2003 - September 15
APPROVED
MINUTES
September 15,2003
Monday -7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
Jim Reichert, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-0005, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NO. 2003-0002 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5-CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY), ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-0003 (SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO.1 - SANTA FE DEPOT), ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NO. 2003-0004 (DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SOUTHWEST
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), ZONE CHANGE NO. 1223-03, AND
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1717-03 - CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 would add parcels totaling approximately 17.12
acres to the existing 40.35-acre project area to accommodate future University expansion
efforts, including the School of Film and Television, the Dance Center, and other uses.
Amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulations Elements, the Chapman
University Specific Plan, the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, and the Design Standards for the
Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and a Zone Change are proposed
to reflect the addition of these properties to the Specific Plan area. The amendment to the
Chapman University Specific Plan also proposes to update development and signage standards,
add historic preservation and edge/interface standards, add Secretary of the Interior standards
for rehabilitation, and identify and Area of Interest immediately adjacent to the campus which
may have a future relationship with the University.
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 1717-03 has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State
CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR process. The Planning Commission's review of
the EIR will include demolition of existing improvements on the "Anaconda"
properties on the south side of Palm A venue between the AT &SF railroad tracts and
Lemon Streets and the reconstruction of the site for the School of Film and Television,
other related uses on various sites throughout the campus, and consideration of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue this item to a Special Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, September
22, 2003 per staff's request.
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this
item to the September 22, 2003 meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
AUGUST 18, 2003 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 3, 2003) AND AUGUST
25, 2003.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to continue approval of
the minutes of the August 18, 2003 and August 25, 2003 meetings to the September 22, 2003
meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2460-03 - BOMBAY NIGHTS, INC.
A proposal to allow the sale of alcoholic beverage (ABC License Type 41) - On-Site Sale of
Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) in conjunction with a restaurant that provides
entertainment (disc jockey, belly dancers and/or cultural programs), make a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity at 1840 North Tustin Street, Suite C.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class 1 -
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. PC 36-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2460-03 and make a
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity.
There was no opposition to this item. Jim Reichert introduced the item.
Mario Chavez-Marquez, Assistant Planner, made the staff presentation that outlined the project.
He indicated staff was supporting the Type 41 alcohol license but not supporting the
entertainment venue, which would include a disc jockey, belly dancers and cultural programs.
2
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
Commissioner Smith cited a typographical error on Page 3 of the revised draft resolution on
Condition 3 which reads 11:03 a.m. Mr. Marquez-Chavez indicated it should read 11:30 a.m.
She also stated that over the last several years they have been trying to have a standardized set of
conditions for ABC licenses and one condition that has not been included is the hours of
operation so it doesn't limit the vendor and it is covered by Condition No.7, which states that
sales and service of alcohol should not start before 11 :00 a.m. and shall cease at least one hour
before closing. She would like to see consistency and have Condition No.3 omitted. Also there
is an error on Condition No.8 in which the first word should be "there" and not "the".
Commissioner Smith was curious why Condition No. 13 has been included to omit the live
entertainment and belly dancing. Sergeant Tom Kisela, Orange Police Department, indicated
that this particular location is inside a high crime area. The Police Department will support the
alcohol license but once there is live entertainment, the whole aspect of the business is changed
negatively. He stated that Darya was the previous occupants of the restaurant.
Commissioner Bonina asked Sergeant Kisela when crime is considered in the area does he also
look at the traffic flow in an area and does he also look at a broader area in terms of flow of
traffic? Sergeant Kisela stated that they look at the individual reporting district that it is in and
in addition they look at the surrounding area because some of the reporting districts they base
their crime statistics on abut each other and the review is encompassing of a larger area.
Commissioner Brandman asked how long a restaurant has to be opened or could they just get
prepared to open to apply for an ABC license. Sergeant Kisela indicated when a restaurant
opens, they can apply for an ABC license. She also wanted to know how Orange compares to
other cities as to the restaurants asking and being issued licenses to serve alcohol. Is the City of
Orange getting more of its share of small restaurants because they grant those licenses or is the
City up to par with other cities such as Anaheim, Irvine and Tustin? Sergeant Kisela did not
have this information. She understood that the sale of these products add to the tax base but in
this case, would the belly dancing be allowed if there was no liquor being served. Is the request
for liquors of all kind? She would be more apt to support an application for that particular type
of liquor that goes along with the ethnicity of the restaurant.
Chair Pruett asked the City Attorney if the ABC licenses differentiate based upon the nationality
of different wines and liquors by license. Mr. Sheatz replied no, not to his knowledge.
What Commissioner Brandman was trying to say is she would so much more like to see the
belly dancing and the authenticity of the ethnicity of the restaurant but she guesses that the line
has to be drawn somewhere. Sergeant Kisela stated that anytime you have alcohol of any kind,
it's a mind-altering thing and provocatively dressed women is a danger sign. Does this now go
from a restaurant offering alcohol and belly dancing to a place to go watch belly dancers and
have a drink?
