Planning Commission Minutes

CITY OF VICTORIA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 18, 2006

MINUTES

Pursuant to due posted and mailed notice thereof, the Victoria Planning Commission met on April 18, 2006, at 7951 Rose in the Council Chambers.

Chair Simanton opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Chair, Gordy Simanton; Commissioners James Donadio III, William Mead VI, and Tom Vogt.

Members Absent: Commissioner Bud Hiivala.

Others Present: Eric Zweber, City Planner; Angie Perera, Assistant Planner; City Councilmember Rick Tieden; and Tanya Schmieg, Recording Secretary.

A. Adopt Agenda

A motion was made by Vogt, seconded by Donadio, to adopt the agenda as presented. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion Carried.
 

#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A. Minutes of March 21, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.

The following revision was requested to the March 21, 2006 meeting minutes:

On page 9, the last paragraph, first sentence should read, Chair Simanton stated he had some observations and feedback and he thinks that the town square park in the middle should err towards the side of making it as big as they can get it.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Donadio, to approve the Minutes as corrected above. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

B. Review Minutes from the March 9, 2006 and March 23, 2006 City Council Meeting.

The above minutes were reviewed.

C. Review Minutes from the March 27, 2006 joint City Council, Planning Commission and Business Development Committee Workshop.

The above minutes were reviewed.

None.

A. Request by CEI Ventures, Ltd. To remodel the Notermann Building at 7924 Victoria Drive.

1. Agenda Statement No. 06-14
2. Exhibits

Mr. Zweber stated that CEI Ventures, Ltd. (CEI) has a purchase agreement to acquire the Notermann Building (commonly referred to as the Antique Building) at 7924 Victoria Drive. CEI intends to remodel the building and initially continue the existing uses. Tonight, two issues need to be discussed, the changes to the façade of the building and the proposed signage. If, or when, CEI changes the use of the building, parking standards will need to be reviewed, but that is not necessary tonight.

Mr. Zweber showed a picture of the building as is. The first part he would like to talk about is the proposed façade changes. Mr. Zweber stated they are proposing to redo a large portion of the building. They will be putting in new windows, replacing all the old ones and repainting. The majority of the changes are going to be in the banner. A set of accent lights will be placed above the sign banner. A series of black awnings would be placed on the front of the building to get it towards the way it was in the past. Mr. Zweber showed a picture of the side of the building.

Mr. Zweber stated that the shed addition on the back of the building needs to be discussed. Part of the question is what to do about the removal and what if any timeline will be given to the applicant.

Mr. Zweber stated that another issue is a need for a garbage enclosure. The Kid Talk building has a brick enclosure with a dog-eared fence. He said a similar type of garbage enclosure should be included in any approval.

Mr. Zweber showed the specific changes to the window and remodeling. There would be new planters and a new wooden painted face. He noted that all the features are keeping with the design standards, with the exception of how to address the shed and the garbage enclosure he does not have any recommended changes to the plan as is.

Mr. Zweber said that the next item is the signage. As he stated in the staff report there should be two separate motions, one for the façade changes and one for the signage. Chair Simanton asked what Mr. Zweber is looking for in regards to the shed. Mr. Zweber stated he thinks it needs to be addressed and there are a number of things that can be done. It could be required to be removed immediately or there could be a proposal that says if they change the use in the future at the time it should be addressed.

