Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - June 5 Ca~/;Iu (1,).)1'. G, J 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange June 5. 2000 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney. Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin. Recording Secretary (D ~ Cr) hi:'"' C~ IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED -;,;w,n:) },,J,JJ - 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2332-00 - ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORANGE ROTARY A request to construct a 5-unit senior apartment building with two units restricted to low-income households. The proposal also includes a request for a density bonus and a potential waiver of one development standard. The site is located on the north side of La Veta Avenue, between Olive and Lemon Streets. Negative Declaration 1641-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. The applicanf requested to continue this item indefinitely to allow scheduling to meet the deadlines of the Agenda and meetings of the Design Review Committee. NOTE: MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue Conditional Use Permit 2332-00 indefinitely and request that staff re-notice prior to a new hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch. Pruett, Romero. Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Carlton abstained due to a potential conflict of interest. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of May 15. 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes of May 15, 2000. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett. Romero. Smith None MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 3. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1640-00 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY (Pulled for discussion) A request to construct a 706-car parking structure within the Chapman University Specific Plan Area. The site is located south of Walnut Avenue and west of Orange Street. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1640-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Godlewski reported that staff felt there may be environmental impacts that have occurred subsequent to the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan some ten years ago. The proposal is for a five level, four story parking structure to be located on the existing site of the Stadium/ Orange Street parking lot. There have been extensive studies submitted in the staff report concerning the parking structure and its location. and the number of spaces that it contains. Staff has presented the application to the Design Review Committee which looked at the initial structure and made a number of recommendations. Scheme 1 is recommended by the DRC. They also recommended that the details be worked out and be brought back to them should the Commission choose to approve the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Smith understands that the buildings must comply with the Old Towne Design Standards in order to be part of the Chapman University Specific Plan. She asked if parking structures were particularly listed in the Old Towne Design Standards. And. what is the criteria that a parking structure has to meet in terms of bulk and mass. location? Mr. Godlewski explained that it is required that a finding be made that the buildings comply with the Old Towne Design Standards. The Chapman University Specific Plan was adopted prior to the adoption of the Historic District. The Specitic Plan does have its own unique circumstances. and a requirement for conformity to the Old Towne Design Standards is such that it is complimentary to, and it does not detract from. the Old Towne District. The actual specifics are not addressed from one plan to the other. except that the Specific Plan is outlined as having unique design standards. Reference was made to Page 15 of the Design Standards. It lists the findings required by the reviewing body for projects located in the Old Towne District. The public hearing was opened. Bob Hornacek. CRHO Architects. is the design architect for the parking structure. There are three guidelines that govern this site. One is the Chapman Specific Plan. the Old Towne Standards. and also the Standards for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. A parking structure is not addressed in these various documents. In terms of architectural design there doesn't seem to be a real clear direction that is needed to be followed. The project presents three basic issues, and he spoke to one of them regarding the size. shape and volume of the structure. The Specific Plan dictates setbacks, height limits and so forth and they fall within those. The other issue is the perceived parking need. Two of the parking structure elevations (east and south) are internal to the campus. The west elevation is one lot size removed from Glassell, and will be partially screened by the existing buildings. The north elevation is the only one that relates directly to the community. They propose to provide large landscape setbacks off of Walnut. And, they also propose to put landscape materials on the building that will drape the upper floors. In presenting their proposal to the Design Review Committee. the DRC asked them to return with additional descriptive materials to show how the building will sit on the site. how visible it is. and to study some additional elevation ideas that might bring in some of the Old Towne elements. They presented two additional schemes and the DRC accepted Scheme 1 showing a punched opening element. Vehicles will be visible at eye level, but not from fhe upper levels. They are preparing more exhibits for DRC's review. The parking structure is 35 feet in height on the Glassell and Walnut elevations. The building gets higher as it goes back into the campus. 