Chair Pruett stated that the important issue is that this conditional use permit goes with the land
so if they are approving live entertainment, then they may be approving other types of dancing in
the future. A good example of this is when a church was approved for a church dance group and
that evolved into a place that was no longer a church group but it was a dance hall. It was very
difficult to revoke that conditional use permit after there were some unfavorable things
occurring. So the Commission is approving a use and it is not necessarily for this particular
applicant as it is for future applicants.
Commissioner Brandman was concerned about the continual issuing of ABC licenses and she
thinks it's a shame that the amount of money being made by a restaurant or a facility is greatly
enhanced by the sale of liquor. If the applicant was coming forward just for the dancing and not
3
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
the liquor, anyone who bought that property would know that was what was approved and they
would have to come back anyway to get a change and if they came back for the liquor then the
dancing could be rescinded.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know how amplified noise was defined. Mr. Chavez-Marquez
stated it has to do with the live entertainment issue and the use of a DJ, a live band or a live
person. Soft music in the background would be allowed.
Mr. Sunil Vii. 1840 N. Tustin Street. Orange, owner of Bombay Nights. He stated the restaurant
is not a nightclub. They simply have weekend entertainment, which includes belly dancers for
fifteen minutes at a time and it's family entertainment. They will be serving beer and wine and
no hard liquor. They don't have DJs of any kind. A private party may have their own music.
Chair Pruett stated this condition of no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing is
something seen on other conditional use permits for this type of use. He knows of situations
where the Commission has denied the live entertainment and have indicated that one or two
musicians with non-amplified instruments could perform. The issue is bringing in a large
amplified band and a problem could arise with the occupants that come in after Bombay Nights.
He stated that sometimes restaurants change their use over time.
Commissioner Smith thought Condition No. 13, which states there shall be no live
entertainment, amplified music or dancing, a distinction needed to be made ifit's the customers
who are dancing or if it's dancing entertainers. There needs to be a clarification of what kinds of
dancing it is - by customers, entertainer or both. She asked Mr. Vij if they could condition in
that he could have periodic dancers for a period of time no longer than 15 minutes maybe twice
on a weekend evening, would that help him? Mr. Vi} replied yes.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the applicant assumed the conditional use permit from the
previous owner, Darya. Mr. Vi} indicated it had expired.
Mr. Vij had a question on Condition No. 18 which states the windows of the premises shall not
be tinted or covered in a way which obstructs a clear view of the interior of the premises from
the exterior. He explained that his windows are from the ground up and cars lights at night shine
into the restaurant. He wanted to put something on the windows three feet high that would block
the headlights. Chair Pruett felt it may be permitted under that condition because there would
still be a clear view into the restaurant. Mr.Vij asked about Condition No. 14 in which there is
to be no advertising of alcohol in the window, and he wanted to know why Yang Ming's has a
beer sign displayed in their window. Chair Pruett said others may be misusing their conditional
use permits and it may be something that needs to be investigated.
The public hearing was opened.
There was no opposition to this project.
Barbara DeBoom. 439 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange Chamber of Commerce director, was in
favor of both the beer and wine license as well as the live entertainment which would include the
weekend evening belly dancing at IS-minute intervals.
. The public hearing was closed.
Chair Pruett wanted to know on Condition No. 18 if it would be a violation to allow the
applicant to cover the windows three feet from the ground. Sergeant Kisela indicated there
would not be a problem with it since it still allows a clear view into the restaurant.
4
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
Commissioner Brandman wanted to know if the applicant could be allowed to extend the two
IS-minute intervals on Friday and Saturday nights to maybe on the night of a private party. Mr.
Chavez-Marquez indicated this conditional use permit does not include private parties or
banquets since it requires a different conditional use permit. Banquet facilities require a
different parking count.
Commissioner Bonina verified that the parking requirement was based on a restaurant use.
Chair Pruett asked staff to address Condition No. 13, the live entertainment, amplified music and
particularly the dancing, in which dancing by employees would come under live entertainment.
Mr. Chavez-Marquez stated Condition No. 13 does relate to the public in general coming up and
dancing.
Commissioner Smith stated that Condition No. 26 doesn't permit dancing on the premise at any
time and maybe adding customer dancing is not permitted any time would cover that part.
Commissioner Brandman asked if the Chamber of Commerce would be allowed to meet at the
restaurant. Mr. Chavez-Marquez said it would be allowed.
Commissioner Smith stated that according to Condition No. 26 promo events are allowed but it
does not include a banquet.
Commissioner Bonina asked how belly dancing on Fridays and Saturdays for 15 minutes
intervals would be regulated or policed. Sergeant Kisela stated that's the problem because how
are they going to enforce it.
