Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-1996 PC MinutesC &l5" DO. G-, ~ ' 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange April 1, 1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m,PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Bob Von Schirnrnelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 3/18/96 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of 3/18/96 as recorded.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 2. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 4-96 - RPM PROPERTIES, LTD. (RYDER TRUCK, INC,)The applicant is proposing a truck rental facility for renting, leasing and maintaining vehicular fleet, with on-site vehicular washing and fueling. The site is located at 1440 North Main Street. RECO~ENDATION: Approve Major Site Plan Review 4-96 with findings and conditions as submitted by staff; and Certify Negative Declaration 1492-96 as satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Ouality Act.This item was continued from the March 4, 1996 meeting.)The full staff report was not presented as there was no opposiiton~ the public hearing was opened.Applicant Mark Mattias, 3020 Saturn, #100, Brea, was with J.R, Miller & Associates and represented Ryder Truck for this project. They have reviewed the conditions of approval and agree with them. They will continue to work with staff and hopes the project will be Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith noted there were staff concerns about access to the site and the potential conflict of traffic on Main Street where traffic would be attempting to turn into or out of Trenton. She wanted clarification on that issue. Mr. Glass referred to the site plan. Their proposed pattern at the northerly most driveway would be an ingress and the southerly most driveway would be an egress. The southerly driveway being approximately opposite Trenton. Left turn access into Trenton would not be a problem, Left turn access into the northerly driveway, in staff's opinion, could be a problem because of the sight distance restrictions, which are presented by the crest vertical curve caused by the railroad tracks. It is for that reason staff placed a condition that ingress to the site through the northerly driveway be restricted to right turns only. There's not much they can do about the railroad tracks. The recommended sight distance is to be done pursuant to the design speed of the facility. The consultant did a sight distance analysis based on the existing posted speed. It was staff's opinion, as per the design sneed, which is 55 M.P.H. on Main Street, adequate sight distance would not be available until one is approaching the area around Trenton. That's why there is a condition for a right turn only. Staff may have to physically prohibit left turns into the site, either through a raised center divider, which would not interefere with Trenton or with two other driveways onthe east side of the street, or through some special driveway design. The applicant would pick up the cost of his driveway. Chairman Bosch noted the Commission has seen a number of proposals come forward on the site and they all share in common the concerns over Main Street, access relative to the specific design decisions addressed in the staff report. They're really not a surprise and they don't reflect on the potential use itself, but rather on a given condition of the street and the site, Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration 1492-96 finding that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Major Site Plan Review 4-96 with the conditions stipulated in the staff report. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2133-95 - CIRCLE K The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to be upgraded from "Beer and Wine" to "General", which allows the sale of any type of alcoholic beverage for off-site consumption. The site is addressed 2650 North Santiago Boulevard.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the prov1s1ons of the California Environmental Ouality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.There was no opposition to this item; the full reading of the staff report was waived.The public hearing was opened. Applicant Lynn Duff, 1341 East Maple Avenue, said their paperwork is now complete - the CUP to downgrade at 492 Tustin Avenue has been submitted and they are waiting for a positive transfer. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith commented the items have been put in order. And, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEOA, Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2133- 95. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Romero Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett was still concerned. He appreciated the work Ms. Duff has done, but worried because both items were not being considered at the same time, Especially,when the Police Department's recommendation was based on the downgrading of the other license.Chairman Bosch shared his concerns. However, he felt better because the Chief of Police and the Department would strenuously oppose the re-issuance of the ABC license at the other site in case there was a withdrawal of the CUP modification that is currently there. He is hopeful the other CUP will be reviewed by the Commission and the applicant has no intent of withdrawing it.4. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-95 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment modifying provisions of the Orange Municipal Code Title 17.36 "Sign Regulations", more specifically relating to the length of time allowed for display of banners and A-frame signs and conditions for such display,NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Duality Act (CEOA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 Chairman Bosch noted the Commission March 22 from Paul Nelson, American Commerce. has received communications, including one dated Speedy Printing, on behalf of the Chamber of John Godlewski, }mnager of Community Enhancement, said the sign ordinance before the Commission is a re-draft of all the things they have discussed in the past few months.One unique thing that has taken place is that they have pulled the discussion items - the banners and A-frames - and put them in their own section. In the past, they have been trying to modify the section that allowed them before, which was Special Promotions, and now it has evolved into its own section so that it can be treated as banners and portable signs, and Special Promotions will stand alone to still treat them as their own item. Some of the highlights included in this ordinance that were discussed at previous meetings were the 150 day per year display time. The Commission recommended 1 1/2 square feet per lineal foot of frontage. It's noted the Chamber hopes to have that increased to 2 square feet of sign area per lineal foot of frontage. In addition to that, staff received the letter from the Chamber of Commerce (after the staff report was written). They had three concerns. One was under the time limit. The concern was that it lacked the flexibility they had hoped for. In reading that more closely and perhaps taken literally, it was not staff's intent. Staff is suggesting the display of banners would be allowed for 150 days of the year. One application would be taken out and at the time of the application, the merchant would indicate when they plan to display those banners. However, any time during the year, they could come back in and modify that calendar so that if there were days left over, a different month could be scheduled as long as they didn't run out of days by the time 150 days is used up. The second item that was brought up by the Chamber was their request that 2 square feet be considered instead of 1 1/2 square feet. And the third, related to distance from the store front that a portable sign could be placed. It is recommended in the ordinance that a portable sign can be within 10 feet of the front of the building; however, it could not be within 10 feet of any vehicular driveway or public right-of-way, The concern, perhaps, is defining driveway, as opposed to an aisle way or parking stall, Perhaps it would be a problem if the building was directly on a public side walk and the display of portable signs at that point, a vehicular driveway - they would still want to keep the signs at least 10 feet away from a driveway, It wasn't staff's intention to completely eliminate the signs, or preclude them from happening, It was also brought up earlier and discussed with the Commission on Page 2, Item 5 under Location - there was some concern on the sixth bullet point as to what the Commission really intended in their previous discussions about an encroachment permit used elsewhere in the code for chairs, tables, etc. that are allowed in the public right-of-way, and whether or not a portable sign would be allowed in amongst those things or whether the discussion of signs was strictly permanent signs in the public right-of- way allowed by an encroachment permit. With that clarification, he thought the ordinance was once again before the Commission for their consideration.The public hearing was opened.There were no public comments.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith liked the ordinance the way it read.Chamber's request for 2 square feet per linear foot of she would like to see it stay at 1 1/ 2 square feet per the A-frame signs on private property. If they decide hTith all due respect to the the frontage of the building,each lineal foot, and to maintain not to do Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 then she would be in favor of the 2 square feet per one lineal foot. She was open to discussion on the sixth bullet under Item 5 regarding the encroachment permit. The ordinance reflects a lot of hard work and negotiation; it's clean and easy to read and will be enforceable. Her personal opinion regarding the encroachment permit is that it should be left exactly as it is. They had previously discussed that if it were to go in the public right-of-way it would depend on where the right- of-way was, how big it was, what the circumstance was, and the encroachment permit process would decide whether it was suitable or not.Commissioner Romero said the ordinance read very simply, very nice. He had one comment though with regard to portable signs and A- frames, Based on their last meeting, he was led to believe they were leaning towards eliminating A-frames. He,again, would retain the position of no portable signs, whether public or private property. With regards to the letter that came in, he would still rather have the banner area kept at 1 1/2 foot.Commissioner Pruett also had a concern about the A-frames, His position has been one of trying to deal with the issue and the Chamber has come forward with a proposal to try and deal with that issue. He was not sure what was going to be achieved with the proposal. No portable signs may be located within 10 feet of a vehicular driveway or any public right-of-way line. That means any 10 foot setback that is required on a piece of property for landscaping could not have an A-frame sign on it. He's not so sure their proposal would deal with the issue. He noticed there are still signs that are several blocks from the business and that's an issue. The portable signs are a problem. He requested, if portable signs are approved, that language be added that would indicate portable signs are not to be left out after business hours. The signs are portable -- they can be brought in after the business closes. That's an issue that needs to be dealt with. In terms of the encroachment permit, these are temporary signs and he didn't know