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 Commissioner Pruett asked if consideration had been given to the possibility that the building on the corner may not be there forever and the structure may gain prominence because of changes that could occur. Mr. Hornacek replied they are open to suggestions on what they need to do. John Bioos. One Universitv Drive. is the Project Manager. In answer to Commissioner Carlton's question. he said the University does own one of the buildings (a duplex) that is on Glassell. They have exhibits that show the site lines from Glassell. They plan to use the landscape planters on the west side, north side, and in the open bays on the east side of the structure. But, they will not add the planters in the punched openings. Paul Wilkinson. consultant with Linscott Law & Greensoan. 1580 Coroorate Drive #122. Costa Mesa. explained the goals of the long-term Parking Management Plan. They want to reduce the University's parking on residential streets, to identify measures to prevent misuse of the City's Neighborhood Parking Permit Program, to offset the loss of parking during the construction of the proposed parking structure and the residence hall. and to develop special provisions and incentives to encourage the University students, faculty and staff to park where they are supposed to park. They have made an extensive parking inventory on campus and every block face that radiates from the campus to include the Parking Permit Program, as well as possible future expansion areas. They are in the midst of their work and do not have specific conclusions yet. Parking and demand counts were made on two days during the week of May 8 and 11. They have determined that the peak demand times are from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The on-University surface lots are virtually full during those periods. The residence hall lots are substantially utilized throughout the day. The parking structure is under utilized. There are 350 to 400 spaces that are not being used. However. the law school is not fully developed. There are between 50 to 200 vehicles parked on residential streets that may have no business being there. From the data they have collected, it appears the proposed garage structure is necessary. With the completion of the garage. they will only be adding 150 cars to that site. Commissioner Pruett stated that use of the parking structure during athletic events will be an issue that needs to be planned and included in the overall Management Plan. In response to Commissioner Romero's question. it was stated that the maximum enrollment for Chapman University is 4,000 students, and there are 3,300 students who are currently enrolled. Commissioner Smith said it looks like the University is building a parking structure for buildings that have not yet been proposed to the City. Mr. Wilkinson said 80% of the structure's capacity is needed for the demand of the completed residence hall. They have not projected parking for the new chapel. Commissioner Smith cited as omissions in the report lack of addressing what type of parking will be generated by the new chapel. what type of parking would be generated by athletic events. and lack of inclusion of projected buildings. She knows there is a building proposed to go in next to the business building. She has also seen a plan where the stadium would be moved over to the northwest quadrant. and new buildings being built on the site. Mr. Wilkinson stated they have not completed their analysis, but will take this into account. Commissioner Smith also wondered if the traffic studies should be made at different times of the year rather than on two days during the same week. Mr. Wilkinson responded they are trying to give the City a timely feedback on their studies. They believe the time period studied is a representative period of time for the University. They will also try to bring visibility to the issue of how many students have cars. Chairman Bosch wanted an explanation about the traffic flow patterns, not at the special events. but the normal utilization of the parking structure. How are access and exiting controls going to be set up to mitigate potential impacts on the surrounding residential streets? Mr. Wilkinson stated that Austin-Foust would have to answer the question because they prepared the study for the City. He is not involved with the traffic flow patterns. 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 Garv Brahm. Executive Vice-President of Chaoman Universitv, said it is their desire to become a more residential Univers~y. The new residence hall allows them to have a higher portion of their students living on campus. This will reduce traffic around the University considerably. The University is committed to make the necessary changes to improve the parking situation. They know that parking is a major concern to the neighbors. It's hard for the University to talk about their future plans. Many ideas are never funded. The next major plan they have is to expand the library in the next few years. but it depends on the contributions they receive. Commissioner Carlton could see the need for a parking structure if the University were to acquire property on Glassell for future student housing. Dr. Brahm stated the University continues to be interested in purchasing properties in the community and along Glassell. They currently own some apartments on Glassell and they are negotiating to buy another piece of property. Commissioner Smith has lived within six blocks of Chapman University for 32 years, and before that she lived three-quarters of a mile from the campus. She has seen a tremendous growth over the last 15 years with the University. She knows they have a master plan. but it has not been shared with the City. The City does not know what their plans are. It's extremely difficult to make good decisions when separate projects are presented for consideration. She stressed