Commissioner Smith commented that it is wonderful to see several Indian restaurants as well as
other ethnic restaurants in Orange. She suggested that Condition No. 3 be omitted, Condition
No. 7 should address the serving of alcohol between 11 :00 a.m. and one hour before closing,
Condition No. 13 could have a condition that says there shall be no amplified music and live
entertainment shall be limited to two fifteen minute segments on weekend nights only and she
would be comfortable with that in the context of a family restaurant offering cultural addition to
the meal. If necessary, for the satisfaction of the police department, the permit could be
reviewed after six months and one year. She would like to support the applicant's request to
shade the window from 36" to 42" to keep the headlight glare from going into the restaurant.
Condition No. 26 does cover the issue that dancing is not permitted on the premise at any time
and the live entertainment be limited and subject to review. She would like to see this
application approved.
Commissioner Brandman asked, for the benefit of the police, if it would helpful if the applicant
were to assign certain times when the entertainment would occur, for instance from 8:00-8:15
p.m. and 9:00-9: 15 p.m.. Commissioner Smith said it wouldn't help her because there has to be
a certain element of trust with the individuals that run the businesses in Orange and it's too
limiting. She felt that if the CUP was reviewed in six months and again at one year, that offers
an opportunity for the public to call the police with their complaints.
Commissioner Brandman, for the record, agreed it should be reviewed so that PD is supported
and well served and the applicants gets to have what he needs for a successful business.
Commissioner Bonina was not sure ifhaving dancers at a restaurant is the determining factor of
having a successful business or not. He does think the many times they have alcohol license
applications they question the issues and where the police department falls on the issue. He felt
5
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15, 2003
it would be imprudent of the Commission to allow the dancing when the Police Department is
opposed to it. He would not be in support of the resolution with the 15 minutes intervals.
Chair Pruett was not that concerned with the number of licenses the Commission approves
because it's the nature of that corridor along Tustin Street. It's a large business corridor and
there are a lot of restaurants and they are serving what their clients would like to have so from
that standpoint, this was an accepted use. The issue of live entertainment was one that they
always struggle with and under normal circumstances he would not be supportive of the live
entertainment but he understands the cultural aspects of the atmosphere they are trying to create
in the restaurant and that was a valuable issue. He would not have a problem with allowing
belly dancing at IS-minute intervals twice on Friday and Saturday. The tinting of the windows
three feet up isn't a problem and omitting Condition No.3 is fine.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt Resolution
No. PC 36-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2460-03 noting that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of CEQA including all the conditions listed in the draft resolution
with the following exceptions: omit Condition No.3, correct typo on first word of Condition 8-
instead of "the" it should be "there", Condition No. 13 be revised to say "there shall be no
amplified music, and live entertainment, such as belly dancing, shall be limited to two separate
15 minutes segments at least one hour apart between the hours of 7:00-9:00 p.m. on Friday and
Saturday evenings only", leave Condition No. 18 the way it is and the findings as listed in
Condition No.2 on the draft resolution would state "At six months and one year after the
commencement of the sale of alcohol beverage, the Police Department shall review. . ."
Commissioner Brandman stated she would be comfortable having the belly dancing earlier in the
evening. For the record, she would have preferred to have and she would see no reason why
they can't ask the proprietor to have dancing during certain times, that way people coming for
dinner know that while they are there during those times, the dancing will occur.
Commissioner Pruett preferred that the times the belly dancing occurred be left up to the
applicant.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know if the two 15 minute intervals of dancing could be
combined. Commissioner Smith would like to see that they not run together.
Chair Pruett explained that they are trying to give the applicant the opportunity to create a
cultural experience and that would be taken away by saying it would be done during certain
times.
Commissioner Smith wanted to withdraw the segment on the live entertainment and dancing
because it's turning into a much bigger issue than it should be and the applicant's primary goal is
to serve alcohol.
Commissioner Brandman was only asking that they require the applicant to have the live
entertainment before 10:00 p.m. at night, when people are more clear headed and still eating
dinner.
Chair Pruett felt the applicant should be allowed to manage their business and he doesn't know
who Commissioner Brandman is trying to protect.
6
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
Commissioner Brandman stated she is trying to act with all due care and take into consideration
what the Police Department has said and still follow the spirit of what Commissioner Smith had
required. She's just trying to put some controls on this and because they are not able to do that,
the applicant will not be able to have his entertainment for two 15 minute periods.
Commissioner Bonina felt the hesitancy by Commissioner Brandman was due to the fact that
they have allowed the restaurant without any parameters on business hours and her concerns
might be that if they allow the 15 minutes segments to happen at 1 :00 in the morning, that would
be a problem understanding that this is a family restaurant. It is a time restriction and there is a
restriction to serving of alcohol.
What bothers Chair Pruett is that they are saying they know more about this man's business than
he does. He felt Condition No. 13 should be omitted.