if a person needed to have a special encroachment permit. He didn't think temporary signs should be in the public right-of-way. There-fore, an encroachment permit is a moot point if they are not allowed in the right-of-way. There is signage on every building. The Sign Ordinance allows signs to advertise a business. To have a temporary sign on top of that, to encroach into the public right- of-way is going too far. He asked Mr, Godlewski if he proposed some language to be added to Item 2 to clarify the time limit?Mr. Godlewski responded yes. He suggested adding "any time The Chamber had a concern with the second sentence.during the year" after the word "modified".Chairman Bosch added to that:to have a misconception.by applicant at any time during the year" so as not Commissioner Pruett summarized that the A-frame signs continue to be a problem for him.Chairman Bosch concurred with the concern over A-frame signs within public rights- of-way. He was absolutely against them. It gets down to working on what can be allowed in the public right-of-way that is an accessory to an encroachment permit which could be used for purposes other than A-frame signs, He was definitely against it with regard to any other utilization of public property for private commercial gain that might impact upon the rights of other owners and the safety of the citizens at large,as well as endanger the liability of the City with regard to taxpayers obligations.He thought the sixth bullet down under Item 5 of Page 2 is Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 in terms of the A-frames, but his concern comes back to limiting their location and size so they are not a public nuisance once they are on the property. He sees there are two clearly defined positions on that by the Commission. He didn't know how that would be resolved yet other than by vote. He hears an agreement of A- frames not being allowed in the public right-of-way, Two items in that bullet should come out and not be part of that discussion: parking lot and place. There would be times when it is appropriate for the City in terms of granting a license to use a parking lot or public park for a non for-profit or other enterprise, or even the International Street Fair, which utilizes public right- of-way, and includes signs whether they be for profit or not for profit are advertising temporary signs. Those, in fact,are allowed under some provision of the ordinance already. He didn't feel there was an intent to ban those institutions from carrying on, He suggested removing those two words and referred back to Mr. Godlewski, How do they effect continuation of those types of uses within the encroachment permit or whatever other vehicle within the ordinance allows them at this time?Mr. Godlewski said there were other prov181ons in the ordinance. There is a section of the ordinance they were orginally trying to amend to accommodate banners, which is the Special Promotion. Under Special Promotion, it would allow sidewalk sales, it allows parking lot sales on private properties, and public properties as well. There is Special Promotion and Special Pagent, one being public property; one being private.But, the rules are the same. And for a limited period of time it would allow those signs to be placed on the property. What this ordinance is trying to address are those signs that are for an extended period of time other than 45 days a year to have specific limits and liability insurance included in the program. He wasn't sure what the Commission was going to do with the sixth bullet point. It was put there because it was trying to address something that may already be addressed in other sections of the code. And by eliminating it here, you in effect preclude these portable signs and banners from being placed on public property. That is covered on the next page where it states portable signs may only be located on private property.Chairman Bosch said that enforces his concept they should leave bullet 6 under Item 5;maybe even leave parking lot and place since it refers to public. And eliminate the words "by an encroachment permit or as authorized". And state, "Except as authorized elsewhere in this code", which would refer them to the sections of the code that Mr.Godlewski stated.Commissioner Pruett suggested the wording, "No sign shall be erected upon or over any public street, sidewalk, parking lot, or other right-of-way or place except as authorized." It changes the emphasis,Commissioner Smith asked if that leaves it open for other uses besides a sign in the public right-of-way?Chairman Bosch said no, only as authorized the Special Promotion and Special Pagent.of way.elsewhere in the code, which goes back to It eliminates the signs in the public right-Commissioner Smith asked what that did to the standing code or provisions for an encroachment permit?Mr. Godlewski explained it would do nothing. A person could still get an encroachment permit. Encroachment Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 Commissioner Smith said by modifying the bullet, they have eliminated 50% of the A-frames. (Yes.) Given that reality, she would still be in favor of allowing them on private property. There is still the option to have those other special events and it balances out for the merchants,Chairman Bosch would be in favor of that too given the restrictions. There is an additional policing mechanism with the land owners. He sees this as eliminating the unsightly proliferation of A-frames and yet still allowing flexibility for the merchants.Commissioner Pruett would go along with that, but he thought one bullet should be added that basically states the signs would be taken in at night. ( The Commission concurred on that suggestion.)Chairman Bosch liked the modification to Item 2 relative to the flexibility in the 150 days.It was noted the proposal was exempt from CEOA review.