood
shutter-type closure over them. He asked if the applicant had considered using a shutter
type cover rather than a false window that they were proposing.
The applicant stated that the window would be false whether they used a shutter or a
glazing. Their goal was to match it to the existing front fayade. If there was a feeling
that it had to match the existing shutter, they would do this. He also mentioned the alley
way was very inactive. The applicant's goal was to revitalize the building to its
maximum potential.
Commissioner Imboden asked about the front elevation to the right of the entry door,
there appeared to be a blade sign, but there wasn't a call out for it.
The applicant explained they had called it out on the other site plan, and they were the
sarne.
Commissioner Imboden stated that the way the door swing is shown on the elevation, it
would not meet ADA requirements.
The applicant showed Mr. Imboden a better floor plan that provided a better picture.
Commissioner Imboden stated there was a difference between the floor plan and the
elevation, and it showed a solid wall that was not called out in the elevation.
It was determined that the Commission was looking at old drawings, but Commissioner
Page 15
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
Imboden still was concerned that the way the door was drawn would not meet ADA. The
applicant would have to either reverse the door or change the fayade.
The applicant asked what the regulation was, and he stated that the door was not drawn
correctly. He explained the actual door would have be moved to one side and then it
would be cleared to meet ADA.
Commissioner Imboden asked about the 93 square feet being added to the rear ofthe
structure. He also mentioned the addition of an unspecified arnount to the front of the
structure by moving the fayade forward, and there was an application for sidewalk dining.
He wanted to know about the parking requirements for the additions to these existing
structures because he did not see this in the Staff Report.
Mr. Ryan replied that this policy issue was addressed by the Community Development
Director regarding whether this would trigger parking for the expansion of the building,
and the determination was made that the walk-in freezer was not considered an expansion
of the building even though exterior surface was outside of the building envelope.
Secondly, they did not know whether the original fayade was at the building line so they
were going back to the original area that was established.
Commissioner Imboden asked if the enclosed freezer in a new building or was it sitting
outside.
Mr. Ryan stated it was attached to the rear of the building and is accessed through the
new window door opening, and is under the stairs.
Commissioner Imboden asked what the finish material would be.
The applicant replied it would be a typical corrugated material since it is a portable item,
they were not planning to finish it up.
Commissioner Pruett mentioned that the material type was in the original packet.
Commissioner Imboden was confused about the new opening in the building to access
the freezer. He asked if the freezer would be accessed through the new opening, and the
applicant stated yes.
The applicant explained that the freezer was in the courtyard secluded by a fence, and is
not in an area where it can be seen from a public view. He further stated the freezer was
made specifically for restaurant use.
Chair Bonina asked if any progress was made on the clean up of the conduit and the
electrical.
Mr. Ryan replied that the applicant had agreed to remove the wood ledger on the back,
and to remove the old conduit and piping no longer used, and to clean up any unused
Page 16
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
electrical.
Chair Bonina asked about the electrical panel and the non-access of it.
Mr. Ryan answered that this was another property, and the owner of the property would
not grant the applicant permission to either install utilities or install a panel on that wall.
The applicant asked the Commission if they could make the other property owner allow
access to this part of the building because the applicant wanted them to grant an easement
to bring a new power line underground, and clean up the alley. They had hoped the other
property would allow them to dig a trench under their alley, and they would repave it.
Commissioner Pruett asked if it was a public alley.
Mr. Ryan answered it was not a public alley, and there were no easements to be found.
Commissioner Imboden suggested that the applicant check into whether there's a
potential for prescriptive easement as long as the structure has been there, but this was
outside of what the Commission was looking at today. Mr. Imboden asked about the
material and color pallet be submitted, and he wondered ifthere was anything that
showed the colors to be used.
Mr. Mike Shafer. co-owner. He stated the front ofthe building was painted about three
years ago. He said they had received a three-color suggestion at the time from the City,
and they wanted to leave it that way.
Commissioner Pruett asked if the those colors were from the color chart, and wanted to
make sure colors passed arnong the Commissioners represented the color they wanted to
keep, and Mr. Shafer answered yes.
Commissioner Imboden stated this would be a Condition as part of the Approval. He
thought it was Condition No.8, restore the original masonry condition of the exterior
brick by removing paint from the existing front fayade using an approved method.