If Commissioner Smith was to revise Condition No. 13, it would state that "there shall be no
amplified music, and live entertainment, such as belly dancing, shall be limited to two separate
15 minutes segments at least one hour apart between the hours of7:00-9:00 p.m.".
Commissioner Pruett would like to see it limited to the when the police force is strongest on the
street.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Smith
Commissioner Bonina, Pruett
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The item did not pass and another motion was made.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adopt Resolution No.
PC 36-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2460-03 03 noting that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of CEQA with all the conditions listed in the draft resolution with
the following changes: Condition No. 2 would state "At six months and one year after the
commencement of the sale of alcohol beverage, the Police Department shall review", omitting
Condition No.3, typo on first word of Condition 8 - instead of "the" it should be "there",
Condition No. 13 and No. 18 would be left as stated in the draft resolution.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Pruett stated that the applicant could appeal this decision to the City Council.
Mr. Reichert explained that the applicant has 15 calendar days to appeal this action and the
appeal is to be made in written form to the Community Development Department with a
$1,000.00 deposit.
4. VARIANCE NO. 2121-03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 268-03 AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1715-03 - THE JENSEN BUILDING
A proposal to construct a new 2-story, 15,293 sq. ft office/retail building within Old Towne on a
portion of a lot that is currently developed with the 11,200 sq. ft. "Antique Station" building
7
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15, 2003
(formerly "Satellite Market"), a parking lot, and an open-air retail "farmers' market" on
Thursdays. The property is located on the northwest corner of Glassell Street and Almond
Avenue (143 West Almond Avenue).
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1715-03 has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-03 approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1715-03
and its associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, Variance No. 2121-03, Major Site
Plan Review No. 268-03.
Since there was opposition to this project, a full reading of the staff report was required.
Mario Chavez-Marquez, Assistant Planner, made the staff presentation that outlined the project.
The project would require 106 parking spaces and the applicant is proposing to provide 84
additional parking spaces which would be 22 spaces short of the requirement. The applicant
would get credit for five new public parking spaces which would be created in the City lot and
the applicant would buy 17 parking spaces at $2100 each. Part of the initial study included a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and during the review period two comments were received. The
first one was a resident who was asking why additional housing was not a part of this project and
the other concerned an easement issue. The Variance requests include placing a taller building
adjacent to a smaller building, smaller planter sizes along Almond Avenue and Olive Street,
fewer landscaping trees, reducing 10% of the required landscape within the parking lot and
fewer trash enclosures on the site. Because of the current easement issue, the Commission was
provided a revised resolution.
Dan Jensen, 178 S. GlasselL Orange, applicant and property owner. In 1998, the Farmers
Market on the property was approved and a vacant furniture store was revitalized in 1999. All
that's been created on South Glassell has all been positive. It is his intention to create an
environment on this site which will be conducive to a variety of retail and office needs. The
project has overall support of the community.
Susan Secoy, 112 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite B, architect for the project. She gave a
PowerPoint presentation on the background of the project, the project highlights and project
phasing in which a parking structure in the future could be accommodated. The inspiration for
the building has been a reference to Frank Lloyd Wright. The first floor of the proposed
building could include up to four retail spaces and the second floor can include up to seven
office spaces. She also discussed the compatibility of the project, the standards to constructions
of infill buildings in Old Towne, retaining scale of components, the courtyard alley, canopy
reference, core district edge, use of similar massing and the use of compatible materials. The
proposed height of the building is 30 feet. They have tried to be as sympathetic with this new
building to keep it somewhat understated but elegant and not to overshadow the rest of the
district. The landscape plan has been designed and reviewed by with the SRC and DRC and this
is the final concept.
Mr. Jensen explained that one of the variances is for the tree requirement and he has done a
parking lot tree survey on various City parking lots and he found that what they are proposing
has more trees than the average City parking lot. For a long time, he has provided a significant
amount of parking to the downtown community. They currently have 95 parking spaces and
code requires only half of that. The code does allow them to purchase additional parking spaces
8
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
since they can't meet the requirement. Nine additional public parking spaces will be created that
don't exist today. Most of the loss of parking spaces is a result of the easement issue.
Chair Pruett stated that the variances, as he understands it, is not just the trees but also the
planters in the parking area and the number of enclosed trash bins and he wanted to know how
these were being addressed. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that the trash enclosures require a
total of six by code and so the applicant is providing a larger trash enclosure to accommodate
four trash bins and there would be more frequent pickups.