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to direct staff to return in 60 days with final changes to the existing Sign Ordinance to accommodate banners and portable signs, incorporating the changes that have been discussed: Item 2 - adding the change to the second sentence, ..."may be modified by the applicant at any time during the year." Bullet 6, under Item 5 - modifyin[\ that to read, "No sign shall be erected upon or over any public street, sidewalk, parking lot, or other public right-of-way or place except as authorized elsewhere in this code." Add a final bullet under Item 5 - "Portable signs would only be displayed during business hours. II AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 5. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-96 - CITY OF ORANGE The City of Orange is proposing to modify its zoning regulations pertaining to ceullular antennas.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1495-96 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this proposal.This item was continued from the March 4, 1996 hearing,)Joan Wolff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The Planning Commission received a revised draft code amendment regarding wireless communication antennas.The draft attempts to address the comments made by the Commission at the March 4 hearing. The changes include:Incorporation of definitions for terms such as wireless communications and ground mounted antennas, and their various subcategories.Additional design criteria, requiring that antennas and associated equipment be contextual with the buildings on which they are placed, and defining when DRB review is required. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 Rewording of the phrase "building approval" as contained within the first draft. The staff report was mailed to the various telecommunication providers who have been involved in or have expressed an interest in the process: The Planning Center, representing Pac Bell Mobile Services, responded with a letter to the Planning Commission requesting one additional change - that ground mounted antennas be per-mitted by CUP when less than 100 feet from R-l and R-2 zones, As currently proposed,ground mounted antennas would be permitted by CUP only when less than 100 feet from multi-family residential zones. She had also received some calls in the past week.One of the concerns has to do with antennas in parks - that there is some desire for more flexibility regarding co-location with lights. Lights are generally located in areas of highest activity. There may be other areas that are less obtrusive,for example, abutting freeways, that could not be considered under the current proposal.The suggestion is that antennas be permitted subject to a CUP anywhere in parks,recreation facilities and on school sites. One other item she has noticed as a result of questions raised is that there is a small "loophole" or contradiction in the draft proposal. It has to do with the ability to locate antennas in residential zones on legal non-conforming developments. One such non-conforming site was pointed out that abuts an R-1 zone. The provision that allows for antennas on non-co forming sites does not require a 100 foot distance between ground mounted antennas and R-1 and R-2 zones, as is required of antennas located in commercial and industrial zones. Therefore, the Commission might want to consider revising either one section or the other for consistency sake (Section 17.12.020 B 2 a & b). She has come up with some alternate wording to address each of the three issues that were raised for the Commission' s consideration.The public hearing was re-opened.Comments Leslie Daigle, L.A. Cellular, received the draft via mail. She appreciated the opportunity to provide input. They agree with the siting of these facilities in parks, co-locating with poles, They wish to broaden the Commission's consideration to siting of the new pole. There may be areas in the parks where the location may be more appropriate. The process is still subject to a CUP so the City would maintain that control and would be able to deny or attach conditions accordingly.They would like a process where that flexibility would not be precluded via an ordinance, but rather be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith remains opposed to antennas being allowed within 100 feet of R-1 and R-2 zones. She thought there was a lot of latitude in the areas they have agreed would be appropriate. She was open to discussion on the other issues. Chairman Bosch concurred with retaining the prohibition within 100 feet of R-1 and R- 2 zones. He was confident, given the mixture of zones throughout most of the City,that there was ample opportunity available with the appropriate negotiating, as well as with some effort on the part of the vendors in this technology to utilize shared sites to overcome those areas which may have a minor problem in that regard, With regard to Page 2, Section Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 ordinance, he would go along with staff's recommendation with regard to both of those. And state, subject to a conditional use permit in residential zones only on any public or private school site, park or recreational facility. And, the same in the R-O zone.But, with the prohibition within 100 feet of R-1 and R-2 properties. He wanted to be sure that if the Commission allows on any public or private school site, park or recreational facility, it's only by conditional use permit and not allowed within 100 feet of R- 1 and R-2 properties.Ms. Wolff thought they were adequately covered already. But they could add for clarification: 2. b. (1) On any public or private school site, park or recreation facility, provided that any ground mounted antenna is located at least 100 feet from any R-1 or R-2 zone.Chairman Bosch said to state that as well on 2, b. (2) On properties containing legal non-conforming commercial developments, provided any ground mounted antenna is located at least 100 feet from any R-1 or R-2 zone. The same applies for c. In the RO zone, in any public or private park or recreation facility, provided that any ground mounted antenna is located at least 100 feet from any R-1 or R-2 zone.