that the University needs to be honest with the City about their future plans. Everyone knows there are active efforts to acquire real estate in the neighborhood. No one sees the purpose of having such a large parking structure on this particular corner. The parking situation has always been a problem in the neighborhood, and she is surprised that a traffic consultant only came on board three weeks ago. A traffic consultant should have been hired 10 years ago to project where they were going to put the cars for the dorms. She cannot vote to move ahead with the project until the Commission sees a long-term parking plan. Her concern comes from the fact that the parking structure is being built where there was once a residential neighborhood. She hasn't heard enough reason from the University why the structure needs to be built there. She walked the dorm area and it looks like the University will need to upgrade the 2-story buildings at some point. Dr. Brahm responded there is no secret. The University has had other parking consultants. He reminded the Commission that the parking problems are not entirely theirs. And, he believes a number of things can be done to improve the situation. The parking structure reasonably fits onto the parcel. They want to efficiently use as much space as possible for parking. They have a plan to purchase property in the community as it becomes available. If donors are interested in the University's expansion, plans are implemented but it's something that is not totally within their control. They are borrowing money to build the parking structure, but they will not be able to borrow money to build and expand the library. They have recently renovated the Harris apartments. They are in the process of renovating two of the buildings in the Davis apartments and next year they will renovate the remaining three. They are making repairs and improving them, rather than tearing them down and replacing them. Mr. Biggs pointed out that the C~y conditioned the University that they could not occupy the residence hall until they replaced the parking that was displaced by the construction of the building. Additionally. one of the proposed conditions is that prior to issuance of any permit. that they bring back to the Commission for final approval a Parking Management Plan. The Commission and Mr. Biggs talked about enlarging the parking structure to the east to provide a third aisle of parking inside the parking structure with less height to minimize the mass and bulk of the structure. Mr. Biggs pointed out there is not sufficient width on the site. Curb lines and setback areas were also discussed. Keith Dodson. 144 Stanford Lane. Seal Beach, is the contractor who will be building the parking structure. He is available to answer construction questions. Huah Lona. 32 Sawarass. is with International Parking Design who is working on the architectural box of the parking structure. He explained the height and lighting associated with the structure. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 Bob Mickelson. P.O. Box 932, has been a consu~ant for the University over the last four years and spoke favorably about the project. Without question, the one reoccurring theme in all of the neighborhood meetings is parking. He believes there is a demonstrated need for additional parking from the immediate neighbors around the campus. 15 oeoole sooke in oooosition Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive. spoke on behalf of the OTPA Board of Directors. Mary Anne Skarpanich, 292 North Cambridge. Mary Matuzak, 340 South Grand. Dean Hiser, 545 South Grand. John Whiteriver, 194 South Pixley. Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street. Karen Higgins, 456 North Shaffer Street. John Aleccia. 510 North Orange Street. Mr. Swenson, 520 North Orange Street. Janet Crenshaw, 464 North Shaffer Street. Curtis Bingham, 506 East Jefferson Avenue. Gene Wellofry, 140 Crescent Bay Drive. Laguna Beach - owns property at 441-471 North Glassell. Jeff Frankel. 384 South Orange Street. Courtney Ouellette, 569 North Orange Street. Mark Ouellette, 569 North Orange Street. It was also noted that a letter of opposition was received from Leann Taagepera, 367 North Maplewood. The speakers were opposed to the project because the University has not presented solid evidence for building another parking structure. The neighbors were not notified or consulted about the University's plans until recently. It is felt that the chapel needs to be discussed along with this parking structure; piece- meal projects are not acceptable. A master plan must be submitted to the City tor review; future land use plans need to be discussed. A building of this size will have negative impacts on the community. Not all design issues have been addressed by the Design Review Committee. Reference was made to Pages 3-10 and 3-11 of the Specific Plan regarding a Traffic and Parking Management Plan. The parking structure needs to be a benefit to the Historic District. What is Chapman University doing differently than if they were building the structure in another area (other than a Historic District)? Has Chapman studied other parking structures located in other National Historic Districts or in a historical context? Plans only include huge. monolithic structures that have no relation to their other historic buildings in terms of design, mass or human skill. The law school has been built around a historic facade of an old school building and it is considered to be an asset to the community. Unlike the law school building, the parking structure appeared very quickiy. Have all the options for more parking, internal to the campus. been explored? Is it possible that the parking structure can wait until the parking study is completed? Has the City conditioned the new residence hall on the University finding more parking? The architectural