Commissioner Bonina mentioned how excited he was about the opportunity to redevelop this
site and done correctly the City would benefit greatly. He needed clarification on the parking
issue. He is told the City currently owns 15 spaces and there is an opportunity here to convert
that parking area to 20 spaces and the applicant is willing to do that. He asked Mr. Chavez-
Marquez to walk him through the parking calculations. Mr. Chavez-Marquez stated the
requirements per the revised site plan call for 106 parking spaces, on site the applicant is
providing 84 parking spaces and he's 22 short. However, because he is redesigning the City lot,
he has been given credit for 5 parking spaces and therefore, he's only short 17 spaces. The
Orange Municipal Code would allow the applicant to purchase up 20 parking spaces and the
applicant is proposing to buy seventeen.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know where the off site parking would be. Mr. Chavez-
Marquez stated that the applicant has created off site parking spaces within the areas of all the
driveways that will be closed as a result of the remodel of the site and that number is not
included in the overall count.
In response to Commissioner Bonina's question on a parking structure at a later date, Ms. Secoy
explained that it's been designed in such as way as to accommodate for the future but it's not a
part of this proposal.
Commissioner Smith stated it's a very nice project and has a lot of different elements to it. She
wanted Mr. Jensen to clarify adding 9 additional spaces at a cost of $100,000. Mr. Jensen
indicated he was referring to the cost of redeveloping the City lot by relocating a power pole as
well as the removal of all of the driveways across from the Senior Center along with all the
landscaping of the whole area. This will allow for additional public parking. She felt this work
would have to be done anyway. In terms of the five City parking spaces, that is a
reconfiguration of the existing space.
Commissioner Smith stated that there couldn't be a parking structure in the downtown area
without a lot of review. Mr. Chavez-Marquez indicated the parking structure would have to be
reviewed at a different time and it hasn't been looked at as part of this project. She also wanted
to know what the required parking was for the Antique Station. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained
that the way it was calculated, it includes both of the buildings. He stated that the parking
calculations are different in the Plaza area.
Commissioner Smith could think of four buildings in Old Towne that have elevators. She
wanted to know if there was a building included in the Design Collaborative's work on this
comer and if it had been referred to at all. Ms. Secoy said yes and it was always intended to
have a building at that corner. Commissioner Smith would like to see how it was thought of by
the Collaborative. She thought the canopies that Ms. Secoy referred to in Old Towne were late
additions and were added in the remodels of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Ms. Secoy said many of
them have been added but Walker Hall is one of the original references. Commissioner Smith
would like to see the canopies in the downtown district go away because they were additions.
She also had a question on the copper canopy because she has never seen a metal canopy in the
9
APPROVED
Planning Commission
September 15,2003
plaza district and she wanted to know the size and height of the proposed canopy. Mr. Jensen
explained that the height of the canopy would be 10 feet. He believes they have a function to
provide protection from the sun as well as an aesthetic component. The proposed canopy on the
Glassell Street side would extend out six feet and four feet on Almond Avenue.
Commissioner Smith wondered if they had calculated how many parking spaces they lost in the
easement issue. Mr. Jensen stated the total lost was six spaces. She felt that that should be
factored into what they are short and there is the potential that at some point that could be
regained.
Commissioner Smith was struggling with adding such a large building and decreasing the trash
enclosures because it seems they would be creating more trash. Mr. Jensen indicated that they
have the option of having the four trash bins picked up six days a week and that should be more
than sufficient for the four trash bins.
Commissioner Smith had questions on the trees and decreased landscaping. She's impressed
with Mr. Jensen's study of the other parking lots but it must be mentioned that the Bank of
America parking lot is slated to be used for the Main Branch Library. This project site over the
past years has really been missing vegetation and particular attention must be paid to the code.
She wanted to know if the Commission decreased the amount of trash enclosures, let him get by
with less landscaping and less trees, what would the City get back in return? Mr. Jensen stated
that this project is an overall enhancement to that entire area and he can assure that they have
placed as many trees as they possibly can and increased the size of the trees to help mitigate the
shortfall of the number of trees. Commissioner Smith felt that if a new building came in, it
would have to carry its weight with the parking because the area is so parking space poor down
in the plaza district. The staff report also indicated that there are not the required number of
racks for parking motorcycles and bicycles. Mr. Chavez-Marquez stated that it's true currently
but with this proposal they would be providing additional bicycle racks and motorcycle parking
and this would meet the number required.
Commissioner Brandman would also like to see the design worked on by the Design
Collaborative. It's her opinion that because this faces Glassell, sideways, this entrance into Old
Towne from the freeway is the most important entrance of all the four that come into the Plaza
and she thinks it behooves the applicant to make a statement and it sounds like that's what he
wants to do. She asked how many members were on the DRC when they made their decision.
Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that currently there are three members on the Design Review
Committee, two of which were within the 500' radius. Mr. Reichertfurther explained that there
were four members, however, two of the members needed to conflict out because the location of
their businesses were within 500' of the site. That left two committee members and they then
drew straws to have one of the conflicted members sit in the meeting for purposes of making a
quorum but he could not discuss the action or vote on it. Commissioner Brandman was
concerned and she'd like to know how many Frank Lloyd Wright buildings there are in Orange
and Old Towne. She's having a hard time seeing the relationship between this building and
some of the other things on the site. She's concerned that it would look out of place and she
doesn't see the sisterhood with some other buildings. Mr. Chavez-Marquez said there are no
Frank Lloyd Wright buildings that he is aware of in Old Towne. The prairie style has only been
dealt with on residential homes and this is a commercial office. The only new building in the
last five years in Old Towne has been the Courtyard.