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1495-96, finding that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources,AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett asked how the information from the Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper, prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments was incorporated into the Definitions, which was at the end of the proposed ordinance.Ms. Wolff said that second sheet, which was part of the staff report, was provided for information as a result of a question that came up at the last meeting regarding the various types of antennas. She tried to provide those definitions in the staff report simply to demonstrate the different types of antennas are based on different engineering considerations and they are not necessarily interchangeable, rather than pulling the definitions into the code. She could add the definitions, but she didn't know if the ordinance was that specific that they are needed, Staff was comfortable with the different types of antennas and the requests that will come in.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 1-96 regarding wireless communication antennas with the modifications as previously discussed with regard to Item 2. b. ( 1) Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 IN RE: NEW HEARING 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2143-96; VARIANCE 2011-96 - CITRUS CITY GRILL ( ROBERT MICKELSON)A proposal to convert the existing retail building to a restaurant, with service of alcoholic beverages and live entertainment. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of parking, landscape and setback requirements, in conjunction with the proposed change in use. The site is located at 122 North Glassell Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1496-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project,Commissioner Smith abstained from this item on the public appearance of conflict of interest. She was excused from the hearing.There was opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was presented by Jim Donovan, Associate Planner. The existing retail building is 5, 400 square feet and has a parking requirement of 27 spaces for retail use, The property currently has a parking area that includes approximately 24 parking spaces. A 5, 400 square foot restaurant would require 60 parking spaces based on the Orange Municipal Code requirement of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet plus an additional 14 spaces for every 1,000 square feet that is over 4,000 square feet. After the parking lot is improved to satisfy development standards, including a minimal amount of landscaping, trash enclosure, vehicular turn around area at the terminus of the parking lot, a total number of parking spaces will be reduced to 21 spaces, leaving a deficit of 39 spaces for restaurant use. Existing development also does not conform to building setback and parking lot landscape requirements. He pointed out a typographical error in the staff report. On Page 2 there is an indication the yards vary from 2 feet 0 inches,It should read to 4 feet 0 inches on Olive Street. In making some landscape and accessibility improvements to the parking facility, the applicant is attempting to preserve the maximum number of parking spaces available for the use of the building.The CUP is a request to allow the service of alcoholic beverages with meals and to allow live entertainment as an accessory use. Entertainment would be limited to no more than three musical instruments at any given time and would further include no brass, horns, drums and there are no residential uses nearby. That fact and the applicant's assertion that entertainment would be an accessory to the restaurant use leaves the staff, including the Police Department, with relatively few concerns about this component to the project. Nonetheless, there are 15 conditions of approval the applicant shall observe if the project were approved. The Police Department representative and Planning staff have only recently discussed some additional conditions that are not listed in the staff report. On Page 8, condition 8, they suggest expanding the condition to say in addition that live entertainment is permitted only as ancillary to the restuarant use; that no dance area shall be provided and no dancing be permitted via the business license. All doors shall remain closed during periods when live entertainment takes place to control noise inside the building. There is one condition that was attached to a similar project when it was approved at 44 Plaza Square. This condition came through the Planning Commission meeting; however, it was not included in the staff report - that the applicant would actively participate as a collaborative partner with the Parking Committee or other future associations or organizations established to resolve, manage or otherwise address parking issues relative to the Old Towne commercial area, Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 The public hearing was opened, Applicant Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose Avenue, said this was essentially the same restaurant, the same operators, the same type of proposal that was to be in the old Orange City News building. For reasons beyond everyone's control, that one was not going to happen. This property became available and in some respects, is a much better location. The building itself is much more suitable for the proposed