design of the structure is inadequate. Chapman University needs to develop and design their campus to compliment and enhance the Historic District. The University also has the ability to develop and maintain a preservation school, which could help support the City in their efforts to maintain the District with development standards, use of alternative materials. adopted land use concepts and other issues. They should also develop an economic program that could be invaluable to the small business owners in the Downtown District. The structure is too large in scale for the Old Towne District, and the architecture does not fit. The community does not believe a new parking structure will solve any of the problems associated with the University's continued growth. Additional noise and light glare from the structure are concerns that need to be addressed. All studies need to be completed and traffic concerns addressed. including children's safety, before proceeding with the parking structure. Parking passes cost almost $80 now and many students reject the passes. RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 Applicant's response Mr. Biggs responded to the concerns of traffic congestion. A traffic analysis was prepared and submitted to the City which pointed out they would not be adding significantly to the circulation. They planned the structure so that vehicles would enter from the south. Traffic would come off of University Drive into the structure at that point and the circulation in the structure is such that traffic would be flowing south again out to the south on University Drive to Glassell. The best control for all concerned will be the signalized intersection. Back in March, the University took a conceptual plan of the residence hall with a site plan to the residents. The parking structure had not been planned at that time. They polled their students and one of their high priorities was for additional parking. So, they decided to build the structure now rather than wait another year or so. They have tried to be up front about their plans. And, the Commission did condition the residence hall occupancy with the University providing the additional parking. They believe that by adding the parking structure will ultimately provide the parking benefits that everyone is looking for. Responding to a question about the Orange Street parking lot, commuter students are allowed to park in the lot. The space on the north side of Argyros Forum is dedicated to resident and commuter parking. The residents are parking exclusively in the dorm area as well. Mr. Biggs stated they looked at existing parking structures in other areas; however, they did not fit this particular site. They thought their initial proposal would put the structure in the background and that it would be a better approach, but DRC wanted to see other options. Dr. Brahm clarified the University charges $50 per year for parking on campus. This fee has not changed for a number of years. To clarify further. commuter students park in the Argyros Forum Lot. Commuter students also park in the Orange Street/Stadium Lot and the University has allowed residents to park there as well. Additionally. they allow commuter students to overflow into the parking structure. And, faculty and staff of the University. faculty and staff of the Law School, as well as the students of the Law School park in the structure. Commissioner Smith suggested converting the tennis courts into parking. The child care center is sitting on top of some more parking places. Property was acquired on North Shaffer Street and it is not a contributing structure. This could be used for additional parking. She asked what open space on the campus could be better utilized for parking and maybe save the University some money until a Master Plan is developed? Dr. Brahm said maybe something could be done with a fresh review of the parking spaces. They previously took out the volley ball courts to increase the parking area for the residents. He objected to taking out the tennis courts and child study center. Commissioner Smith wasn't suggesting that these uses be eliminated. but rather relocated to other properties in the neighborhood. Parking should be next to the dorms. It was Commissioner Pruett's understanding that the City wanted a Parking Management Plan. And, in the Parking Management Plan there would be attention given to setting up parking in the proximity of the student housing. It may require shifting some other parking around. This needed to be resolved before occupancy could take effect. It wasn't necessarily additional parking; ~ was just managing what was already there. New parking does not have to be created for the residence hall. Consideration of a parking structure was not before the Commission when reviewing the residence hall. The Commission did not approve a project that was going to require building a parking structure. Mr. Biggs read the City's resolution and interpreted that it meant to provide a parking structure. Chairman Bosch said another interpretation would be to find ways to resolve the parking by other means. A parking structure may not be the only solution to fulfill the conditions of approval. The Commission was very careful to provide the need to fulfill the parking requirements without requiring that a parking structure 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 be built. Their review of the residence hall was conditioned to avoid requiring a parking structure to be built before occupying them. However. the study may find there is no other solution. That is something the University would need to tell the City. Phasing needs to be considered. Commissioner Smith stated the Lemon Street parking lot is too far away from the dorms. She would offer rewards for car pooling for the faculty and staff. And, offer a shuttle service from the Lemon Street