Loading...
2003 - October 13 (!,I. 3'tJ~. 6- -,2 .J Planning Commission City of Orange October 13,2003 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith, and Bonina Brent Mullins, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Alice Angus, Community Development Director Melanie Schneider, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 AND SEPTEMBER 22, 2003. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes from the September 15,2003 and September 22,2003 meetings with minor corrections. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith, and Bonina None None None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: None 2. 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 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2003 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. This item was continued from the August 18,2003, September 15,2003 and September 22, 2003 meetings. 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 Avenue between the AT &SF railroad tracks 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: Adopt Resolution PC 31-03 recommending the City Council certify FEIR 1717-03, which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et. Seq. Adopt Resolution PC 30-03 recommending to the City Council approval of the following: . 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. I-Santa Fe Depot). . Ordinance Amendment No. 2003-0004 (Design Standards for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area). . Zone Change No. 1223-03 Alice Angus, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. Commissioner Pruett asked questions about the processing of future development proposals. Mrs. Angus responded regarding how staff would analyze individual proposals to determine whether or not there is enough information in the existing environmental impact report or whether additional environmental work needs to occur. Commissioner Bonina asked about the role of Old Towne Preservation Association (OTP A) and the Traffic and Parking Management Plan. Mrs. Angus stated that the Traffic & Parking Management Plan is updated annually. She also stated that consultation with OTPA is a required mitigation measure in terms of reviewing projects. Chapman needs to get their input and the information is conveyed to staff. In terms of rendering a decision, if they are opposed that does not mean the project will be denied. It assists the applicant in tailoring their application responding to community concerns, helps my staff in terms of the evaluation in making sure that the project does respond to community concerns. Commissioner Smith previously discussed a 600 ft noticing because 300 ft would be inside the campus. Commissioner Bonina suggests notice 300 ft of the perimeter of the University. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2003 Commissioner Smith made a request to include the addresses of all properties within Specific Plan boundaries. She is concerned about what's included. Mrs. Angus replied, the applicant has included Villa Park Orchards Association (VPOA) because the owner has indicated via letter that they want to be included, however Specific Plan rules will not govern those properties until owned by the university. The EIR doesn't reflect all of the properties, but a list of addresses can be provided. Attachment 10 addresses the issue of the historic Hispanic area on Cypress St. Commissioner Smith wanted clarification on the historical review process and historical planner requirement. Mrs. Angus: The specific plan requires a historic planner's review. Commissioner Smith: OTP A should have its own color box on the process chart. The public hearing was opened. Ken Ryan on behalf of Chapman University: (using slides) Presents VPOA letter from Mr. Likus (President and General Manager) for inclusion in Specific Plan. Parking complaint has been handled. Utilizing this incident as an example for the students. Commissioners Pruett, Bonina, Brandman, and Smith asked questions about parking, and the neighbor-to-neighbor letter. Mr. Ryan: We do not provide on the street parking permits. The resident can call our enforcement with the license number and we will address the problem. The neighbor-to-neighbor letter circulates to 13K residents and to 8 locations in the community. The Specific Plan will create more parking that is closer for the faculty and students. Mitigation measure 4 states we will consult with OTP A. We will own an entire block before developing, the exception being VPOA, per their request. The four parcels in question will have passive use until entire block is owned. We will follow the set back, architecture, etc to maintain the area. Commissioner Pruett: Is Chapman restricted to developing only the properties listed on the Specific Plan? We need to understand how those other properties can be developed. Mrs. Angus: Whether or not it's included in the specific plan, Chapman can request property use based on the zoning. Mr. Ryan: Section Al has been modified to include 15' set backs from residencies and a max height of 27' , which limits what we can do with the property. Zoning use will not be changed outside of the Specific Plan until an amendment is made. Attachment 13 (Cypress St) for the record, there are four parcels in that area. Three of the parcels are contributing. Must meet new criteria: 1) preserve in place 2) adaptive reuse 3) relocated 4) demolish: which must have a public hearing before planning commission. Graph reflects how there is a public review. More site plan review, historical review, will consult with OTPA and outreach to neighbors is required. Will come to this body if demolition requested. Commissioner Smith: The current City demolition process says you have to get an ok on the proposed replacement project. Al section has 3 contributing houses and 1 non-contributing. Will you go for the standard of contributing vs. non-contributing based upon the 3-1 ratio? Is there any problem with lumping them together under the same review process? How does that work? Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2003 Mr. Ryan: we would be required to go through the process for contributing, but also anything that's in Historic District and is non-contributing needs to go through the same new requirements that are in the specific plan for context evaluation, how it relates to adjacent properties, etc. The answer is, there's more stringent requirements in our Specific Plan that go beyond what's currently in place even if it's non-contributing. Commissioner Smith: One of my concerns and possibly Commissioner Bonina's. Academic uses; AI, pg. 6-34, Amendment #5 of Specific Plan. Can't visualize all of the proposed uses on the various small sites. Mr. Ryan: You are correct, Chapman can't put a large building on this area due to set backs, height restrictions, design guidelines and the context evaluation adopted with the Specific Plan. Chapman will evaluate all of these factors and the area before build on that parcel. The list will get very narrow. Last thing, historic evaluation and the pics matching the buildings, we're double-checking, we know that the evaluation is accurate and will add correct photo if they are inaccurate. The Landscape Master Plan is included to reinforce the character of the campus, to be visually consistent with the surroundings neighborhood, to invite the residents onto the campus (the core area) and create small campuses within a campus (the Oxford model) allows for open spaces and quads and feel fits into the historic area. Working with staff so trees fit into the Master Plan of the community. Primary (Sycamore & University) and secondary gateways, the orange boxes welcome everyone. (slides for different areas of the campus for landscaping). This is a framework plan, not the final product. Can use for consistency as time goes on. Commissioner Smith: Lighting fixtures, pg.5-34, want to talk about the acorn fixtures. There are quite a few acorn lights in the specific plan area. How can we address keeping the acorn standards throughout the specific plan and filling them in on the blocks where they are not? Mr. Hohnbaum: We have done a study and a master plan for Old Towne. Have not had the funding to complete the Master Plan. One is to add acorn fixtures, taller and better lighting. The other is to refurbish and refit the lights. Commissioner Smith: Wants it addressed in the Specific Plan ensuring the lighting is maintained, enhanced, and added to. Commissioner Pruett asked about property owned by the university that's not part of the Specific Plan. Mr. Ryan: No change would occur to parcels not included in our current Specific Plan. Dr. Jim Doti, 19252 Mesa Dr. Villa Park: President of the University. Apologizes for the parking incident. We try to communicate with staff, admin and students of where to park and address the violations as they happen. Constantly reinforce in conditions of employment, student orientation and e-mails. Asked to include future possible properties and we did. Joined with your staff to build a process that is more detailed and possibly a model for other communities. We are concerned about neighbors and their needs by addressing parking and enforcement. We have proposed a Specific Plan that doesn't infringe on the neighbors or Orange or their quality of life as we progress. Need to make things clear and articulate. RECESS: 9:10 RECONVENE: 9:20 Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes Public Comments October 13,2003 6 spoke in opposition Augie Morales: 1822 Devon Place or 392 North Lemon Connie Pilcher: 7731 TwinleafTerrace L.M. Castro: 347 East Barkley Avenue Anne Siebert 340 South Olive Janet Crenshaw, 464 North Shaffer Paul Hudson: 212 South Orange #57 You can't compare the homes in the Cypress St. area with a historic review comparison because you haven't taken into consideration that the residents can't afford to live anywhere else. The site plan is incomplete. Older homes on Cypress and Lemon, if you change the zoning on these 5 houses won't benefit the community. 1989 - states zoning changes can only change after ownership of entire block. Will continue to destroy community, need to preserve the Historical District. The traffic problem has not been resolved. Better regulations for parking and should be Chapman's responsibility, but they don't do anything about it and the residents won't complain for fear of reaction from students. Chapman sent a letter to development dept that couldn't afford to put up acorn lights. The Packinghouse (1917) should be left alone because it's the last one in the county and redeveloped. The plan states 17.5 acres when actually about 350 acres. The Santa Fe depot should be excluded because it's not owned by Chapman and concerned about the Cypress Street School being demolished. Where does it end, it's going to take over the area and won't be contributing to the community. Concerned how the properties and areas will fit Chapman's use. Should control the scale of Chapman's growth. 