Loading...
2003 - October 20 (! ,If.::) tJ 6- .,/. .d MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange October 20, 2003 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Smith Commissioner Pruett Christopher Carnes, 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City Engineer Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR: None INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: 2. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 171S-03, VARIANCE NO. 2121- 03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 268-03 AND- 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 (formerly "Satellite Market"), a parking lot, and an open-air retail "farmers' market" on Thursdays. The property is located on the northwest comer of Glassell Street and Almond Avenue (143 West Almond Avenue). This item was continued from the September 15, 2003 meeting. 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. Christopher Carnes, Acting Planning Manager, introduced the item. Since there was opposition to the project, a full reading of the staff report was required. Mario Chavez-Marquez, Assistant Planner, went over the additional information provided to the Commission since the last hearing on this project. It included copies of the Design Review Committee staff reports and minutes; in-lieu parking fee; Downtown Plaza Design Parking Study; copy of the Design Collaborative booklet and its elevations; color renderings and possible light fixtures. He discussed the various Variances the Planning Commission had problem with at the last meeting and he provided an update. The applicant is proposing to provide 23 trees, 53 trees less than the requirement. A letter was received from Mr. Lance Miller in which he stated that the 10' easement is not wide enough. The Commissioners had voiced concerns about the leasing of parking spaces and a change will be proposed in which all required parking would be available to all tenants at this location. The landscape planters' size remains the same but it was Planning Commission October 20, 2003 being proposed to add additional landscape planters. The height of the building would be 26', which would be shorter than the Antique Station. The applicant is proposing to have four trash bins and one larger trash enclosure with two pickups weekly by Waste Management. Commission asked about the planters, size of trees, street trees and trash collection. Mr. Chavez- Marquez explained they are asking that some additional landscape fingers be added within the easement. He also explained that the tree deficiency is different from the landscape planter issue and the addition of the 10' planter takes care of the landscape- to-parking ratio. He stated that the applicant is trying to mitigate the required number of trees by increasing the tree sizes from 15 gallon to 24" boxes. The number of required trash enclosures is six and the applicant is proposing to build a larger trash enclosure with four trash bins with two trash pickups a week. This would accommodate both the existing building and the proposed building. With this proposal the requirement would be satisfied. Commissioner Bonina asked if the building is converted to a market, how does that affect parking requirements. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that any use would have the same parking demand. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if there had been any review of the lighting fixture plans. Mr. Chavez-Marquez indicated the applicant has submitted different light fixtures. It is being recommended that the historic preservation planner review the light fIXtures and a photometric study of the parking lot will be requested. Mr. Chavez-Mario explained that on Condition No. 6 staff review is recommending that the applicant relocate the existing entrance of the Antique Station from Almond Avenue to Glassell Street. This is a condition the applicant is not in favor of. Also the applicant would like to continue operating the Farmers Market just before he starts construction on the new building. Mr. Chavez-Mario stated the approval of the project is valid for two years with an option for a one-year extension. Commissioners Smith and Brandman were concerned that there were many conditions which state "prior to doing this" and that details were not yet worked out. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that these have all evolved through the process and they have asked the applicant to make a lot of these a part of the project. They would like to condition them because they haven't gotten to that point yet. Staff wants to see the plans before construction. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained to Commissioner Bonina that prior to the applicant coming in to the building counter, staff would want to know what they are going to do with the entrance to the Antique Station. Commissioner Smith was wondering if the Historic Planner had reviewed this project and she was told yes. Commissioner Brandman, in regards to the final DRC staff report, was confused as to how it stands now - has the DRC approved it. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that the DRC approved it on August 6 and made recommendations to the Planning Commission. The DRC has reviewed the project three times and ultimately two members of the DRC approved the project. Commissioner Bonina confirmed he had received the in-lieu parking fee information he requested. He asked questions regarding the motorcycle and bicycle parking area, whether the 2 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 short-term parking strategies from April 1999 is to be updated periodically and whether it is the right of the applicant to pay the fee. Mr. Hohnbaum gave an explanation of the Downtown Plaza District Parking Study. Ms. Angus confirmed that there is not a mandatory update of the Downtown Parking Study. She explained that as of late, Council has made some changes in terms of both the fee for parking and also the amount of time that someone can park in restricted areas. The Economic Development Department has been looking at a Wayfinding program and the idea is to point people to where the available parking is. The Zoning Code does say that the applicant may request and the Community Development Director may grant in-lieu parking fees. Commissioner Smith questioned the current selling of permits on the lot and the fact that all those people will be displaced. Ms. Angus stated that was never accounted for in the parking study so it may impact them but based upon the parking study, there is enough parking in the Downtown area. Mr. Hohnbaum explained that when the parking study was looking at demand and available parking, it did not take into account this private lot. It applied the demand of the flats and the other buildings that may have been using this to the existing public spaces. Commissioner Brandman stated that there is a need for parking in the adjacent residential areas. She asked if the ten-foot easement issue had been taken care of. Mr. Chavez-Marquez indicated that the applicant has provided a ten-foot easement as stated in the title report. The adjacent property owner would like to have a wider easement to accommodate vehicles. The property owner will have 10' ingress and egress on the easement. The applicant is providing a driveway to accommodate that ten-foot easement along Olive Street. Commissioner Smith, for the record, wanted to know if the applicant was offering any alternative designs for the comer element of the building. She was told the applicant would discuss that issue. Commissioner Bonina wanted to know in the overall site plan, is there a requirement between buildings in terms of separation. Mr. Chavez-Marquez was not aware of the specific building requirements but he understands the Building Official has looked at it and has met with the applicant on the building separation. He also confirmed that there are some outside dining opportunities between the two buildings and that would trigger some additional parking. He also explained that the proposal maximizes the overall floor area ratio for the lot. Commissioner Smith pointed out a typographical error on page 2-24 on Condition No. 56 in which the word "stripping" should be "striping". She also wanted to know if it was conditioned in that the property owner is not able to sell parking passes anymore and she is told yes. Susan Secoy. 112 E. Chapman Avenue, architect for the proiect. She discussed the two major issues from the last meeting, which included the Design Collaborative guidelines and the style of the building. Commissioner Smith was told the fayade on the Antique Station would change but it would remain a single story structure. She also had a question on that building which staff seems to feel the entrance should be modified now and the applicant feels they should wait until there is a tenant for that building. Ms. Secoy explained that they cannot do the entire project at one time 3 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 and there is a phasing that is involved in this project. One part needs to be operational in order to build a second part. Commissioner Bonina wanted to know with the relocation of the entrance to the back of the building, would this new fayade occur at the same time? He is told yes but not at the same time of the new building. Commissioner Brandman asked if the Design Collaborative had any suggestions on what this building should look like. Ms. Secoy said yes in terms of the height and they have followed the Design Collaborative guidelines. Commissioner Brandman felt that a lot of what they have done is charming and Old Towne including the side stairway. She was having a very difficult time with the front entrance with the glass. Ms. Secoy explained why she had chosen this style and the direction she has taken. Commissioner Bonina stated that as you look at what was designed in the Collaborative, it appears that there was some attempt in the study to allow for some relief off the comer. Ms. Secoy explained that they have stepped back due to the monument sign. He wanted to know if there was enough relief off of the comer to signal you've arrived in Old Towne and Ms. Secoy felt there was. Dan Jensen. 178 S. Glassell Street. property owner of the project. He felt the project was consistent with the block and he was very pleased with the building. The only way he can make this happen is to allow the Antique Station to continue to operate during the construction of the comer and once that building is developed and they have a tenant for the building, then they can begin to remodel the Antique Station. Commissioner Smith hoped Mr. Jensen would understand their dilemma in that it's going to be a beautiful project but he may decide to sell the property. She noted in Condition No.6 it deals with relocating the entrance but she doesn't read it as calling for a complete remodel of the building. She wanted to know if Mr. Jensen would consider putting the entrance on Glassell Street. Mr. Jensen stated that ultimately that's where the entrance should be but he may find they get a retailer, grocery in particular, that would want the entrance on the side. Commissioner Bonina suggested setting a time frame, such as twelve months, from