parking lot for faculty members. She encouraged the Universijy to look at other space. such as the tennis courts. She questioned whether the tennis courts were in the best place, next to the dorms. Look at restriping the flat land to include compact spaces. An assessment needs to be made of how many students have cars. The commercial property on Glassell is high priced and she does not propose for that to be used for parking. A Parking Management Plan is essential so that everyone knows who is supposed to park where. Dr. Brahm used to participate in a van car pooling program, but it was not successful. They had a shuttle service from the Palm Street lot for six months. but people did not use the lot. The University is not allowed to put in compact parking spaces according to the Specific Plan. Only one space size is allowed throughout the campus. Mr. Hornacek looked at some existing parking structures that had some very interesting traditional detailing. They were very urban. on-street solutions. The idea of an underground parking structure is very costly and would set a precedent. They are difficult to control and security would be an issue. While Chapman University is growing, they have two options: One would be to grow vertically and the other is to eat up more of Old Towne. Everyone prefers that the campus stay on its footprint and go up. They will be sitting down with the ORC to work out the architectural details to everyone's satisfaction. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett goes back to the issue of the parking and traffic study. He would like to see that before making a decision. There needs to be more work with the community in terms of what the community would like to see. He asked if this is the appropriate location for a parking structure. He thought there was sufficient parking at the University to meet the immediate needs, if it were properly managed. This is more than a parking issue; it's really a transportation issue that goes beyond finding a parking space. Commissioner Romero agreed there isn't a solid evidence of need primarily due to the fact that the existing parking structure is not fully utilized. Additional parking will be needed when the University meets its cap of 4,000 students. But, no one knows when this will occur. He questions the aesthetics of the project. He believes the structure would be an impact on the community. That it would not be less than significant due to the mass. size and scale of the structure. A mitigation measure to address this issue would be a suitable parking management plan. Commissioner Carlton thinks something needs to be done now to rearrange the current parking facilities and not build a new parking structure. Commissioner Smith stated the parking management plan needs to be detailed in terms of where everybody is going to park. She asked the University to enlist the aid of the community. The parking structure is way too big and too tall. Another idea is to use golf carts for shuttling people around the campus. Chapman University's Master Plan would be a tremendous gift to the community. Chairman Bosch spoke about the history of Chapman University. Open communication between the University, City and the community must continue. He believes that the intent of the conditions of approval for the residence hall did not require the parking structure to be built or approved. A parking management plan involves the full understanding of the source of parking impacts. a source of students, faculty and staff. as well as their movement and where they go. and alternate methods of transportation is the key issue towards occupancy of the residence hall -- not a parking structure. It is clear to him that 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 in no way could the existing parking structure resolve the basic parking and traffic management issues of the main part of Chapman University. A clear traffic circulation plan has not been presented to the Commission for review. This project requires more information. And, it may require some change in order to clearly demonstrate that mitigation occurs. The location for the parking structure is probably the best. if access, bulk and mass, control of the lights and noise impacts, traffic controls. size and architectural design are addressed and mitigated. Some more work is needed to mitigate the size of the building. He would like to see the applicant come back with improvements to the project in order to provide a long-term solution to the campus. The Commission asked the applicant if they were willing to continue their project. The applicant concurred to a four to six week continuance. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to continue Mitigated Negative Declaration 1640-00 to the meeting of August 21. 2000. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2311-99 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 99-19 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF ORANGE A request to allow substantial on-site improvements and additional burial facilities at Holy Sepulcher Cemetery. The request for an administrative adjustment is to allow additional fencing height. The site is located at 7845 Santiago Canyon Road. (This item was continued from the April 17, 2000 meeting.) Negative Declaration 1622-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Godlewski reported that the revised changes to the application no longer require the administrative adjustment for fence height. NOTE: The public hearing was opened. Dan White represented the applicant as their architect. He spoke to the items that were brought up at the previous meeting. There was concern about the location of the maintenance yard wall along the north property line and that it needed to be stepped back in order to provide a more appropriate buffer to the residents. They have stepped the wall back five feet and provided landscaping and irrigation across the entire north property line. The ground cover will cover a new berm that is placed in that part of the yard so the wall height will be minimized. All of the walls around the maintenance yard have been lowered to a height of six feet so they no longer need an administrative adjustment. Their landscaping plans have been submitted to the DRC. They've also prepared a plan that shows the issues related to the landscaping on the east property line where the family crypt area is located. They plan to mitigate the noise of the pump house by putting in a masonry wall and sound absorbent materials between the pumps and residents. 