Mr. Zweber said the current use is residential on the second floor and retail on the first. Mr. Zweber stated that Mr. Crowe is looking to explore changing the residents into offices upstairs. In changing that use there are significant improvements that need to be made and that may be a good point where the shed could come up. Mr. Zweber noted that that is not part of this proposal. Chair Simanton asked how the garbage is being handled today. Mr. Zweber responded that it is a green garbage dumpster and the shed provides some screening. There is no enclosure like the one at Kid Talk. Chair Simanton asked what the shed is being used for today. Mr. Zweber said it is Jason Becks office for his drywall business. He owns the building and is selling the building and he will no longer need that office space. Chair Simanton asked if as long as the use of the building doesn’t change that the shed on the back doesn’t require any changes. Mr. Zweber said there would be no fault in making that finding. Chair Simanton said that Mr. Crowe is willing to take over ownership of the building and he wants to see if there is interest to for office space and if that is something that is viable a reasonable person would be back asking for a conditional use permit would then allow them to look at it as a different structure. Mr. Zweber said if he changes it into offices that have permitted use, provided he meets all of the ordinance requirements, which the most restrictive one is parking, then the issue will not need a conditional use permit. If he were to change the use to a restaurant, then it would need to be revisited. If he can meet the parking standards it may not need to be revisited. He will need a zoning permit to make that change of use and when you get that with the building permit when you do that change. Chair Simanton said if he found interest in changing the use to office would require more investment to the building would make sense. Chair Simanton said that there is the question about parking.

Mr. Zweber said that the first part of the proposal for signage is to swap out the existing sign for The Notermann Building sign. The sign does meet all the requirements and by the ordinance change Mr. Zweber can approve that. Mr. Zweber said an issue is with the applicant looking at putting a three by fifteen foot banner to place a sign to see if there is interest in office or retail. Mr. Zweber said the ordinance identifies this type of a sign as a temporary real estate sign and only allows eight square feet for the size of that sign. Mr. Zweber stated that part of the sign ordinance change they did leave in the provision of the applicant’s ability to petition. Mr. Zweber stated that the argument can be made that there is the ability to have a wall sign for six percent of the wall area, which would allow for a ninety- six square foot sign and this one is only forty-five square feet. In looking at an ordinance you find the best fit and this could work under the wall sign category. Mr. Zweber said that he is requesting a time limit be put on this with the recommendation. The applicant is requesting ninety days to poll that support.

Commissioner Vogt asked if the shed looks that bad. Mr. Zweber said it doesn’t look too bad, but it does not have similar materials to the rest of the building. Commissioner Vogt said that it is a design ordinance issue. Mr. Zweber stated they would have the authority in change of use even with it being an existing structure. Mr. Zweber noted that if the applicant is looking at having a different use then they would have the authority to make the building compliant with the ordinance. Commissioner Vogt stated that it would have to be brick. Mr. Zweber talked about removing the shed for three additional parking spaces. Commissioner Vogt asked if the shed itself could be kept if it was brought up to structural compliance. Mr. Zweber said yes, that is correct. Commissioner Vogt stated that parking is the issue. Mr. Zweber stated that the north half of the parking lot outside of City Hall is under the ownership of the Notermann building. The City is currently leasing those parking stalls. Chair Simanton asked how many stalls that is. Mr. Zweber said he thinks it is eight. Mr. Zweber said there may be an opportunity to grant a waiver for those parking stalls for the City if there is a change of use. Chair Simanton asked if that were to happen then the City Hall would not have enough parking any longer. Mr. Zweber said that is correct. Commissioner Donadio asked who owns the brick garage. Mr. Zweber said it is also under ownership of the Notermann building. Mr. Zweber noted that the applicant is probably close to having enough parking stalls to change the building into office space and retail. Commissioner Mead asked that if right now he does not change the use of the building from what it is today that shed could be there forever. Mr. Zweber said that since he is changing the façade of the building the Commission does have the authority to require that he remove it, but he wouldn’t recommend that. He noted that change in use always requires evaluation of current ordinances and updating.

Chair Simanton asked if they did decide to go in and have office and retail then he would assume there would be extensive remodeling on the inside and asked if the City goes in to check for asbestos and upgrades to the plumbing, etc. Mr. Zweber said they have had a number of conversations with the applicant and the applicant and his family have done a number of remodels. Mr. Zweber noted the City has not received any information on specifics, but that would be required as part of the building permit.

