Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - May 19 Planning Commission Minutes ~oo<,~.J3 May 19, 2008 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange May 19, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, and Steiner Commissioners Merino and Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Amir Farahani, Traffic Engineer Frank Sun, City Engineer Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:40 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #1, Approval of the April 21, 2008 and May 5, 2008 minutes. Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director noted a change to page 15 of the April 21, 2008 minutes; the motion should read: recommend approval. No changes or corrections noted for the May 5,2008 minutes. Commission Business: Item #2, Policy Standards Report regarding parking requirements. Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner, stated the item was being presented through a Staff Report to the Planning Commission in order to receive recommendations on the Parking Standards Policy in the City. Commissioner Imboden asked if the item would return as an ordinance revision? Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff was seeking direction and any clarification in the parking standards to allow them to move forward. Chair Steiner stated City Council would be looking to have the item return to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bonina stated he was aware that a representative from the City Traffic Division was present. Commissioner Imboden asked if the City had a policy on reserved parking? He stated at the Fresh & Easy parking lot he had noticed reserved parking spaces for hybrid cars and parent w/child spaces - although he was neither agreeable or opposed to reserved spaces, he was concerned that it was something that had been established after the item had been presented and approved and had not been a part of the approval process. He was concerned that these types of spaces could further reduce parking, especially in a situation where there was a Variance for required parking spaces. Mr. Knight stated Staff could research the Fresh & Easy parking lot situation. Currently Page 1 of7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 2008 the City did not set requirements or guidelines for reserved parking and it could be taken care of through a mitigation measure on future projects. Chair Steiner stated the issue of reserved parking spaces brought up a good point, as many times the approval of a project included adequate parking and reserved spaces, reserved parking spaces such as the ones Commissioner Imboden had pointed out could compromise parking. Commissioner Imboden stated the specialized reserved spaces could be presented through a Variance. Mr. Knight stated on a shared parking situation it could also have an impact on adequate parking as one tenant could potentially mark reserved spaces in a shared parking lot and those spaces would need to be factored into the parking requirement. Amir Farahani, Traffic Engineer, stated the handicapped and guest parking spaces were generally factored in on a proposed project, however, the other types of reserved parking were generally designated by the business and the City would not be aware of those. Chair Imboden stated it was something to be considered when drafting the Parking Policy Standards. Mr. Knight stated Fresh & Easy took it upon themselves to create reserved spaces after the approval process. A business owner would generally create reserved spots based on business needs and unless those spaces negatively impacted parking, the City would not get involved. Chair Steiner stated the issue was important and should be discussed further in Chambers when the policy was presented by Staff, as there needed to be clarification as to what extent the applicant could designate reserved parking. Other information: Chair Steiner asked Mr. Knight if there was any news from City Council? Mr. Knight stated the Richardson Zone Change had gone before the City Council and had been approved. Chair Steiner inquired about future items coming before the Commission. Mr. Knight stated there were several interesting projects in the works including the Rio Santiago project, Holy Sepulcher Cemetery expansion, an affordable housing project, medical office additions and some residential projects just to name a few. They were at a point in time where there were many projects in the works that had not reached the point of presentation. Administrative Session closed @ 6:55 p.m. Page 2 of7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes May 19,2008 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF April 21, 2008 and May 5, 2008. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of April 21, 2008 with correction as noted, and the minutes from the May 5, 2008 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Bonina, Imboden and Steiner None None Commissioner Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED COMMISSION BUSINESS: (2) POLICY STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS. REPORT REGARDING PARKING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to Staff regarding issues to be addressed through an amendment to Section 17.34, Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the Orange Municipal Code. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Policy Standards Report regarding parking requirements consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions/comments to Staff. Commissioner Bonina asked in reading through the single-family residence parking, would the assumption that the single-family reference be a typical subdivision with public streets? Ms. Pehoushek stated yes, that would be the scenario. Commissioner Bonina stated there had been projects that were positioned as single- family residences; however, they were in fact PUD's where the streets were private streets. They were fairly enclosed environments and the discussion regarding parking was that the parking was challenged. Although the projects were presented as single- family residences in those types of communities, there was somewhat enclosed parking that became problematic. In a single-family typical subdivision on public streets the manner in which criteria was laid out was very reasonable. Page 3 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 2008 Commissioner Bonina stated another area he wanted to look at was the parking requirement for churches. The City requirement seemed very reasonable, one space for every 4 seats or 30 square feet of assembly area, if, in fact, it was a stand alone view of the church only. When looking at the other uses for the church such as day care, sports events, senior care and schools, the parking needed to be looked at for those types of uses and the times that the events took place in relationship to the church property. Chair Steiner stated the theme running through Commissioner Bonina's observations were that the classification of something might not be entirely descriptive of its use. In the Planned Unit Development, it would not make sense to call those developments single-family dwellings, as there was less curb space and the end result affected parking. He had felt conflicted on other proposed projects where the applicant was compliant with the City standard; however, the standard was inadequate in addressing parking concerns of a particular area. The description of something might need further subdivision in the different forms that the different uses for a particular facility contained. Commissioner Bonina stated he felt a broader sense of uses within categories would be beneficial. For auto repair, the era of bays was somewhat obsolete, and an application coming to the City to develop a service station with bays would be very rare. The criteria that was laid out in the parking standards, 3 spaces per bay, was adequate and the trend for those businesses with bays would be to maximize business by utilizing all of their space. Commissioner Imboden stated on the auto repair parking, he assumed that a smog check station and quick oil change center would fall under the same category. He supported the comments made regarding the residential developments, particularly the PUD's, which should be looked at a bit closer. There had been instances where a project had been presented that had been in compliance, however, in reality would not work and it had been a bit difficult to deal with. He also agreed with the comments made regarding churches and their multiple uses and they needed to take into account the multiple uses when looking at parking requirements. Another issue was the sizing of spaces. Over the past few years there had been concerns about increasing vehicle size and what dimension of parking spaces had become obsolete, however, he would not necessarily be in support of enlarging spaces. Many of the new developments around town had adequately sized spaces and he felt there would be a down size in vehicles based on the current economy. He stated he supported compact spaces not being used in the City of Orange, and he would continue to support that. He felt there was no regard by people parking in those spaces whether they had a compact vehicle or not. Commissioner Imboden stated he had visited a few projects that had been approved through the Planning Commission that had added reserved parking spaces outside of the federally required ADA spaces. Those were reserved spaces for expectant mothers, family parking spaces and hybrid parking to name a few. He did not want to send the message that he did not support that type of activity and it would be beneficial if those types of reserved spaces became part of the review process and part of the evaluation when looking at adequate parking, especially on those projects that came to the Planning Commission with a Variance for a reduction in parking. Page 4 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes May 19,2008 Chair Steiner stated it was important to note on the expansion of spaces it needed to be very cautiously undertaken, particularly when dealing with a project that had limited space. He agreed with Commissioner Imboden's comments on compact spaces. In the Staff Report on Issue #1, page 3, there were a number of areas, large single-family residences, more than 3 bedrooms, multi-family residential units, auto repair, medical offices, hospital, churches and multi-screened movie theatres, and he wanted clarification that all those areas had a substantial difference from other neighboring cities? Ms. Pehoushek stated the most substantial difference between the City of Orange and neighboring cities was in the residential categories. The other uses identified were those that stood out as being somewhat different than other communities, however, not radically different. The number of cities examined created a very extensive list and presented quite a range, and the City of Orange was slightly below the norm, but not drastically below the norm. Chair Steiner stated it was an important observation and the primary area of focus should be in those areas. In looking at the mixed use areas that the City was entertaining and the current standard for home building, that would not be presenting itself in the coming years, it would not make sense to use an antiquated or outdated system and the City Council wisely observed the need for modifications to the City's parking requirements. Concerning some of the other cities, he asked Ms. Pehoushek if she had the opportunity to gather information on the dates their Ordinances had been enacted? Ms. Pehoushek stated she had not had an opportunity to gather that information. Chair Steiner stated it would be important in looking at comparisons to note when Ordinances had been enacted vs. Ordinances that had been in effect for many years. Ms. Pehoushek stated the factors they gathered for their comparison information was the age of the city, the similarity of the city in regard to medical