the time the new building was constructed to when the remodel would begin. Mr. Jensen said he'd be willing to look at that but twelve months might be a little minimal and he'd be looking at two years. Commissioner Smith stated that the reason this project is taking awhile to get approved is because it is unique and a different type project with many elements of discussion including a request for five variances. Mr. Jensen explained that there are some code requirements which cannot be met due to the nature of the project and, therefore, it requires a variance. Commissioner Smith was willing to split the difference on the tree requirement by requiring the addition of just 27 more trees. Mr. Jensen indicated the only way to do that would be to put smaller size trees in. Commissioner Bonina thought maybe they should increase the size of the trees so the trees will be significant in size and not wait 25 years to see significant growth. Regarding the issue of the 4 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 time frame after the certificate of occupancy, he agreed it does take some time for a developer to go through the jurisdictional process and lease negotiations and he thought an eighteen-month time frame would be more than enough. He also felt if they are going to remodel the building for a grocery store, he agreed that the entrance should be in the back where the parking is. However, there should be some sort of smaller entrance off of Glassel1. Mr. Sheatz expressed concerns with the language in Condition No.6 Mr. Sheatz would be satisfied with Condition NO.6 if the first sentence was to remain as written with the other two sentences struck from the condition. Mr. Jensen wanted to know if they did approve this project, would he be required to relocate the entrance of the Antique Station. He is told yes. Mr. Sheatz indicated that requiring a time frame for the relocation of the entrance is problematic because the way the condition is written it states that "prior to applying for building permits" If Mr. Jensen is looking to get sticks in the ground and get this thing built and it's a phasing and timing issue, then it will have to be reworked again the way it's written. Commissioner Smith asked if they changed that to say within 18 months of occupancy of the building, would that be allowed. Mr. Sheatz replied yes. Mr. Jensen would like to see it get done when the corner is finished because it needs to be done on his timeframe because he's the one paying the bills. He'd like to remove Condition No.6. The public hearing was opened. Janet Crenshaw. 464 N. Shaffer. Orange, Chairman of the Old Towne Preservation Committee, felt this building was a little too contemporary and the reason is the glass on the building. She did like the staircase on the side. John Baker. 1051 Arbor Way. Orange. stated he had a problem with the glass front, the roofline, and the setback of the building should be back further because it creates a blind corner. Dennis Caldwell. 201 E. Chapman Avenue. Orange, an elected board member of the Downtown Orange Business and Professional Association, spoke on behalf of the organization who is 100% behind the project because of the added diversity. They do like what they see. Mr. Jensen was asked to return with closing remarks. He noted from the Design Review Committee minutes that Janet Crenshaw spoke in favor of the project. From the beginning of the project he did involve the Downtown merchants and residents. Ms. Secoy responded to the design element on the corner, stating that they made so many studies in the corner area and there are so many ways to solve an issue such as a gateway. They chose this one based on their studies throughout Old Towne. There is nothing offensive in what they are proposing. There is logic behind the design and it's something to be proud of. Commissioner Brandman asked about a design element that had been brought forward by the Design Collaborative and she thought she'd heard there were none in regard to a proposed building on this corner. Ms. Secoy said no, it had not been studied in detail. Commissioner Smith talked about the Farmers Market and the condition that states the Farmers Market would cease. Mr. Jensen said as the condition is stated now, he could not operate the 5 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 market next Thursday. He would like to see added language that states upon issuance of a building permit, the CUP allowing the market would become null and void. Commissioner Bonina questioned whether Mr. Jensen wanted to tie the end of the Farmers Market into the issuance of the permit or to the actual start of the construction. Mr. Jensen stated it could be upon groundbreaking. Mr. Jensen explained that there were a couple of recommended conditions that were not good ideas such as Condition No. 2 which would reduce vehicular traffic by the placement of the planter and it would still require a Variance. He'd like a condition that in the event he is able to procure some type of agreement on the easement with Mr. Miller, that he would be eligible for a refund of the in-lieu parking fee if he is able to create additional parking spaces. Commissioner Smith felt if this type of agreement could be reached, Mr. Jensen would get back 6 of the 17 in- lieu parking spaces. The City would rather have the parking spaces than the money. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if staff wanted to comment now on Mr. Jensen's request on an in-lieu parking fee refund. Ms. Angus didn't see anything that would preclude the City from refunding that money and hopefully he'd be able to do that before he moves on to construction and the fee is collected. She didn't feel it needed to be conditioned. Commissioner Brandman stated she was grateful she saw the pictures of St. John's but there are some element differences between St. John's and the comer element of the proposed building such as the canopy treatment. Also she's concerned with the strong angles on the building stating that it is too contemporary. She doesn't have a problem with Mr. Jensen operating the market but she is concerned about leaving the situation with his neighbor open ended. She'd like to condition having larger trees. Commissioner Bonina didn't have a problem with the architecture of the proposed building. His main concern with the building was how it projected to the comer without any kind of setback but in looking at the building further with the see-through glass, there is a layering effect which he liked. Also he didn't have a problem with the Variance to allow the taller building. The trash enclosure is a non-issue. The landscape to parking ratio with the added planter he assumed took care of that issue. The size of the planters is not ideal but given the nature of the area, he can live with the size of the planters. The number of trees as proposed with 23 trees is far too few and he'd like to see a compromise at 50% of the requirement, which would be 38 trees and enhance the size of the trees. The in-lieu parking fee is odd but it is allowed. Condition No.6 should be kept with the modification to suggest that within 18 months of the certificate of occupancy the applicant/contractor shall relocate the entrance of the Antique Station building along the Glassell side as part of this project. It appeared to Commissioner Smith that three of the Variances had been erased. Four trash enclosures with pickup twice a week is equivalent to eight containers and cancels that Variance. She agrees with requiring 38 trees on-site and the planters as conditioned. The building height at 30' is fine. She's doesn't like projects with deficient parking so she really wishes Mr. Jensen will be able to solve the problem with the easement holder and add the parking spaces in the lot. She was not wild about the building design but she's not going to oppose it because it's not a terribly tall building. She felt the monument sign detracts from any building standing there. She was OK with the revisions to Conditions 6 and 8 as previously mentioned. 6 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve Variance 2121-03, Major Site Plan Review No. 268.03, and Mitigated Negative Declaration1715-03 which is draft Resolution No. PC 26-03. Approving all the conditions as listed with an adjustment to Condition No.6 that within 18 months of the issue of the certificate of occupancy the applicant shall relocate the entrance of the Antique Station building along the Glassell Street side as part of this project. Condition No.8 would add that the Farmers Market would be eliminated upon groundbreaking and the beginning of construction. Also an addition of two conditions in which one would read that all required parking spaces shall not be independently and individually leased to anyone and shall be made permanently available for automobile parking not only for employees working at the location, but also for customers and guests having lawful reason to be at the location and it should be numbered as appropriate and the other which would state that the number of trees are to be increased from 23 to 38 on-site, which is 50% of the required amount, with 36" boxes subject to discussion with the landscape coordinator to ensure that the planters will be adequate to accommodate a 36" box. Commissioner Smith stated that in the document there are several unresolved conditions which state "prior to" and those are Condition No. 12, landscape plan; No. 14, photometric analyzes; No. 18, refine the main entrance; No. 19, show the motorcycIe/bike rack plan; No. 20, the lighting plan; No. 21, the landscape plan to add particular trees; No. 24, site and elevation plans, trash, service, utility enclosures; No. 25, plan to enhance the rear west elevation; and No. 26, the furnishings. She requires that these be done in a systemic way and that plans for completion of all of those elements be put into place with the Planning staff and presented in an organized packet so they will know what it is going to look like. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Smith Commissioner Brandman Commissioner Domer Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Mr. Carnes explained the appeal process. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-004, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1217-02, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1710-02, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 258-02 - BRE PROPERTIES A request to develop a 460-unit luxury apartment complex on the 11.52-acre former Cinedome movie theater site. The proposed development includes 256 one-bedroom apartments and 204 two-bedroom apartments ranging in size from 600 square feet to 1,050 square feet. The complex includes a clubhouse with leasing and management offices, an activity room with a fully equipped kitchen, business center, fitness center, and media room/theater, two pools, and landscaped open space areas. The site plan also incorporates two access points to the adjacent Santa Ana River Trail. The complex would consist of 338 apartments within a four-story building fronting Chapman Avenue. These units would be "wrapped" around a 602-space five- level parking structure. The remaining 122 apartments would be three-story "walk-up" units served by individual garages, carports, and surface parking. 