Loading...
2003 - December 1 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange December 1, 2003 Monday -7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 6, 2003 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2003 AND NOVEMBER 17, 2003), OCTOBER 13, 2003 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 17,2003), OCTOBER 20,2003 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 17, 2003) AND NOVEMBER 3, 2003. Commissioner Smith asked that the minutes from the October 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting be pulled and voted upon separately, as there were several items discussed in the administrative session that she believed were vague and would like to have further clarified. Commissioner Domer also stated that he wished it to be noted that on October 6, 2003, and October 13,2003, he was not yet a member of this Commission. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith that the approval for the draft minutes of October 13, 2003, be continued until the next Planning Commission meeting on December 15, 2003, seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith None Domer None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the remaining minutes on the consent calendar. Commissioner Domer reiterated the fact that he must abstain from voting on the minutes of October 6, 2003, and October 13, 2003; Commissioner Bonina indicated that he must abstain from the vote on the minutes of October 6, 2003; and Chairman Pruett indicated that he would abstain from voting on the minutes of October 20,2003. With these issues noted, the commissioners voted. Planning Commission APPROVED December 1, 2003 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MOTION Brandman, Pruett, Smith None Bonina, Domer None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes of the October 20, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MOTION Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Smith None Pruett None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2469-03 - RED ROBIN RESTAURANT A proposal to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P. No. 1733-89) to allow serving of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio dining area of an existing restaurant. Subject property is located at 2199 Orange Mall, within The Village at Orange shopping center. This item was continued from the November 17, 2003 meeting. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class 1, Existing Facilities). The applicant, Brent Budge, Regional Operations Director for Red Robin Restaurant, living in Costa Mesa, California, spoke on behalf of Red Robin Restaurant. He stated the restaurant wished to add an outdoor patio to their restaurant. Commissioner Domer stated that he understood in the conditions for approval by the police department it addressed education of the staff on alcohol sales. Commissioner Smith asked if the other Red Robin restaurants had outdoor patios, the applicant stated that all of the other restaurants that he managed (8 in the area) with the exception of the Brea location had outdoor patios. 2 APPROVED Planning Commission December I, 2003 Commissioner Bonina asked a question of the staff as to whether there was any plan for enhanced police activity because of the additional venue for alcohol consumption at the Mall. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, said she did not believe that there was a police substation at the mall, but would check with the Police Department and ask them to give the Planning Commission a report back as to any additional Orange police assigned to the Mall. Commissioner Bonina stated that his concern was for more than just the mall area, he noted a number of alcohol licenses within that particular area. Commissioner Domer asked Ms. Angus to further clarify with the police department their methodology on approving licenses. Ms. Angus indicated that it was based on state law and was determined by population/census figures determining the number oflicenses per area, and that she has found that in areas that are primarily commercial, there is an over concentration of licenses. However, it was noted that these figures are within those allowed by laws stated by the ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control Board). Chairman Pruett stated that when you look at the number of alcoholic beverage licenses along Tustin Boulevard (the area in question), that it did appear that there were a high quantity of licenses -- but he also believed that as Ms. Angus stated, this was due to the high concentration of commercial use within this area. He stated that he believed that condition number 24 of this permit (all employees must be trained in their use of alcoholic beverages) adequately addressed the issue. MOTION Moved by Chairman Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve the Conditional Use Permit as stated above. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2478-03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 286-03, AND MITIGATED NEGA TIVE DECLARATION NO. 1723-03 - TRAMMELLL CROW A proposal for a mixed-use development consisting of 279 residential apartment units, approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of general retail space, and a 4,000 sq. ft. leasing office at 3091 West Chapman Avenue. The apartments are one-bedroom and two-bedroom units ranging from 604 sq. ft. to 1,486 sq. ft. in size, constructed around a parking structure. The applicant is requesting approval of the following applications: . General Plan Amendment to allow for high-density residential uses in the project area. . Conditional Use Permit to allow for mixed-use development in the C-1 (Limited Business District) zone, and to allow for the building to exceed 32 ft. in height, located in proximity to a residential district. . Major Site Plan Review to allow for new project development. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1723-03 was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Planning Manager Roseberry introduced Chuck Lau, Associate Planner, who gave the staff presentation. Mr. Lau described the components of the proposed project. The first was the 3 Planning Commission APPROVED December 1,2003 General Plan Amendment to amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the floor area ratio overlay district map, establish a new overly district (District H) to allow for a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5, and to allow for a high density residential development of between 25 to 60 dwelling units per acre. The second application that is before the Planning Commission is the Conditional Use Permit to allow for a mixed-use development in a commercial district. The third application is the Major Site Plan Review to ensure that the project is a good quality project, and that complies with the development codes and standards, and that it has on- site adequate traffic circulation. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project because any significant environmental impacts could be reduced to "less than significant". Commissioner Smith stated that she found it troubling that no Environmental Impact Report was required on this project as she felt that this proposed project would have far greater impact on the environment than the current property use. Mr. Lau explained that there are established thresholds of significance that the Planning Commission works with and once this development project was reviewed, it was determined that the new development fell below the established thresholds. He further explained that there was an existing commercial property, which gave this project a different baseline to begin with. City Traffic Engineer Tom Mahood explained how the traffic study methodology took into consideration a vehicle trip level for the existing use. Commissioner Smith stated that, for the record, she believed someone should drive that area at peak hours because she did not believe that you could add that many cars without impacting the traffic in the area, particularly in light of the other property (BRE Pinnacle) that is right next door and was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Mahood explained that it was determined that the existing threshold was approximately 1500 trips per day, and with the new use it would be about 2000 trips per day. That would mean approximately 42 additional trips during peak hours in the a.m. and 72 additional trips in the p.rn. peak hours. A representative from the City's Economic Development Department, Rick Otto (Sr. Project Manager), responded to Commissioner Smith's question regarding what this department felt the City gained from this development. He stated that the Redevelopment Agency would receive significant property tax from this project from (a) the property being sold, and (b) the new assessed valuation for the property. Commissioner Smith asked if there were any City funds contributing to the project, and the response was no. Further, because this new development was within the boundaries of redevelopment area, the new taxes generated would stay within the City rather than going to the state. The next speaker was a representative from Trammell Crow Residential, Mr. Brad C. Perozzi, Managing Director, 949 South Coast Drive, Suite 400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. He noted that there were numerous representatives from the project in the audience that had been with the project from entitlement through project planning. He went on to further describe the details of the project. He offered two letters of support from Park Royale (the mobile home unit across the street) -- one from the President of the Association, and the second from the Property Manager, both of whom had voiced concern for the project at the previous meeting, but who now were approving of the project. He discussed numerous areas that had been improved through extensive work with the planning staff for the City and felt that the end project was better because of this extensive review. He then introduced Mr. Jack Selman, (144 Orange Street, Orange, CA), the architect of the project, who presented additional components of the plan and how the design incorporated a parking structure that was central to the units, and how this design (apartments wrapped around the parking structure) made for a visually appealing site. Commissioner Smith raised the issue that there were numerous corridors within the design and wondered if there was any natural light in these areas. Mr. Selman responded by detailing the open nature of the corridors, and also stated that where there were areas of darkness, the corridors 4 Planning Commission APPROV~' December 1, 2003 were covered by lighting and visually appealing architectural elements. Commissioner Domer asked if this project was complementary with the colors of the BRE project which would be next door and would have a lot of visual impact. Mr. Selman stated that he, in fact, was also the architect for the BRE project and that he had taken into consideration the visual impact of both projects, and that they were indeed complimentary. Commissioner Smith voiced concern for the air conditioning units (and their impact on the existing residential community), and Mr. Selman stated that the air conditioning units were located within each unit, and not in one massive structure as is sometimes seen in a hotel or other large structure. He felt that there would be no impact to the local community in terms of noise. Mr. Selman explained that at the request of the planning review board, the landscape palette as well as the color