institutions, education facilities and businesses within the city. They tried to find cities that had comparable characteristics. Commissioner Bonina stated under the studio and one-bedroom parking requirement there was a difference in parking criteria. It appeared to him that the parking requirement for both of those types of uses would be very similar, and how would one look at a studio and one-bedroom in relationship to parking being different as the same population could occupy both - couples, students, or roommates, who might have one or two vehicles? He asked how the determination between the two types were made? Ms. Pehoushek stated the distinction between studio and one-bedroom had been adopted in the 1990's and she was not aware how that determination had been made. Typically the evolution of a standard for a community was for a city to look at neighboring communities and adopt that standard. Commissioner Bonina stated one parking space, with an additional guest parking space for both a studio or one bedroom would be strongly encouraged. Page 5 of7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 2008 Chair Steiner stated he hoped the feedback Staff received from the Planning Commission would be helpful in assisting Staff to move forward in developing additional parking standards. Other Business: Chair Steiner stated there had been only one item on the agenda, however; Commissioner Bonina had wished to make a statement. Commissioner Bonina stated he had been a member of the Planning Commission for approximately seven years and he had thoroughly enjoyed his time with the Commission. He had the opportunity to be involved in some very significant projects in the City and he was very proud of that. He felt it was time to step aside to allow a new voice, a new face and a new prospective to be a part ofthe Commission. He stated effective May 19, 2008 he would be resigning his position from the Planning Commission. In the process of being a part of the Commission over the last seven years he had an opportunity to be involved with many good people, community members and Staff, the commonality of those folks had been a love and a great respect for the City. Commissioner Bonina stated he wanted to thank the City Staff for their professionalism and helpful nature, from the Planning, Building, Engineering, Traffic, Attorney Departments, and City Manager and that all aspects of each department had been incredibly helpful and he truly appreciated that. Without that support and guidance the Commission would not be as successful as they had been. He also wanted to thank the community members that came out week after week to express themselves and their concerns and support for various projects. He had the privilege of being Chair of the Commission for two years and the highlight was the interaction with the speakers and he had walked away with something from each of those speakers. It had become a part of his thought process when looking at other applications. It was not easy in many cases for them to come out after working a full day to express their opinions and it was an incredible act. Commissioner Bonina stated he wanted to thank the City Council for allowing him and the Planning Commission to function. They had been very helpful and their job was not an easy one, taking time away from their families and businesses. He respected that the City Council had taken a very much hands-off approach to the Planning Commission. The Commission's decisions were based on land use only and that was not an easy thing for a City Council to do based on the political pressure they received and he respected that. He wanted to thank the various groups, OTP A, OP A, large property owners, and the various institutions in making his service a very positive experience for him. Finally, he thanked the Planning Commissioners themselves, both present and past. He thanked them for allowing him to engage in conversations that had been very helpful and he had enjoyed it very much - he was humbled by the opportunity- it had been great. Chair Steiner stated he had been a member of the Commission for two years and Commissioner Bonina had been the Chair when he had first become a member. He stated Commissioner Bonina had an excellent guiding hand, he was very even tempered, even on those controversial issues that people would get fired up over, he was a real diplomat. The City of Orange was a very special place for all of them and they did not always agree on issues, however; they all had a good heart and really cared about the issues. Phil Page 6 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes May 19,2008 Bonina was a true example of that. He felt very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with Phil on the Commission and the City was better off for having his service, and they were very fortunate that he had taken seven years of his life and had dedicated it so amazingly to the City of Orange. He stated Commissioner Bonina could not be replaced; there would be a successor, but not a replacement. He spoke for himself in stating Phil Bonina would be sincerely missed. Commissioner Imboden stated he could not completely express his disappointment, not toward Commissioner Bonina personally, but he was sincerely sad to see him leave. He stated it would not be the same without him and he felt a deep sadness as Commissioner Bonina had been a great contribution to the Planning Commission and he would be sincerely missed. Chair Steiner stated Commissioner Bonina had given extraordinary service to the City and as citizens of the City of Orange they would be in his debt for all of his efforts. (3) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bonina made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, June 2, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Chair Steiner and Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, and Steiner None None Commissioner Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:31 P.M. Page 7 of 7 Pages