10-25-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commission comments: Commissioner De La Torre commented on considerations for Park accommodations, high-end restaurant, black-box theater, the market, parking for visitors and lighting issues. Commissioner Cribb stated this is a key project defining the city; air quality and traffic are inevitable within urbanized areas. He expressed concerns with wildlife preservation and that the quality of life should be maintained. Vice Chairman Leo expressed concerns with taking action prior to public review period ending for the DEIR, inclusionary housing, park fees and how the fees would be earmarked, and landscape. He thanked Mr. Bisno for a quality project. Commissioner Nalle expressed concerns with cost of units, general funding, maintenance, in lieu fee going to special account for park acquisition, and capital improvements. Commissioner Sinclair requested that Patrick Mitchell be sent the Draft EIR report and be kept informed on the project. Commented that distribution list used an incorrect address for Orange Unified School District. She would prefer to only accept public comments tonight before taking action to allow CEQA 45-day process to conclude. Commissioner Lutz noted that prior project in the 1990s was not completed due to the downturn of the economy; stated competition thrives with multi-restaurants. Chairman Mondo commented that the project was generally and architecturally good and that the product-mix works. He commented that a lot of detail issues need to be addressed, including: 1. Concept discussed urban design, noted lesser open and pedestrian spaces in particular to and from the residential, commercial and park areas. 2. Residential to retail access referenced upgraded materials, i.e., stamped asphalt versus high quality paved materials on the color-renderings of the presentation. 3. Allow better access to the Park. Noted less on-site recreational space. 4. Site Development Plan, page 4 discussed permitted uses in Buildings A, B, C, D and that general office uses include escrow, accountants, medical, insurance. Is the intent to allow office uses? 5. Plan indicated no fast-food uses then referenced cafes and restaurants within 50% of enclosed area for dining; needs clarification. 6. Site Development identifies a conditional use permit requirement for parking structure. Is this for a potential future use? 7. Page 13 of the Plaza design dealt with water features that should be defined. 8. Page 14 addressed pedestrian walkway with unit pavers or stamped asphalt; stipulate what is being approved. 9. Setbacks for project: along Main Street is smaller than typical due to turnout along Lawson and Memory Lane, some residential units propose front doors within a foot of the sidewalk. Is this due to the urban design? 10. Residential area is indicated as 59% open space (page 6 of staff report); need clarification. 11. Page 19 dealt with parking gates and stacking, need to clarify whether gates are proposed. 12. If Recreational Vehicle storage is prohibited on site, does that include boats? 13. Need to define location of trash enclosures, and pickup procedures. 14. Dead-end residential streets are a concern. Also many of these streets have no landscaping. 15. Noted lengthy blocks with asphalt and garage doors and very little grass (nine areas cited on plan). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 OCTOBER 25, 2004