7 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 Approval of a text amendment to the General Plan is requested to allow high-density residential development in the General Commercial General Plan land use district. Approval of a Zone Change from Limited Business (C-l) to Planned Community Specific Plan (PC (SP)) is requested to allow a multi-family residential development on the site with development standards appropriate to accommodate the proposed project. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 1710-02 was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Environmental: Adopt Resolution No. PC 41-03 recommending City Council approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 1710-02 as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Project: Adopt Resolution PC No. 41-03 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-0004, Zone Change No. 1217- 02, and Major Site Plan Review No. 258-02. 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. Mr. Carnes introduced the project. Anna Pehoushek, Acting Principal Planner, presented the project. Since there was opposition to the project, a full and complete reading of the staff report was made. She then provided a PowerPoint presentation showing the project site. The applicant has put together an application and overall proposal that introduces multi-residential development at a density of 40 units per acre. Access to the complex would be provided by three access points; two on Chapman, one which is signalized; and one on Rampart Street via an existing easement. The project is in a redevelopment area that does not incorporate any units that are designated for very low or low- income households, so the applicant has included payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee for the creation of affordable housing elsewhere in the City. All the impacts on the Environmental Impact Report has been mitigated to a level less than significant except for operational air quality, cumulative air quality and cumulative noise impacts. If the project is approved, a statement of overriding considerations would be necessary. Ms. Pehoushek pointed out some adjustments to the conditions staff recommended. The affordable housing in-lieu fee in the Specific Plan should be $2,850.00 per unit. The applicant has also asked for some flexibility regarding Condition No.8 in which they would like the ability to provide the storage either in the parking structure or somewhere else on the site. Staff would suggest that the words "parking structure" be deleted from the first sentence of that condition. Condition No. 44 and 47 are duplicates so staff recommends deleting Condition No. 47. Commissioner Brandman asked if staff had any suggestions where storage could be provided on the site. Ms. Pehoushek said there are various options, for example, there could be places in the surface parking areas where storage lockers could be created. 8 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 Commissioner Bonina asked about the long term constraints relative to this property and developing the property as a viable commercial or mixed use property and he asked for more detail and history on that. Ms. Pehoushek explained that the constraints apply primarily to the larger Uptown area and the development of the Specific Plan for the whole area. The existing mobile home park is a significant land use that occupies a large area of Uptown and the City has recognized that as a long-term use. Existing infrastructure constraints on other properties was also looked at as far as the feasibility of the Specific Plan was concerned. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if the City prepared a financial analysis of this project compared to the financial return of the existing General Plan designation. Ms. Angus first answered Commissioner Bonina's question by stating that the City had a vision plan for this larger Uptown area and there were some physical constraints. About two years ago Equity Office was entitled for 1.2 million sq. ft. of office development. It was found that there really wasn't a high market for more office space. The City also looked at high quality retaillcommercial. Car Maxx came forward a couple years ago and City Council determined that wasn't the type of use they were lookingfor and not high quality enough in terms of an entry statement into Orange. However, there was interest in luxury high-density apartments and there was a need for rental housing at the high end. In response to Commissioner Smith's question, in terms of a fiscal study not directed to this site but another site in the Uptown area that through Economic Development they had contracted for both land use and economic analysis and felt that those findings would apply to this site as well. It looked at office, retail and luxury high- density apartment developments. It projected that there would be a need for four hundred high quality luxury apartments on an annual basis over an 8 year period. Commissioner Brandman wanted to know if Orange Unified had responded in anyway. Ms. Angus stated OUSD did make some comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP). These types of units are not geared toward family housing since they are only one and two bedrooms. Ms. Pehoushek explained that the school district did respond to the Notice of Preparation and indicated that a total of 78 students would be generated by the project but they did not submit any comment letter on the draft EIR. Commissioner Bonina wanted to know how much it costs to develop an affordable housing unit. Rick