Mr. Matt Crowe stated he will be the owner of the building shortly. He said just to clarify the shed that he is talking about that would come down is the larger garage. That would add three parking spaces. Mr. Crowe stated the other shed could come down as well in the event that a certain tenant needs a loading dock. If he does change the use of the second floor an elevator would also need to be added. He noted right now he is not looking to change anything with that, but is looking at changing the façade on the front of the building and adding signage. Mr. Crowe showed a copy of the survey. Mr. Crowe wanted to make it clear that he is not here to kick anybody out of the parking, but he understands it is a large issue. He said that it puts him in a good scenario because there is enough parking with about 35 parking stalls. He wants to work with the City. Mr. Crowe said that taking down the garage may not be today and could be six months from now. Mr. Zweber said that when the change in use happens that would need to be addressed. Mr. Zweber said that Mr. Crowe is just looking for an o.k. to start making improvements to the building.

Chair Simanton asked how many residents are in the building. Mr. Crowe said there are six. The units are between 350 and 750 square feet. Chair Simanton asked about converting the upper space into office space and if it would totally be redone. Mr. Crowe said yes, it is a large expense with an added elevator and a full sprinkler system on the second floor. He noted there is a full basement as well. Mr. Crowe touched on the asbestos and he did have a complete phase 1 and 2 done. There is about $3,000 worth of asbestos that will be removed out of the building. Chair Simanton asked if he would be redoing all the plumbing and wiring. Mr. Crowe said yes. Chair Simanton asked what the intensions of the basement are. Mr. Crowe said he doesn’t know. It will be hinged off the second floor and if that is changed he would make the elevator have three stops so it would go to the basement. Right now the basement is not useable for anything but could become storage units.

Commissioner Donadio questioned the banner and if the conversion is done and becomes an office facility and a tenant moves out would that banner go back up. Mr. Crowe said no, the only reason he wants to put it up is to have the traffic off Highway 5 see that it is available. He noted that putting up a banner really creates a statement that says something is going on here. The intension of that banner is strictly a one time use.

Mr. Crowe stated he knows for sure that the first floor will be retail and is negotiating with multiple different tenants right now. He said he needs to know if there is a market for the second floor and would personally rather do offices because it would be a better fit for the City than apartments. They would be the only downtown historic offices. Chair Simanton said that the building has a bowling alley look to it (not a derogatory term) because the windows are just up front and asked if he is looking at one retailer. Mr. Crowe said that will all be up to the tenant. It will depend on how much square feet they need. He would like to see two tenants go into the building. Chair Simanton asked if he would be looking to put more windows in. Mr. Crowe said no and there are transept windows.

Chair Simanton said he personally thinks the building has been an eye soar and with what Mr. Crowe is going with the facelift and determining whether to put office space in is a very smart thing to do. Chair Simanton said the other thing he would like to commend Mr. Crowe for is this city is really big on some of the names and just calling it The Notermann Building says a lot for the people of Victoria. He noted that the editor for the local paper is always looking for some buzz on what it was then and what it is now and she would think this is great. Mr. Crowe said it was important to him and he met with the Notermann family and has historic photos from the turn of the century. He showed a photo out of the 60’s. He said it is a good way to give back to the community and to the Notermann family. Chair Simanton mentioned that the people who have lived here for a long time know what that was. Mr. Zweber mentioned that he was talking with Terry Hartman and he said that Mr. Hartman’s dad’s accountant had an office on the second floor. Mr. Crowe said the basement was used to sell shoes and furniture and all the farmers brought the eggs into the basement of the building and there is still a freezer there.

Chair Simanton said he knows that this is not in front of them tonight but if the use of the building did change in the future they would be looking at the parking and the use of the shed in the back and possibilities of either upgrading or removing it.

Mr. Zweber said just as a reminder this should be done in two separate motions.