palette would remain consistent through both this project and the BRE project, yet each property would retain it's own identity. Commissioner Brandman questioned the "moving plaza" that is being proposed, as well as what similar projects Trammell Crow had developed similar to this one. Mr. Perozzi noted a project just completed in Marina del Rey that is similar to this one. Commissioner Brandman explained that she would like some idea of the long-term commitment of Trammell Crow to this project. Chairman Pruett indicated that the conditions of approval and the other project requirements imposed on the developer would ensure that these requirements were imposed on any new owners. Regarding the "moving plaza" idea -- Mr. Perozzi stated that this came out of discussions with the planning staff and the traffic department (to mitigate traffic impacts on several areas) -- and that the idea for this plaza came out of those discussions, and that Trammell Crow had not previously done anything of this type. There was discussion by the Commissioners about the language (multi-family and residential) used in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Roseberry indicated that "multi-family" and "residential units" both described apartment units and could be used interchangeably. Mr. Perozzi discussed the retail use of the property, and the difficulty in getting commitments from the retail vendors at this time because the actual completion date is so far off, and once the project is underway and further along, that they would determine the exact mix of retail vendors (he stated that several people had expressed interest in some form of coffee vendor, etc.). Commissioner Smith stated that she was still concerned about the 739 additional units coming into the area (with this project and the proposed BRE project). Mr. Perozzi discussed the changes made due to the widening of 1-5, other street improvements, and improvements in ingress and egress from the freeway which had greatly improved the area. Commissioner Domer asked where Trammell Crow was in the process of the sale, and Mr. Perozzi stated that the property was under contract and expected to close next year. Discussions continued regarding signage of the property, and traffic flow through, and into and out of, the new property. It was also indicated that there was no on-street parking allowed on Rampart. Mr. Mahood, City Traffic Engineer, indicated that parking was allowed there in the past was discontinued due to the surge in traffic during game days. Mr. Perozzi also discussed the methodology for the trash pick-up, chutes designated throughout the area for residents to deposit trash, as well as concerns by the Fire Department and Staff Review Committee for the location of the major trash compactor, and the changes made to the overall plan to incorporate these concerns. Commissioner Bonina expressed his pleasure regarding the mixed-use component ofthe property. 5 Planning Commission APPROVED December 1, 2003 Chairman Pruett queried the applicant as to whether he had seen the letters opposing the development of the project (Mr. Perozzi indicated that he had), and passed along the letters to Ms. Roseberry for inclusion in the record. Commissioner Smith questioned the lighting of the project, and Mr. Perozzi explained the philosophy behind the light sources throughout the project. Commissioner Smith stated that if it was not included in the security section of the project development, that she would like a clause inserted that any dark hallway remain lit during the daylight hours in addition to the evening hours. Commissioner Brandman asked about the security services resident on the site, and Mr. Perozzi described the services (not on site full-time, but a regular patrol) planned for the project. Chairman Pruett then opened the meeting for public discussion. Public Participation: Mr. John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way - Mr. Baker had a number of questions for the applicant including the project benefits, schools, traffic, affordable housing, the retail component, density, fire protection and the environmental document. Mr. Carl Boznanski, 283 N. Rampart, #A, Orange. Mr. Boznanski expressed concerns regarding the public outreach, the environmental document, traffic, and the retail component. The commission took a short break at 9:00pm. Chairman Pruett said that there were several issues posed by the public that need to be addressed by staff. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, reviewed the questions. . Fire access -- the Fire Department did review the plans, the project is sprinklered based on the size of the project and it's access from the street. Ms. Roseberry stated, in response to the question of access from all four sides of the project by the Fire Department, that the Fire Department does not require access on all four sides. . Impact on the city commercial vs. residential, fire, public safety issues, schools. . Environmental and determining whether there is any impact. Ms. Roseberry reviewed the City's environmental process beginning with the Initial Study Checklist. On the Initial Study for this project, there were no areas checked for significant impact. Air Quality has established thresholds set regarding whether or not an Environmental Impact Report is required. Those thresholds are established on whether a situation can be mitigated and whether or not a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be necessary. This project did not trigger that threshold. Just because there is not an EIR, doesn't mean that each of the issues has not been looked at. Chairman Pruett asked Ms. Roseberry to further clarify the issue between the actual use of the existing property and the granted/entitled use. Ms. Roseberry stated that when air traffic, air