Jeff Frankel. OTPA. He stated they were pleased to see the TI-II siding was removed to
reveal the original transom windows. He assumed the proposed color palette would be
with the paint removed.
Chair Bonina asked for clarification on the brick color. He asked if what was showing in
the photos were the existing conditions, and the applicant answered yes.
Mr. Frankel asked if the intent was to remove the paint, and if there was any re-pointing
necessary, would this be done, and the applicant stated yes. He stated they were opposed
to filling any window openings with brick in case there was some future use change. He
stated the OTPA thought this was a good project, and was compatible with the historic
Plaza storefronts.
Page 17
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7,2005
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Frankel for an opinion on the canopy, and the lighting.
Mr. Frankel said he thought it was good that the canopy had been scaled back, and they
were opposed to any lighting. They did not believe this was appropriate for the Plaza
district.
Commissioner Enderby asked if any of the windows were being filled with brick, and it
was stated that one of the windows would be for purposes ofthe electrical panel.
Commissioner Imboden stated in his opinion that he preferred the windows with the
shutter type look than the other type of "fake" windows. In fact, he wanted to look at the
possibility of doing this with the window that has the electrical panel also. He thought it
would be easier to maintain also. This would only be for the windows in the back
The applicant agreed with this suggestion.
Commissioner Imboden wanted to state for the record, that these Minutes be forwarded to
the City Council by the Chair. He personally thought the Commission was at a great
disadvantage of not having these projects reviewed by the Design Review Committee,
and there was a situation that needs to be addressed. He stated there is a system in place
to assure proper review of these projects, and he did not think this was happening. He
wanted to forward this message to the Council again. Mr. Imboden thanked the property
owner for the removal of the Tl-ll and exposing what was left ofthe historical fayade.
He thought it looked much better, and thanked Mr. Ryan for proposing that this be done.
He mentioned that a Condition would have to be removed ifthe Commission is ok with
building be left as painted. He explained that typically a preservationist approach and
Secretary of Interior Standards, when there is a masonry painted surface, unless there are
significant issues, it should be left painted. He further stated that removing the paint my
incur further damage to the building than simply leaving it in place. He was comfortable
leaving the fayade as painted and removed Condition NO.8.
Commissioner Bilodeau mentioned for future applicants, it would be nice if the
Commission knew up front what the outdoor seating plan is that the applicant was
seeking so it is all in one package as he understands it will be sought as a separate permit
from the City.
Ms. Roseberry explained that the outdoor seating permits do not go through the Planning
Commission. She said it was at a Stafflevel, and was an encroachment permit through
Public Works and the Planning Department keeps track of those and the payments to the
City, etc. but it would not be a part of the Commission or DRC approval.
Chair Bonina echoed the concern of Commissioner Imboden regarding the DRC. He said
this issue needed to be addressed since the Commission has been put in the position to
continue to look at these types of proj ects, and frankly he did not believe all the
Commissioners were equipped to address these issues. He hoped these comments would
Page 18
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
generate some further interest in a full DRC board.
Commissioner Imboden moved the Commission approve DRC 4029-05, Bagel Me
Restaurant for a complete fayade remodel of the existing first floor retail tenant space
located at 60 Plaza Square for the development of a new restaurant. This proj ect is
categorically exempt from the provisions ofCEQA with two notations. Condition No.8,
restoring the original masonry condition of the exterior brick, be removed, and that the
applicant be allowed to maintain the existing paint pallet currently on the building as long
as it's currently approved Plaza pallet, and also Condition No.4, the infill windows as
addressed in Condition NO.4 be replaced with a wood panel shutter type design matching
what exists at this time.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion, and provided clarification to the infill
windows specified in the Plan to include the rear window with the electrical panel
installed on it.
Commissioner Imboden added one more Condition; the rear door that has not been
presented to the Commission should be presented to Staff for approval.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
NEW HEARING:
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2553-05- SUN BURRITO, SAMUEL
PARK. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN ABC, TYPE 41 LICENSE AT 1419 N.
TUSTIN STREET, SUITE A.
Ms. Leslie Roseberry provided the reading of the Staff Report. She mentioned there was
a representative from the Police Department in case the Commission had any questions.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if there was currently a beer and wine permit at the
restaurant, and Staff replied no.
Chair Bonina opened up the Public Hearing.