use and is a bit larger. It has its own parking lot, which still falls short of the technical requirements of the parking. But their argument is the same: this is Old Towne; it should be treated much more like a large shopping center than individual sites because many of the buildings cover the entire site. The variance for the parking is justified based on its location in the Historic District and the fact it is not going to create a significant impact on the area. There is more than adequate parking available in the downtown area. As the staff has pointed out in their evaluation, this should not be a problem. The other difference in this application over the previous one is they have added live entertainment. The live entertainment is to be subdued and it will add to the dining experience of the restaurant. There will be no stage shows or loud, blaring music. They have read and accept all the conditions of approval, including the additional ones, It's also significant to note that the property owners across the street are in support of the project. Mr. Mike Alvarez, who owns and operates the apartments some 200 feet to the west on Olive Street, was also in support of the project. Any new business in the downtown area is seen as a positive step in the right direction. The partners are already participating in the Parking Committee. They see some good things coming out of that. First, there is an understanding by all parties that there is adequate parking downtown; it's just that the distribution probably is not ideal and some of the access and signing is not ideal. Then, there are some plans to add some other parking areas in the future. There are three City lots in close proximity; one immediately adjacent, one a little bit north and then the Depot lot which is highly unused, particularly in the evenings. Commissioner Romero asked if there would be a limit as to when the entertainment will no longer be performing? Mr. Mickelson said live music would be playing during the mornings. The restaurant proposes to close at 11:00 p.m. than willing to work with the City and Police Department. they will correct it. evening hours and on Sunday The applicants are more If there ever is a problem, Commissioner Romero commented on the parking lot. It doesn't look too pleasant and he likes the idea of landscaping. Mr. Mickelson agreed it didn't look too pleasant right now because it is just asphalt and stripes. There would be a hedge of landscaping separating the parking lot from Olive Street, less than the standard requirement. There is a trade off: while there is adequate parking, they felt if they put in the 10 feet of landscaping plus the 10% they would end up with 16 parking spaces instead of the 20, This is a better layout and it does have landscaping. 11- r Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 Those speakinR in favor Al Ricci, 616 East Chapman Avenue, said the applicants are proposinR to invest over a half million dollars in this project to develop Old Towne's first full service, community based restaurant. The two issues that were brouRht up were parking - the only parking requirement that is met by the current code in Old Towne is antiques.The vacancy factors will show you that Old Towne cannot exist on antiques alone. Just recently two antique stores closed in the last three weeks. Antique stores need some help. They are economically handicapped at this point and he thought a restaurant would help them. The second issue is entertainment. The last time Old Towne had entertainment was when Duncan Clark raced Shorty Post around the Plaza. At least here, we're giving somebody a reason to come down to Old Towne and enjoy it. The proposed location will result in a key draw to North Glassell. North Glassell does not have a lot of traffic and he thought the restaurant would bring people to that area. Other cities such as Pasadena have proven that restaurants are a key factor in a redevelopment. They create customers, sales tax, and a destination point. They need to bring back economic diversity to Old Towne. People who visit Old Towne should be able to stay for the day. Let's give them a reason to stay and spend money. Downtown Orange needs restaurants.Chairman Bosch noted for the record the Commission received a letter from the Trustees of the Steven & Glen R. Nelson Trust, owners of property at 129 and 131 North Glassell.They supported this project.Those speaking in opposition Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, was not against the restaurant. But, she was against the same people coming here and asking for relief with the parking and land-scape requirements. If another property owner were to request the same thing, they would be opposing the request. She didn't see how they could get away with not having the required landscaping. This is a new business so make them do it. Are Redevelopment funds being used for this project?Mr. Jones was not aware of Redevelopment funds being used for this project.Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, had some questions and comments. She didn't want to oppose something that a lot of people want and it's a foregone conclusion. Does it state there is a 222 seating capacity? She was curious about the number of employees for each shift. There is less than adequate parking. She questioned the type of alcoholic beverages? She presumed they wouldn't be using the public sidewalk for eating. That might be clarified. She was concerned about the live entertainment. Is that something they are going to start allowing now for everyone?Is this a common practice to acquire something like this and then not use it, and it' s okay for somebody else to use? She wondered if there would be another assess-ment district down there for those people who have business.Will Chambers, 242 South Olive, was in favor of developing Old Towne and businesses being able to do what they want with their properties, He understands this is a limited partnership and they already have got one approved at 44 Plaza Square and now they're asking for another. Then the variance will remain (and CUP) in effect for 24 months. They can go ahead and pick that up and have two going. Are they really turning loose of the other one or not? l'hydo we need an accessory use for 12- Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 live entertainment in a restaurant? Then, item 3 on alcohol, garnes, sports bar, music Page 5) - consideration of alcoholic beverage will adversely affect the welfare of the surrounding community or result in undue concentration. The Planning Commission to also consider the detrimental effect on nearby residentially zoned properties, most of this having to do with alcohol. Finally, required findings on Page 6, item 4 -necessary to preserve the general welfare; not the individual welfare of any particular applicant or limited partnership who must show a profit.Ralph Shelton, Orange Masonic Temple Association, 71 Plaza Square, said it looks like the same game, the same players, but a different ball field. They addressed this question as to parking some time ago on a prior application for a variance. \'hile they support the revitalization of an old town, while they recognize that just a few doors up there is an existing alcoholic beverage use, he could not imagine that entertainment in the restaurant could be louder than the juke box in that location.Their concern pertains to parking. The point they raised previously was their feeling the cart had been placed well ahead of the horse at that time. That is, the applicant had no plan in place to address the parking concerns and their announced intention to address the issue after the variance was granted was somewhat a backward approach providing little or no incentive to complete a plan. The variance was granted. One would anticipate that with the applicant still desiring a property in a similar location the passing of some months and apparently one would expect some effort, there would be hint of a new plan. Unfortunately, the applicant indicates no progress. The same comments have been presented at this hearing that was heard previously; that is,they have plenty of parking, it's under used, it could be addressed with signing, but again, no plan. A plan should proceed an action and therefore they strongly oppose the variance request for parking. A workable solution should be presented before the request of the applicant is granted.Rebuttal Mr. Mickelson said there will be a continued difference of oplnlon as to whether there is a parking deficiency or not in Old Towne. Their argument remains the same: There is adequate parking in Old Towne. Other variances have been granted. Another antique or retail store could come in without any conditional use permit or a need for a variance. There is a catch 22 here in that everyone recognizes some work needs to be done on the Old Towne parking facilities. There are 164 seats proposed for the restaurant. An outdoor eating area is proposed, but its not on the public sidewalk.The outdoor seating is in a recessed area on the private property behind the public sidewalk. They have been to the DRB; they've had extensive discussions about the art decco which is existing and how it should be restored or brought back to a period of archi-tectural theme with art decco. They have preliminary approval from the DRB, although they have asked for some changes/reduction in some of the elements and emphasing some of the other. The DRB was also quite interested in the details on the rear of the building -- the window types. Most people have a glass of wine while dining and that's a part of this type of restaurant. The entertainment is also part of this type of restaurant experience. They're looking for a quality environment for the dining experience. Mr. Chambers asked a couple of questions about the limited partnership and he didn' t understand the questions because it was not part of his expertise. They're talking about a land use issue; is this appropriate in this location? With regard to the previous application, it was approved and technically it was approved for the property, not the individual. As' stated earlier, for some personal reasons between both parties, they agreed not to pursue it. His understanding is that Leason Pomeroy has leased up part of the building to another user, which didn't require a CUP. These applicants have no intent to use that site. They are also very active on 13-r Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 that committee who are actively working on the parking, as well as himself. The number of employees is an unknown at this time. It depends on how the operation goes. There will be 40 new jobs created, but they won't all be on site at the same time. Employees will not be parking in the 20 spaces behind the restaurant; that can be controlled. Many of the employees will car pool or take public transportation. A full bar is proposed, but will be incidental to the food service. He didn't know how the parking concern of the restaurant would relate to residential properties. He didn't think it would set a precedent for a residential application either. Resi- dential parking takes on a different character and is different from commercial parking. There have been on-going discussions with Redevelopment, but a conclusion has not been reached.Chairman Bosch said that was an issue with the City Council, sitting as the Redevelop-ment Agency; not the Planning Commission.