Otto, from Economic Development, stated that total cost would be $165,000 per unit minus the land, which would make it about $120,000. Commissioner Domer asked if other sites have been evaluated for affordable housing opportunities. Mr. Otto stated they have not identified a site in the Uptown area. The 20% set aside for affordable housing can be used anywhere in the City. Currently they are negotiating with the Irvine Company to have an affordable housing site identified in the East Orange area. Commissioner Brandrnan said in her opinion people that would need affordable housing in this area may not be eager to go all the way to the east. She's concerned about the affordable housing element. Mr. Otto explained that after the Car Maxx denial, the Council's direction was that they wanted quality in the Uptown area. It is very difficult to have high quality residential and to have affordable housing as part of that project. Commissioner Brandman, for the record, stated that the Council might want to rethink and review the luxury apartment issue. She felt there should be an affordable housing element in this area in the future. 9 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 Commissioner Domer stated that there are a lot of for-profit companies developing affordable housing. People who need affordable housing need to be closer to their jobs. There should be a percentage of affordable housing units provided. Kent Marshall. 2020 Main Street. Irvine. Development Director for BRE. He provided an overview of his company, an overview of the project and addressed the conditions of approval. He explained they have met with the neighbors and they have attempted to address their concerns. Their project team has prepared a very thorough and comprehensive EIR and Specific Plan. He felt this project fills a void in the City for an extremely high quality project. The plan meets or exceeds existing codes, such as parking and open space. The project is not designed for families and the amenities are not there for families. It's geared more for urban professionals. Regarding conditions of approval, they are in acceptance of the additional language in Condition No. 8 for relocating additional storage. Condition No. 18 addressed the signal issue - they are willing to accept the cost of signal installation but not the 75% maintenance cost. Also this condition states that the signal shall be operational prior to the issuance of the building permits and they would like to ask that the language be amended to the time of certificate of occupancy. On Condition No. 19 they would like to ask for some assistance from the City by either adding to the cost of that to reduce their cost or they would be willing to accept a credit on traffic fees as a participant. On Conditions 29-31 they have worked very closely with the Police Department and they would like to request the Crime Prevention Specialist they have worked with be the individual to review and approve the plans as noted in those conditions. They have no problem with deleting Condition No. 47, a duplicate of No. 44. Condition 92 refers back to the original signal issue that he just spoke of in regard to the delivery of the signal. Commissioner Domer asked what size water heaters are they proposing to put in and is told 40 gallons. He wondered with the storage space issue, had they thought about using a tankless water heater system. In response to Commissioner Bonina's question, Ms. Angus explained that in terms of the Zoning Standards, they are looking at this as a Planned Community Zoned Specific Plan so they are looking at creating their own set of zoning standards for this particular piece of property. In terms of off-site improvements and specifically contribution to the traffic signal and the ongoing operation, they have of late been requiring that but that does require a legal opinion to look at that government code section and make a decision. Commissioner Smith wanted to know what a luxury apartment was and Mr. Marshall had explained that it's a resort style atmosphere. She was also told that the units would currently rent from just over $1,000 to $2,400 for the largest unit. The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in opposition to the proieet: Cindy Pelton, 300 N. Rampart, Orange Kelly A. Nulph, 300 N. Rampart, Orange R. Ottzen, 300 N. Rampart, Orange Margarita Fleener, 300 N. Rampart, Orange Debbie Schram, address on file Lou Frisina, address on file John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way, Orange Lois Barke, address on file 10 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 Kimberly Bottomley, 1005 Arbor Way, Orange Gary Wade, 166 N. Eckhoff Street, Orange . project doesn't fit in that area . traffic problems . no play area in complex for children to play . not enough schools . shopping is very limited, with one very small Ralph's. Stater Bros. Market would be ideal for that location . the projected total for the entire area would be 7,774 residents and that's a lot of people . the school and traffic issues were not answered in the environmental impact report . concern with the traffic created during games and this new project . additional demand on parks and libraries in the area . the projects will create overcrowding . negative effect on the response time from the Police and Fire Departments . additional gridlock on Chapman Avenue . overcrowding creates a less desirable neighborhood . everyone will be trying to get to work at the same . limited gas stations in the area . who is going to regulate the construction traffic . questioned if this project is beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the