Commissioner Brandman is very concerned about how the building looks and she's just not
comfortable even though it's beautiful with it being right there in the middle of Old Towne.
10
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
Chair Pruett had a couple of questions on the easement. The letter from Westhill Management
Company has indicated that a twenty-five foot width is called for by code but the easement that
is shown is ten foot. Mr. Sheatz explained that the management company has an easement for
ten feet and that's all he's legally entitled to. Chair Pruett noted that the Friedmann building is
the building to the north and this easement is south of the Friedmann building so what the
Westhill Management Company is doing, is limiting there ingress and egress to their property
through this ten foot easement. They could be restricted from entering their property through the
parking lot other than through that ten-foot easement.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know if OTP A reviewed this project. Mr. Chavez-Marquez
indicated they did attend the DRC meetings and they voiced support for the project. OTP A
would not necessarily comment on the project. Mr. Reichert stated it's not a body that is
recognized by the City as a body that makes recommendations. Mr. Chavez-Marquez also
wanted to clarifY that three feet of the proposed landscape plan would be within the City's
public-right-away and two feet would be within the property owner's land. The applicant will
be responsible for watering those through an encroachment agreement with Public Works.
Commissioner Bonina also wanted to know if the City lot is currently being used exclusively by
one of the buildings. Mr. Chavez-Marquez stated it's for public use only and Mr. Hohnbaum
added that the parking lot has some time limits (2 hours) except for permits that could be
purchased. Commissioner Bonina asked if full size parking spaces were being eliminated and
would there be compact spaces. Mr. Hohnbaum indicated that there are handicapped spaces but
in the public lot he believes they are all normal size parking spaces.
The one notation that is very difficult for Commissioner Bonina to accept at this point is the
notion of buying off parking spaces because it's in an area severely deficient in parking. He
wanted to know other projects that have gone through the process of buying parking spaces and
what that fund is being used for today. Mr. Chavez-Marquez said the only other project that he
is aware of is the Courtyard. The money is used to buy other properties to create more public
parking spaces. Chair Pruett added there was a parking study done that found there was
adequate parking downtown and at one point there was discussion of putting meters in.
Commissioner Brandman thought it would be helpful if she knew what OTPA's stance on this
project was and were they notified. She doesn't agree that there is adequate parking in Old
Towne. She thinks it's very important that there is ample parking, bought or not bought. She'd
like to know who has the fund, how much money is in it, can it be used and where are they going
to buy the land for the parking. Chair Pruett felt the fund for parking is under the jurisdiction of
the City Council and not the Planning Commission and it's not relative to the decision before
them tonight.
Mr. Chavez-Marquez stated that OTP A did attend the DRC meetings and they did mention their
support for the project. The applicant has been notifying the local merchants and they have
submitted letters at the DRC meetings.
Commissioner Smith stated that the in-lieu parking fund was originally established to help with
a parking structure and also it was some smaller businesses that wanted to change to restaurant
use from merchant use which required more parking.
The public hearing was opened.
Those in opposition of the proiect:
11
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
Michael Yon Volkom, Westhill Management Company, 250 26th Street, Suite 200, Santa
Monica. He explained that the easement is almost 80 years old in various forms. His company
has owned the two buildings since 1990. In the late 1990's, Mr. Jensen blocked the easement
with a chain. They received just a few days ago a notice of this hearing and the plans did not
show the easement. The only plan showing where the easement actually is was dated 9/11/03.
There are two key phrases in the legal settlement, one is egress and ingress through that
easement and two, usable vehicular access. They have concerns that their easement has safe
vehicular access.
Jason Walters, 122 W. Almond Avenue. In general he is in support of the project, however, his
building is a four-unit apartment building and there is only one on-site parking space so the
missing 17 spaces does concern him because it makes it more difficult for his tenants and
himself to find parking.
John Baker. 1051 Arbor Way. He would be against a parking structure in the downtown area.
Most people come to Old Towne from the freeway and that comer is the focal point of
downtown. He stated that parking downtown is horrendous and he suggested moving the
building on the side by the Senior Center and placing the parking in front of the building.
Kimberly Bottomley, 1005 Arbor Way. She would like to see the old satellite market building
improved. But this proposed building just doesn't seem to fit in. She likes the Farmers Market
because it makes it feel like an old town. It would look nicer if used brick was used and the
parking that's currently there is nice. She would like to see the piece of property improved there
but it just seems too close to the sidewalk.