Sarnuel Park. owner. He explained when he took over this business about two years ago,
he lost a lot of money. He made some improvements to the menu, and that his customers
had asked for beer and wine coolers. He did not want to lose the loyal customers he had.
Commissioner Pruett asked the applicant about the patio dining area on the drawing
submitted.
Page 19
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
The applicant stated there was room for about 20 people to sit.
Commissioner Pruett asked ifthe parking area was there before.
The applicant stated it was next to the parking area.
Ms. Roseberry mentioned the patio area was depicted in one of the sets of photographs.
Commissioner Pruett asked Staff if this type of license had been provided previously to a
fast food type of business.
Ms. Roseberry replied yes. She mentioned Rubio's located at the Village in Orange. She
explained that the beer or wine must not be taken off the premises or in the patio area.
She also mentioned Daphne's as being similar as well as Chipotle.
Commissioner Pruett asked if these establishments were monitored, and Ms. Roseberry
stated yes.
Chair Bonina asked if the container at Rubio's was a glass or a bottle that could easily be
taken off the premises. He asked the applicant ifhe would be serving a glass or in a
bottle.
Mr. Park replied he would be serving bottles only.
Commissioner Pruett asked how the applicant would be sure that customers would not
walk off with the bottle of alcohol.
Mr. Park answered that he had a carnera at the entrance as well as post signs that the
alcohol could not be taken off the premises.
Mr. Rob Miller. Orange Police Department.
Commissioner Pruett asked ifthe Alcohol Management Plan, the applicant submits to the
City included how they would manage making certain the alcohol does not leave the
premIses.
Sergeant Miller explained that in most of the AMPs, there is a portion of what the
staffing will be, and generally speaking if the size of the eating area is X, then it would be
expected for there to sufficient staff to cover this area. He said at this particular situation,
there was a counter that provided clear coverage at the front door.
Commissioner Pruett clarified that the alcohol control was managed through the AMP,
and Sergeant Miller replied yes.
Commissioner Imboden wanted it clarified that wine would only be sold by the bottle.
Page 20
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
The applicant stated he would not carry wine at this time.
Sergeant Miller said that many of the businesses sell wine coolers that come by the bottle.
Ms. Roseberry explained that the ABC applies to both beer and wine. It is up to the
applicant and if they want to focus on the beer or the wine or both items. She also said
she had seen it sold in tiny bottles that were considered to be one serving so this may be
an option that the applicant is looking at.
The applicant stated he would be selling beer and wine coolers.
Commissioner Pruett stated that in terms of how it is served can be addressed in the AMP
to better manage the sale and use of the alcohol.
Commissioner Imboden stated this is where his initial question carne from. He stated if
the management plan isn't in sync with what the police would like to see, then this
needed to be addressed.
Chair Bonina mentioned the existence of two entrances/exits. He asked Sergeant Miller
ifhe was confident that the alcohol could be monitored well.
Sergeant Miller replied yes, that he had been in the applicant's establishment and he felt
they would be able to keep an eye on this issue.
Commissioner Imboden asked about the banner type signs shown in the photos. He
asked the applicant ifhe planned to do any additional banners in association with the new
permit.
Ms. Roseberry stated that they could not advertise the beer and wine outside. As an
aside, the City does have restrictions on banners. She said they would work with the
applicant to make sure the banner signage met code.
Mr. Park asked ifhe could put a beer sign up.
Chair Bonina stated he did not believe so.
Ms. Roseberry read Condition No. 21 in the Resolution, which states this could not be
done.
Mr. Park stated there were many other restaurants that had these types of signs.
Ms. Roseberry stated it was likely there were restaurants that were out of compliance and
some of them may be within the Code Enforcement actions at this time.
Commissioner Pruett then stated he would like to add a Condition that the applicant
Page 21
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2005
would cease the sale of alcohol one hour before closing.
Chair Bonina asked if the applicant clearly understood this, and he answered yes.
Commissioner Pruett stated this project was categorically exempt from CEQA, and he
made a motion to move approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2553-05 which is a
proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for
Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license for an existing restaurant and make finding of
Public Convenience or Necessity. This included Resolution 50-05 and added to this is a
Condition that the sale of alcoholic beverages will cease one hour before closing.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bilodeau noticed No. 10 ofthe Memorandum from Sergeant Miller
addressed the hours of alcohol, and should be over ridden.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting to the next meeting on Monday, November
21,2005.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 22