quality or noise are analyzed, the model does not analyze the actual use, it analyzes what is currently planned for and what the capacity can handle and what would be added by the new project. . The commercial use (2%) should require a change in zone than a General Plan Amendment - Ms. Roseberry stated that the General Plan does allow for an overlay district, rather than a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change. This is another, 6 Planning Commission APPROVED December 1,2003 of many, overlay districts, and this one is considered now District H, for Uptown Orange. . Major Site Plan Review - Chairman Pruett asked for a description of what this entails. Ms. Roseberry explained that there are two types of site plan reviews -- Minor and Major. Minor Site Plan Reviews would cover areas such as remodeling, while a Major Site Plan Review would include all new construction, etc. A Major Site Plan Review does not necessarily require an EIR. . Project Notification - is required within 300 feet of the Project Site. BRE's notification was different because it required an EIR. The Trammell Crow project did not require as much notification. . Affordable Housing - the applicant will be paying an "In Lieu" fee. There is a requirement with the Redevelopment Agency that the property provide 15% of the number of dwelling units in affordable housing, however, it does not require that it be built on that property. The funds for this, therefore, will go to the Redevelopment Agency. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, addressed the issue of the plan overlays, as there was a need for clarification voiced by several of the Commissioners. She stated there were two different overlays being created for the BRE Project and the Trammell Crow project. She also addressed the issue of the different zoning of the two properties. The distinction has to do with the different proposed developments. The mixed-use permit does not require a specific percentage of the project to be commercial. Commissioner Smith voiced her concern that each of these projects (and others) are being addressed piece by piece, and there is difficulty in understanding the overall strategy. Additionally, unless she had a better feel for the overall strategy, she would not be looking favorably at any new project that further added to the traffic congestion. Commissioner Bonina asked if the Archstone Project's overlay had been in for some time. Ms. Angus stated that it had been there since at least 1989. Ms. Angus stated that the difficulty was that we were not able to talk about the other projects, because they are not before the Commission now. Commissioner Bonina, stated that it was his opinion that we could have taken both the BRE and the Trammell Crow project and look at them together. Fundamentally, he believes that the Trammell Crow project is a good project and provides for the necessary commercial/retail usage so necessary to that area. Chairman Pruett asked the applicant to address the issue of noise from the parking structure relative to the proximity to the units -- and Mr. Perozzi went through some of the design features built in (extra width walls, swirled concrete on drive-path to eliminate noise, etc.) Chairman Smith asked for further clarification on the fire department access, and Mr. Perozzi delineated a list of the code requirements that were met by the developer. He stated that there was simply no way that they could get their plans approved without the full review and approval of the Fire Department. Mr. Perozzi further clarified his community outreach with the 7 or 8 adjacent property owners, and apologized for not meeting with Mr. Boznanski, and agreed that he would arrange for a meeting in the future. Chairman Pruett also stated that this recommendation would go to the City Council at which point the neighborhood would have another opportunity to discuss this development at the City Council meeting. The public hearing was closed at 9:45pm and brought back to the Commission for further discussion. 7 Planning Commission APPROVEO December I, 2003 The Commissioners discussed their concerns which included: . The impact on traffic . The lack of affordable housing . The piece-meal approach to approving these projects separately . The number of changes to the General Plan . The need for consistency with each developer (i.e., zone changes, etc.) . The commercial % of the project - most wished it could be larger, but complimented the developer on the overall scope of the project. Chairman Pruett did wish to note that the Commission received an errata for the project which contained several technical revisions and changes to the staffs report and resolution (basically spelling corrections and small editorial changes) -- it does not change the resolution materially. Therefore, when the issue is taken up it will include the adoption of the errata as well. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve General Plan Amendment No. 2003-04, Conditional Use Permit No. 2478-03, Major Site Plan Review No. 286-03, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1723-03 - Trammell Crow. Moved by Chairman Pruett to adopt Resolution #PC47-03 recommending that City Council approve mitigated negative declaration no. 1723-03 as being in compliance with CEQA, and recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2003-04, Conditional Use Permit No. 2478-03, and Major Site Plan review No. 286-03 with the revision to Condition 58 (re: onsite security lighting, that the parking structure and corridors be lit 24-hours per day), seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith Domer None None MOTION CARRIED With no further items on the calendar, the Commission moved to adjourn. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None ADJOURNMENT: lO:33pm 8