Those in favor of the project:
Michael Escabedo, 134 S. Glassell. He's in the Friedmann building and he'd like to speak in
favor of the Jensen project. He feels the solution to the easement issue would be to direct the
easement out to the west in a vertical path. An easement is needed to go through the property
but it would be better if it could be L-shaped around through Almond.
Barbara DeBoom, 439 E. Chapman. She is in favor of the project and she felt it was a great
gateway into Old Towne Orange. The Merchant Association is in total favor of the project and
felt it would be an asset to their businesses.
Dennis Caldwell, 201 E. Chapman. He is a board member of the Downtown Orange Business
and Professional Association and they have had a chance to review the project and they are in
support of it. It's not felt that this project will have a negative impact on parking. They are also
very pleased with the aesthetics of the building. He also likes the project from a business
owner's perspective.
Ms. Secoy submitted the final remarks. She wanted to respond to the some of the comments
about the design of the building. They have tried to share the concept of the building with the
community and there is never an absolute right solution for design. She felt they have abided by
every standard and guideline and what determines the style is greatly subjective. She believes
that making reference to some of the most powerful and extraordinary architects in the world is
not a bad place to start.
Chair Pruett asked in referencing these architects, he felt it might be beneficial to speak in terms
of their work and how it fits into what is happening in downtown. Ms. Secoy stated there are
examples of the prairie style in Old Towne Orange and there is such a beautiful transition of
how the domestic architecture flows with the commercial architecture.
12
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 15,2003
Commissioner Smith stated that there is a prairie style building right next to St. Johns Lutheran
Church, which is now the music conservatory. They are not real prevalent in Old Towne. She
was struggling with the building and she doesn't like the glass in the comer of the building. The
downtown area is softer and not glaring, there is very little glass that stands out like that. She
wants to know where Ms. Secoy came up with this idea and why it fits on that comer. Ms. Secoy
stated there are several generations of studies and they have gone through many design studies
and they have shared this from the onset of the project. It is a very clear design and she felt
imitation is not the way to go with the architecture by paying homage to the past but not trying
to imitate the past. True brick would be used and it's a horizontal brick as in nature. There are
wood windows and doors, a concrete base, transparent glass for the store fronts and the corner,
opaque glass above on the transoms and an aged copper canopy.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know about the transition and the remodel of the Antique
Station and she wasn't sure what it means that the applicant will remodel it when a tenant is
found. Mr. Jensen said they used the design guidelines and this is what they have come up with.
The DRC had found this project to be internally consistent with the block. When they first came
up with the corner element and designed the new building, they laid into place what they have
out there now. It is their intention to remodel that building when a suitable building tenant is
located. He has met with a grocery chain who is interested in that location but they need to go
in and develop the corner first, do all the improvements on the west side of the property before
they go in and remodel the Antique Station building. That remodel process would include
relocating the entrances to the Glassell Street side and increasing the parapet height to bring it
in line with the rest of the block. They do have an interest in that building from several different
angles. He realizes he's not going to please everybody.
Commissioner Smith wanted staff to answer, even though this remodel will happen later, why
it's in this plan and there are renderings for the remodel, so she wanted to know if they are
approving this as well. She also stated that she is used to a five member DRC reviewing the
structure and she's concerned with only two people reviewing this building. She asked Mr.
Jensen when he has the new building will he have parking passes. Mr. Jensen indicated that
there is plenty of parking downtown but it's just poorly distributed. He currently sells 20 passes
a month and most of them to the Freedman building tenants. With the new project, additional
public parking spaces will be created. The parking will be for the tenants of his building and no
parking passes will be sold. The strip colors will delineate between his lot and the City lot and
there will be additional signage separating the City parking area from his. The CUP for the
Farmer's Market will go away and he'd like to see it relocated. He suggested the Senior Center
operate the market.
Mr. Sheatz explained the easement issue. He looked at the language in the 1948 easement and
found by way of the settlement agreement that the old language was irrelevant. All the old
easement did was grant the right to pass or travel to and from the property over the south ten feet
of Lot 17 and Block G. The settlement agreement terminated the old easement completely. The
settlement agreement did two things. The first thing was it granted a new easement that looks
almost identical to the old easement and it was for ingress and egress to and from Olive Street
over the southerly ten foot portion of Jensen's property. The egress and ingress doesn't say it's
for vehicular traffic, it could be pedestrian traffic, and it's very specific for it being ten feet wide.
The second thing was it granted a temporary license and that license is the one that was
revocable and is being revoked by way of the September 11 letter from Mr. Miller. That
references the ability by either party to travel over a portion of Jensen's property not less than
ten feet wide which provides usable, vehicular access to Miller's property. At the end of the
license paragraph it states that furthermore neither the existence nor the use of this license shall
create any additional easements or easements other than what is granted above in Section 2 of
13
APPROVED
September 15,2003
Planning Commission
that agreement regardless of the length of time the license is used. This will only leave the
granting of the easement for egress and ingress and it does not state for vehicular traffic and is
very specific over a ten foot portion of Jensen's property.