Chair Simanton said that they have had issues at Cabin Fever with the lighting and if there has been anything specific with that. Mr. Zweber said no, but they have discussed that with Mr. Crowe that they would need to be designed a certain way with lower intensity and could just put in lower wattage light bulbs.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Vogt, to approve for CEI ventures to remodel the front façade of "The Notermann Building" at 7924 Victoria Drive. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Mead, to approve the temporary sign that goes on the south exterior of the building for ninety (90) days from the day it goes up. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

Mr. Zweber noted that next Thursday this will be in front of the City Council. Mr. Crowe said they close on the building at the end of the month and would like to begin construction the beginning of May. Mr. Zweber said they could submit the building plans and they would begin to review them.
 

Councilmember Tieden had nothing to report.
 

A. Communications.

Chair Simanton stated he had the opportunity to read the minutes and review the March 23^rd City Council meeting online. He said one of the things in there is the parking for Floyd’s and the building they want to put up and the discussion that was going on. He noted that he believes it was a 3-2 vote for approval. He said the president of the chamber was there, Mrs. Chapman and he wanted to say from his standpoint that he is not anti business either. He didn’t hear anything that the Planning Commission was anti business, but he thinks what this Commission was trying to do is send a message to Staff and City Council that there is a parking problem. It just happened to be that it was Floyd’s and it would not have made any difference who came they still would have thought there was a parking problem. Chair Simanton stated to him that was the bigger issue of all of this. His take was that they were just sending a message out. Councilmember Tieden stated he doesn’t recall the criticism. Chair Simanton said he just heard the Planning Commission brought up several times. Chair Simanton noted that Councilmember Bishop handled it well in that they have to balance what is right for the City and the residents. Councilmember Tieden stated that there is concern with recent developments not having to provide the parking that others are required to. He talked about the Floyd’s parking lot and how everybody parks in that lot. He stated there was concern about the way they collectively went ahead and looked at the development of that porch and for what that offers in the summertime (it will not be up in the winter), they haven’t asked for much.

Chair Simanton said that if he would have been in attendance for that meeting he would have stood up and said that our role here is to make sure that they don’t end up like Excelsior. He said that there has been some baggage that came along with Floyd’s. Councilmember Tieden said that was put very well, that there really has been baggage with Floyd’s that has continued a long the way and that is unfortunate.

Councilmember Tieden said that they share the concerns about parking.

Chair Simanton said that the sixteen stalls is not going to be a big deal. Commissioner Vogt stated that he thought they approved it with the caveat. Mr. Zweber said the actually approval was twenty-two stalls. Chair Simanton said after further analysis it was dropped down to sixteen. Mr. Zweber stated that they will be visiting the whole parking ordinance in the near future. He said that the City shares the most restrictive parking ordinance.

Chair Simanton said that this is just a three season. Mr. Zweber said they put in a condition in the ordinance that if they ever remodeled it to a four season porch that parking would need to be provided. Councilmember Tieden said they have to provide a toilet facility even with a three season, which will be costly. That is a state building code.

Mr. Zweber mentioned that he worked in the hospitality business. He noted that events important to businesses. It will allow them to do retirement parties. Chair Simanton said he if were in their shoes he would look at should more be put into this as opposed to looking at something else that may be more viable. He noted that it use to be the corner bar and they have expanded into an entertainment business. Mr. Zweber stated when staff has been working with them on the parking. One of the possibilities was the City buy the lot but Floyd’s want the control of the lot and understand that it would be five to six figures to put the parking lot in. Chair Simanton said that it is slated to go up by the end of the year.

Commissioner Vogt said that strictly speaking the Planning Commission did approve that with the conditions. He thought they stretched and really tried to approve it. He said to him the Commission was very much in favor of Floyd’s and it was looked at many different ways. Chair Simanton said he didn’t want to leave the wrong impression.

Chair Simanton stated he had a handout from Councilmember Hershberger-Thun. Mr. Zweber said that she had passed that out at the City Council meeting regarding eminent domain. Chair Simanton said to take it and read it later. It is how the City of Anaheim has changed their ordinances.
 

A motion was made by Mead, seconded by Vogt, to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Tanya Schmieg
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.