3 people spoke in opposition Chuck McNees, 11211 Orange Park Boulevard. Anita Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive. 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 They still oppose the proposed project. Issues of concern are that this is a commercial development of about 653.000 square feet. The crypts and mausoleum will be very visible to the public. They are losing their rural atmosphere in East Orange. There is concern about the loss of a planned pathway/trail at the south side of the site. The general welfare is not being preserved by this project. The City has never built any trails. The County. on occasion. has helped with trails. The Association builds and maintains the trails. They questioned whether the masonry wall will be attractive and questioned the drainage problems. Notice was given that the opposition will appeal the Commission's decision as they have reason to believe the City Council will listen to them. The applicant did not wish to respond to the opposition's comments. The Commission asked for staff to respond to the drainage question. Mr. Hohnbaum stated the area being discussed is in an unincorporated area. It was addressed during the widening of Santiago Canyon Road. The southerly end of the cemetery property will drain down into the base of the dam. He heard Mrs. Bennyhoff suggest possibly rechanneling that water out onto the street. Unfortunately, because of the change in grades. that will not be possible. But there is a small conveyance system that carries that water adjacent to the base of the dam. Dave Heoburn, representing the applicant, spoke about their plan taking the drainage into consideration for a 100-year flood. There will be no grave spaces in the 100-year flood area on their property. In response to Commissioner Carlton's question, the applicant did not meet with Orange Park Acres residents after the last Planning Commission hearing. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton liked the plans very much. It is a very peaceful, beautiful site and she believes the cemetery fits in well. The trail issue is an entirely different matter and the City Council will need to address this issue. All Commissioners concurred this was a good project and supported its approval. with the withdrawal of the administrative adjustment. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Negative Declaration 1622-99 finding that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to accept the withdrawal of Administrative Adjustment 99-19, and approve Conditional Use Permit 2311-99 with conditions 1 through 10, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause a deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. And, it is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 IN RE: NEW HEARING 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2334-00 AND VARIANCE 2085-00 - ABDEL AZIZ (QUAN'S RESTAURANT) A request to operate an entertainment establishment within an existing restaurant to include activities such as karaoke and dancing, the use of coin operated amusement devices such as video games and billiard tables. and the serving of alcoholic beverages w~hin an outdoor patio dining area expansion. The variance would allow the expansion of the restaurant to an outdoor patio dining area, without providing the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required by code. The site is located at 1107 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission questioned the exterior door out onto the patio and the fact that there were no windows on that side of the building. The emergency exit was an issue that also needed to be addressed. The public hearing was opened. Jim Baumqartner. 871 Cedarwood. represented the applicant. The exterior door out onto the patio is a glass door and the emergency exit is in the patio area. that exits towards the rear of the property. The applicant does not intend to provide live entertainment on a nightly basis, but occasionally they would like to have a band for a special event. They are requesting the variance to provide an outdoor patio area for people who smoke. The proposed patio location was an unsightly storage area for many years. Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 7 and suggested re-wording the condition to say that service of alcoholic beverages will cease one hour before closing. The applicant concurred w~h this modification. Commissioner Smith stated that condition 7 should also specify when alcoholic beverages can commence to be served. Other restaurants start serving at 11 :00 a.m. Mr. Baumgartner explained they do open for Sunday brunch at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Carlton had parking concerns and she wondered if the added patio would create a further impact. How do they intend to address overflow parking? Mr. Baumgartner responded they do not anticipate increased business because of the patio area. It will be used by the same patrons of the restaurant. who want to smoke. Heather Fox. 1107 North Tustin Avenue. is a waitress at the restaurant. She stated they will not be using the patio area for dining; however. they request to serve only alcohol out on the patio. The size of the patio is 1,300 sq. ft. and will accommodate 47 people. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch did not have difficulty with the conditional use permit and the conditions of approval, subject to the revision of condition 7. He understands the applicant's concern to provide a patio; however, he cannot find a hardship for the variance request. Commissioner Smith does not find a hardship to warrant a decrease of 40 parking spaces with this application. The Commission talked about condition 4 and the applicant's request of allowing live music other than karaoke. They acknowledged that some CUP's allow up to three musicians without amplified music. 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Conditional Use Permit 2334-00 with conditions 1 through 12, modifying condition 4 to state: "Live entertainment may be provided, but shall be limited, if amplified, to only karaoke or non-amplified to musical groups of not more than three individuals." The rest of the condition shall remain intact. Amend condition 6 to stale: "A sign shall be posted inside the premises at the rear exit door leading to the side yard area which shall state 'NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEYOND THIS POINT". Said sign shall measure no less than 7" x 11" and contain lettering no less than one inch in height." And, to revise condition 7 to state: "There shall be no alcoholic beverages served after 1 :00 a.m., or one hour before closing time, whichever is earlier. And. there shall be no alcoholic beverages served before 11 :00 a.m. except that on Sundays wine-based alcoholic beverages may be served before 11 :00 a.m. in conjunction with service of brunch." The Commission further denies Variance 2085-00. The Commission finds that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area based upon denial of the variance and the inclusion of the conditions of approval, as well as the physical layout of the premises. That the conditional use permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located. The conditional use permit has been granted subject to conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant. The variance has been denied because there are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape. topography, location or surroundings wherein the strict application of the zoning ordinance could be found 10 deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning clarification. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett. Romero. Smith None MOTION CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2336-00 - CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. (CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT) A request to allow a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru lane. The site is located at the northwest corner of The City Drive and Metropolitan Drive. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. And, the public hearing was opened. Lorenzo Reves. The Reves Group. Inc.. represents the applicant. They have read the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval. They feel the drive-thru lane is more than adequate for a fast-food restaurant. The playground will be an amenity for customers to enjoy. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Conditional Use Permit 2336-00 with conditions 1 through 10. noting that the project conforms to sound principles of land use and provides services required by the community without causing deterioration of bordering land uses or creating special problems for its area. It has been considered in relationship to the neighborhood and community plans for the area in which the site is located; specifically, The Block at Orange. And, has been granted subject to conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare and not the individual welfare of the applicant. Based on the Staff Review Committee and Design Review Committee reviews that specifically the project conforms to the requirements of the specific approvals for design standards for The Block development. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2340-00 - BRIAN BUTLER (VILLA FORD) A request to allow temporary shared off-site parking for approximately 412 vehicles from Villa Ford behind the Wal-Mart Store in the Mall of Orange. The site is located at Tustin Street and Heim Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The public hearing was opened. Brian Butler. President of Villa Ford, did not have a presentation, but was happy to answer any questions of the Commission. He stipulated that he voluntarily set the time limit on the expiration of the conditional use permit. They only need to use the back parking lot of the Mall of Orange for a couple of months in order to build their new show room. They do not wish to place a burden on the Mall during the Christmas season. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2340-00 with conditions 1 through 10 listed in the staff report with the findings that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses. It has been considered in relationship to the plan's effect on the City of Orange General Plan. and it is granted subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant. This is a time-limited conditional use permit and the applicant stipulates and concurs with the deadline stated in condition 3. AYES: NOES: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Smith None MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to a Planning Commission study session on Monday. June 12, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the Housing Element; and then to adjourn to a study session on June 19, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the Santiago Hills Phase II project. The meeting adjourned at 11 :55 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton. Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 12