Orange City residents; will the project conform to public necessity, public convenience and good land practices; will it be compatible with the authorized usage of the Zoning District; how does the project deal with the City's Housing Element; why not zone it R-3 which would equate to less units and more open space; if rear exit is denied, how will the builder deal with the dead-end at the rear of the property; three of the driveways do not comply 25' with the inside corner and outside corner radius; how will the units accommodate the American Disabilities Act . adding hundreds of people to the Orange Crush . keep property commercially zoned and provide a good tax base . City will be receiving money for parks and recreation for these projects but there will be no new parks in the west section of Orange . no further mitigation in the EIR for all the traffic concerns and air quality impacts . aesthetically the apartments would be better suited on the west side of the 57 Freeway Mr. Marshall was asked to return for his closing remarks. He stated that they will be paying the maximum number of fees as required to the schools as well as paying their full share of fees for parks, amounting to $10,000 per unit. The EIR has fully addressed the traffic issues. This project layout includes the finest planning practices. They will be providing two trail head connections to the regional bike trai1. They are paying their full fair share of the affordable housing in-lieu fees. Should they be forced to go back and include affordable housing units in the project, they would have a complete redesign. Ms. Pehoushek addressed the traffic, services and Zone Change issues. She stated adequate services will be provided in terms of emergency services in the area. The Police and Fire Departments will not be impacted in terms of their response time by this project. Air quality is one area where they have acknowledged the fact that there would be a significant, unavoidable impact. The Zone Change would ensure if the property were not developed by BRE, a future developer would still be subject to developing a project that incorporated the same quality of amenities identified in the Specific Plan. 11 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 Commissioner Smith was told BRE does not own the property yet so all of this is contingent upon their purchase of the property. Ms. Pehoushek explained that if ERE did not purchase the property, the Zone Change and Specific Plan would remain intact. Commissioner Smith clarified that the Zone Change and the designation goes with the land and not with the project. Commissioner Brandman is grateful to hear that the City is acknowledging that there is an air quality problem. She was curious where these people are going to shop and where are these services going to come from in the future. Ms. Pehoushek stated that where people will go for their day-to-day retail needs is beyond the scope of their analysis of this project and the applicant would need to address this issue. Commissioner Domer wanted to know if the CalTrans parcel has been bought yet and he is told the applicant is in negotiation for that parcel. He also asked if there had been any traffic studies showing residential use versus commercial use and were any measurements taken during the game days and what does Orange PD do during those times. Ms. Pehoushek stated that Orange PD does enforce the no parking areas. Mr. Marshall addressed the issue of the easement in the rear of the property. They would like to be in a situation where it could go either way in which they can use it or not use it and it would be at the discretion of BRE. The Fire and Police Departments indicated they didn't need it in terms of emergency access. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this item to the November 17,2003 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Smith None None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED List of items for the applicant and staff to come back with clarifications: · architecture of the project · traffic circulation, particularly the impact to the 22 Freeway and the Orange Crush · comparison of the traffic circulation comparing residential versus commercial · availability of services in the community for groceries, gas, car service, medical treatment and services in general and is shopping at the Block adequate for everyday living · questions relating to the CalTrans parcel and its purchase · resolution of any problems around the easement and the potential for acquisition · traffic on game days at the stadium and the impact on the mobile home community and this project · hear more about the General Plan context of what it is changing from and changing to · staff will need to address conditions previously mentioned by the applicant · answer water heater question · staff to look at other proposed uses such as the high end retail use versus the economics of a grocery store chain 12 Planning Commission October 20, 2003 · issue of parks and the park in-lieu fee and will all that go to west Orange · issue of affordable housing and let them know what does a complete redesign mean economically · is this project family restricted · like to understand ADA further · like to be certain that there be no exclusivity or anti provisions on families · concern about school's ability to handle the children and get some response from the school district IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on Monday, November 3, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Smith None None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 12:20 pm. 13