Commissioner Brandman wanted to know what Mr. Sheatz explained means to the tenants in the
other two buildings. Mr. Sheatz indicated they can use it for egress and ingress purposes from
Olive Street. Commissioner Pruett further explained that the issue is that Mr. Jensen has shown
there is a ten foot easement. Mr. Von V olkom is claiming that the easement may be greater than
ten feet and it's for vehicular egress and ingress but when he revokes the license, he is revoking
the vehicle egress and ingress and any use of land beyond the ten foot easement. He is making
the choice to reduce his rights to egress and ingress and limit it to the ten foot wide easement.
The one building still has the right to use the ten foot easement for egress and ingress and the
Freedman has different egress and ingress rights.
Commissioner Brandman stated she respects the fact that this is the applicant's private property.
She said that everyone who owns a piece of property is required to meet certain rules. If you go
up to the building you see the detail on the windows and the store front and it's so charming and
Old Towne. She doesn't object to the canopy but she is concerned that the roof looks very
modem. In her opinion, she feels it's beautiful but she isn't sure about the comer with the glass.
They've gone to such great lengths to modernize yet still keep the flavor of Old Towne. She's
having difficulty with the roof line and with the glass. The parking is the Commission's
responsibility and anything that is built, redesigned or modified serves the entire community.
There is a need to make certain that they don't further negatively impact the parking in this City.
She needs to have some more time to see what the possibilities are.
Commissioner Smith also stated she needed more time on this project. She's not asking for a
redesign of the building but she would like to see what the Design Collaborative produced for
this comer from both the Almond Avenue and Glassell Street views. Her philosophy is less
might be more on this comer. This is a big building for the block. She doesn't want this
building to be a distraction from the Historic District and she wants to be sure it fits in and it
takes its rightful place on the streetscape. She needs more time to think about that building
being on that comer. She's OK with the roof line and the materials. She doesn't understand
how the remodel process of the Antique Station is tied into this and she needs further
clarification from staff on how that works. There is no indication of what the light fixtures
might look like and she'd like to see some renderings. She does not like to grant one variance on
a project let alone five and she'd like the applicant to come back with another look at meeting
the Commission half way on the code. She feels there should be more trees, more landscape
planters and all the trash enclosures should be included. In the Negative Declaration there are
typos on page 11 and she'd like to have Mario look at the use of the word "resources". On page
20, regarding Variance 2121-03, it doesn't speak to the fact that reductions are being asked in
the number of required trees, reduction in the percentage of required lot landscape, reduction in
the number of required trash enclosures and she'd like that to be clarified. She has a serious
concern that only two people on the Design Review Committee reviewed this building and that's
why she feels it warrants a little more time to let the building sink in with the Commission and
she'd like to hear OTPA's comments on the project. She would like to continue this project.
Commissioner Bonina would like to understand OTPA's perspective on this project. He is
interested in getting the in-lieu fee parking study and the background on that. He'd like to work
through and understand the tree and landscape issue. He liked the architecture of the building as
it draws from the Old Towne area and the glass comer is unique and different. It certainly is a
gateway coming from the freeway and it should be a structure that is inviting and pleasing. He
would have positioned the building a little further back. He'd like to get clarity on the adjacent
14
APPROVED
Planning Commission
September 15, 2003
remodel. If a market did go in, would the parking be adequate. He'd like to see it come back in
the next couple of weeks.
Chair Pruett recognized that OTPA wasn't at this meeting and their input is valuable but he
didn't think they should be withholding action to an applicant because someone has chosen not
to attend a public hearing. He felt this was a good project and it fits well. As far as the design of
the project, he doesn't have serious concerns about it. He does like the idea of looking at the
Design Collaborative proposal for the site. He also wanted to address the easement issue and he
felt the management company didn't understand the original plans that were submitted and it
said the easement wasn't on there. The way he understood the agreement that was entered into
between the two parties it essentially states the parking lot is the easement. By revoking the
agreement, they have taken away all the egress and ingress away from their tenants. He would
hope the Westhill Management Company would reinvestigate that. Parking in Old Towne is
always an issue and concern but he feels there is plenty of parking in the area. The parking
requirements for the Antique Market are in the proposal before them and they are looking at the
square footage of that building under the code. The design of the remodel will have to go back
to the Design Review Committee and that won't be approved now. The only thing he'd like to
see with the continuance of this project is the issue of the Design Collaborative's proposal for
that area and everything else he's pretty comfortable with.
Commissioner Smith would also like to see copies of the minutes of the DRC meetings.
Commissioner Brandman wanted to underscore the need for a continuance of this item.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue this item
to October 20, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
MOTION
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to the
Special Planning Commission meeting on Monday, September 22, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. to a special
study session.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 11 :20 pm.
15