4 spoke in favor: Kelly Cooke: 210 South Grand Mike Drummy: 1306 East Rose Michael Fahy: 3016 North Skywood St Raymond Sfeir: 401 West LaVeta Ave, #211 All speakers were faculty of Chapman University. Feel Specific Plan is a progressive partnership that promotes understanding, open dialogue, and addresses the concerns in the community. Promoting preservation of Old Towne Orange and growth in the community. The public hearing was closed Applicants Response Mr. Ryan: Have no intention of tearing down important structures. The Specific Plan states that demolition is a last resort. Will provide adequate parking for all new build-outs. Just because a building is 50 yrs old, doesn't mean it holds historical value. If non-contributing and is determined by a recognized entity to be contributing and is owned by the University, then falls under the historic evaluation (pg. 422 & 112). Even non-contributing still has to go through a historic evaluation. Per the EIR the traffic impact is insignificant. Commissioner Brandman: Concerned about culture of the community if Cypress Street is vacated. Need to know that the University is concerned with the orchard property. I want guarantee that University will do something with that building that is supportive of the lifestyle and history of that community. Mr. Ryan: There are not plans for the packinghouse. We have listened to all parties and shared with the university that the VPOA property needs adaptive reuse that makes sense that reflects the Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2003 history of the building. The same is true for the Anaconda west property. University will try to incorporate this into their long-term goals. Commissioner Smith: I agree with Commissioner Brandman on this point. How can we incorporate language into this document that would retain that building for adaptive re-use? Significant to the community. If not written then no guarantee. What is the tax status and financial return that Chapman delivers to the community? You are removing buildings that have a tax return to the city. Rumors of eminent domain with the Anaconda buildings. Where does the University stand on asking the city for this on acquisition of future properties for the Specific Plan? Mr. Ryan: Compromise for the conditions that the University not use it until it is sold to the University. Acquisition of this property is a business agreement, not eminent domain. No intent of eminent domain. Commissioner Smith: Concerned with some of the historic assessments in the EIR. The document gives the impression that there's not much history in this neighborhood. Mr. Ryan: Do you think the language needs to be modified for the record? We're comfortable with that. Nothing cleared for demolition except the west side of Cypress and the Anaconda property. Certifying the EIR doesn't allow us to do anything to those buildings without public process. Commissioner Smith: Important because if no one takes action on these properties for 10 yrs. this is what will stand as approved. 418 N Glassell, the building is in good condition, but has lost its historic integrity, 428 the same thing. The collection is important; they don't need to be individually nationally registered. Photo on 327 N Lemon is incorrect. 328 N Lemon, the final line the building is in good condition and no reference of historic integrity. Mrs. Angus: The blanket statement on each property is probably too broad, suggests that the editorial type comments be deleted. Commissioner Smith: The film school process is going down 2 paths and the EIR is going down 2 roads. We have a couple of options to bring them together and I want to ask Mr. Ryan what the university's preference is. We need to take that into consideration Mr. Ryan: Our preference would be the EIR and Specific Plan is approved. Any contributing building goes to PC before demolition, we hear that loud and clear. DRC approved and reviewed in detail, reviewed with OTPA, we made modifications to the building, changed the color, I know in the future the PC wants everything to come before you that is listed as contributing and we've agreed to that. Take into consideration the openness with the community, the modifications, the decision from DRC and full disclosure in the EIR. The Anaconda building on the west side of Cypress, there is no demolition request. Closed public hearing Discussion: Commission: Concerned about VPOA and its value to the community. If they can utilize adaptive reuse, then that's the process they will follow, but if it does require demolition then it will have to come before the PC. The process is very clear. If they do acquire the property and it is of historic value, there is a specific process with a lot of scrutiny. Question of notification and Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2003 who receives. Should notice of determination be additionally put on the consent calendar for receive and file? Commissioner Smith: The noticing process should be around the entire campus district. I'm going to make the case that a 300 ft notice to each area is not sufficient. Commissioner Bonina: Talked about a general plan and update to include historical structures, is that still in the work? If so, would it be one of the benchmarks utilized in this process. Mrs. Angus: yes, and yes. For the general plan update, components include update existing historic survey and historic resources element. The mitigation measure that is followed in the EIR speaks to the 1997 surveyor more recent survey; therefore it allows for the future when the survey is updated via the General Plan. Commissioner Bonina: Asked about the current noticing. Mrs. Angus: Explained what happens today and what is proposed in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Brandman: Stated she has been critical in her comments. With the exception of the one building, they have done everything I've asked. Glad they accept that this is not a university town and they will grow within an already established area: Old Towne. This is very, very visible because it's a big project in a small area. I'm taking them at their word that they will respectfully complete their mission while considering the community and the neighborhood. Cypress St. area deserves to have their part in the historic community. I'm glad to hear that the Cypress St. School is under historic review. Don't think I'll be able to support the closing of Cypress St. I'm prepared to move forward on this project. Commission: Discussed the tax status of the University and the impact it will have. Commission: Is there any advantage or disadvantage to including it in the Specific Plan. The fact that it's included in the EIR in terms of demolition and what processes will it follow. To follow a process outside would raise concern as well as this would be the biggest demolition in old town. Mr. Sheatz: You have the analysis that was done in the environment to approve the demolition. It's the part two; we have a replacement issue that will have to go before the PC in one of the two processes. Commissioner Pruett: Pleased to see the amendment to attachment 10. The VPOA has been somewhat separated from the community. It is important to address a mitigating measure as the University develops. The four parcels between Cypress and Lemon, as this area is developed, it needs to transition into the community, a connectivity and should be added to the mitigating measures on the EIR. Even one historic building has an impact on the fabric of the community. Need to maintain the same diligence in that neighborhood as in other parts of Old Towne. Commissioner Brandman: The different areas make up the fabric of the city. It is important to preserve this community because its part of our history. Commission: Discussion of historic area, parking structures, traffic, Cypress abandonment and the proposed review processes. Commissioner Pruett: The process that is outlined is a process that establishes a review process that I think is very good. This process says we have people from the community involved out of the gate. One thing it does need to do is include the Orange Barrio Historical Society on those projects. They should be added to that process that is part of the public involvement. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2003 I understand that the community development director will be the determining factor with the appropriate opportunity for the public to appeal. The decisions of that position and we are not the last decision maker in this process the CC is. CC can overrule us all. I think staff has done a good job putting this together and I don't have any problem recommending this to the cc. Commissioner Smith: I was disappointed that things we really battled for in 87-89, that property wouldn't be included unless it was owned or included unless the entire block was owned by the university. I assumed that it would carry over to this plan. The old plan didn't have the extensive design scrutiny or some other things it now has. I had the intention to vote against this and stated her concerns: . Student population and the amount of traffic; . Decisions the Community Development Director can make; . Need to retain that piece of Cypress Street; . Notice should go to the entire campus . Would like to see 600 ft to assure that it reaches the residents; . Wants acorn lights. Then stated she is pleased with many aspects ofthe specific plan, but is hesitant to include the four parcels. Commissioner Pruett: Let me offer another point of view. We should include those four parcels with the condition that you maintain the transition between those communities. If you take them out then you leave them to be developed to the general zoning. We have the opportunity to include these properties and determine how they might be developed. Suggesting that as a mitigating measure of the communities. Attachment 10 is that the Specific Plan recognizes an identifiable neighborhood located within the Old Towne district. Indicated that the four properties transition the communities as well as future properties in that area by mitigating measures. Commissioner Bonina: 3 of the 4 are contributing and that means there is a process they have to go through to redevelop the site. Just based on that you have a fairly strong structure that they have limitations on what they can develop. Commissioner Smith: Statement for the minutes.. . even though the environmental analysis on the Anaconda West building is there, I want to make a statement that if the Anaconda West building comes for demolition review, I want to recommend highly retention, keeping portions of the original building and asking that that be incorporated into the new building. Commissioner Bonina: The question isn't should, but how and where the university should grow. A significant problem was that the university could develop properties without owning the entire block, but I understand that they can't develop without acquiring additional property. I believe the EIR is complete and the mitigation measures do address the issues of the EIR. Appears that the process addresses the "what ifs". Have established that there would be a historical planner, the parking management plan would be part of the checklist in the EIR, the only other issue would be the noticing process. It should be the entire perimeter of the campus. A 300 ft radius of the perimeter would suffice for noticing. The film school and the Anaconda property need to be discussed in further detail. Commissioner Pruett: My concern is the relationship of the barrio area and Old Towne. We need to indicate the need to maintain continuity between the neighborhoods. We're changing the historical context if we don't take into consideration a transition or corridor between. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2003 Commissioner Smith: I found a section regarding the packinghouse, section that encourages preservation of historic buildings. I was thinking we could include the packinghouse with special mention. Commission: Discussed where to add language to address these issues. MOTION Commissioner Pruett: Recognizing the barrio community is in the national historic district and Old Towne. Both of those changes are in the EIR. The amendments that staff had presented to us with the Specific Plan itself. In terms of action on the draft resolution PC 31-03, I'll make the motion to approve Resolution PC 31-03, the PC is recommending the CC adopt the findings of fact and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and certify the accuracy of final EIR 1717-03 for amendment no. 5 to the Chapman University Specific Plan associated applications include a General Plan Amendment no. 2003-0005 ordinance no. 2003-0002, 2003-0003, 2003- 0004, and Zone Change 1223-03 with the amendments we discussed, the two amendments that we discussed. Commission: Amendments to be made: VPOA, land use transition between Old Towne and the barrio community, the conclusionary statements and current photos in the historic analysis, include a mitigating measure that we revisit the circulation as new parking structures are considered. Commissioner Smith: I'll second that and for discussion when do we deal with the film school and where does it fit into this process? Commissioner Pruett: the film school, in my view, is not part of this process other then adopting the EIR for demolition. Staff is going to have to deal with this, but it should come back to us and follow this process we're adopting. Mrs. Angus: The direction is clear and we will work with the applicant to bring the film school back to you along with the demolition as a public hearing. Commissioner Smith: So no other action is needed. For the minutes, my disclaimer: While the EIR is there for the Anaconda West building, for demolition review I would look for retention of portions of the original building to be incorporated into Chapman University's new building. Commissioner Brandman: I support that, it's in the minutes, it's on the record and a motion has been made. Thank you to all involved. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Nooe MOTIONCA~ED MOTION Commissioner Pruett moves adoption PC 30-03 resolution of the PC recommending that the CC approve General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Ordinance Amendment 2003-0002,2003-0003, 2003-0004 and Zone Change 1223-03 for the Chapman University Specific Plan no. 5 to include the revisions presented to us by staff prior to this meeting. Commissioner Smith seconds motion. Commissioner Smith: yes, need to include two things, notice from all edges of the campus and the acorn lights. Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2003 Commissioner Bonina: Also include, historical planner, ifthere is not a staff historical planner, the City will contract for one. The parking management plan will be part of the EIR review, and add the barrio historical society in addition to OTP A. Commissioner Pruett: Agrees to amendments to his motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Commissioner Pruett moves to adopt final resolution 37-03, resolution of the PC recommending that the CC approval of the draft master landscape plan for Chapman University specific plan no 5. Commission Smith seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Commissioner Brandman moves to adjourn to the next regular meeting of October 20,2003. Commissioner Bonina seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED Adjourned: 1:07 am INRE: INRE: NEW HEARINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: 1 :07 AM Page 10