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Romero was satisfied with the use of the property. He personally liked the concept of a high-end restaurant, He was satisfied with the parking concern, but was not satisfied with the parking and landscape concerns. That was his number one concern, specifically with regard to driving up Olive and looking at the parking situation. The public parking lots adjacent to the property looked rather poor.Maintenance and trash were seen as problems. Something needs to be done to make it look attractive and desirable. On Page 5 it stated the public parking lot does not include a fully landscaped front yard, and one of the landscape planters was recently removed. He wanted to know why? His direction was again to have the parking lot look attractive and inviting.Mr. Donovan didn't know how much he could address about the landscaping situation for the parking lot. He personally had no knowledge of when it was developed or under what terms. There is landscaping, but because parking is provided with angled stalls,it tapers from probably 10 feet down to 3 feet, based on the layout of the parking.The reason why the landscaping was removed is related more to the Street Fair's Committee's efforts to install an electrical device system for the purpose of the Street Fair and other activities. The parking lot landscape requirements did not come through the Planning process; it was handled as a independent issue through the Street Fair Committee which was appointed by the City Council.Commissioner Pruett thought this type of use was really needed in Old Towne to bring some life to the area. In terms of the type of use, it's a good use. He understood the type of entertainment that was being proposed. A lot of restaurants and coffee houses are now moving to a low volume, friendly entertainment, That adds to the evening and is appropriate. In terms of employment and the number of jobs, that's not a land use issue but he thought the employees that are hired may be college students just down the street and many of them could walk to work, Alcohol is expected to be served to people who dine out; it's not an unreasonable request given the proposed use. He recognizes there are still some peoole who have concerns about parking in the downtown area. Those concerns have again been expressed here at the meeting. He was not of the opinion there was a parking problem until such time as it gets to where it is unmanageable. It's an issue of managing what they have and managing the parking that is there. He thought the Parking Committee could try and address those issues and help manage the parking arrangement. The care of the public parking lot is something the Parking Committee should look at as well. Another issue to look into is how will the parking lots be maintained? Even if they Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 City parking lots, they are parking lots that are being utilized by the merchants downtown and he thought the merchants need to take a look at how to make them safe, attractive, etc. The Committee needs to expand their agenda to include those issues of dealing with the landscape issues as well as the maintenance and cleaning of the parking lots. It's important to take the high road of looking at these issues as opportunities to solve. He thought the customers of the businesses down town would benefit from it. He hoped the parking becomes a serious problem: the community would value that in time. He viewed problems as opportunities; it's an opportunity for Orange to deal with that issue when it does get to that situation. Chairman Bosch had to concur with everything that has been said. The landscape issue in the parking lot becomes one of the primary ones. There is an attempt made to address that by providing a modicum of landscaping, which is a thousand percent more than any he has seen on the site since he first remembers that parking lot in 1950. He hopes the City will move towards long range parking solutions to the challenge they hope develops as commercial vitality continues to grow for businesses that can be utilized by the residents of Orange. That would allow them to see a return of more commercial and retail buildings to Olive Street and the other second block' streets away from Glassell and Chapman giving a true vitality in the downtown area, and additional mixed uses in addition to those retail uses. He thought this was an improvement on the site and street; it will be a great asset for the City of Orange-,-What' s good for private enterprise should be applied to the City as well. The key issue is how the variance application applies, It was stated quite well by Commissioner Pruett with regard to the parking, This is a very special district.There were many lots with lot line to lot line construction, This parcel provides a great deal more parking than most of the others within that historical and commercial area. The parking deficit is not real, but is only in comparison to the standard,which is based upon free standing restaurants, not in combination with other commercial uses and public parking lots. In that it is a commerical use and represents commercial uses previously represented to a greater degree in the Old Towne area,this doesn't authorize a use that is different from those expressly authorized by zoning regulations and should be allowed. Relative to the landscape requirements,he thought he covered that appropriately. In looking at Olive Street, he saw a misapplication of the setbacks generally on Olive Street, but with regard to the parking lot, he thought the 10% of the surface area of the parking lot, or the 10%setback is very arbitrary; a standard that was applied to be placed citywide for all new commercial development and it doesn't apply to this type of situation. It's a hardship that goes with the property when one has to trade between property rights to utilize a building for use which is very well appropriate for the site and yet to provide the landscaping, hurts the business and hurts the City's standards for parking.He opted on the side of parking tather than the additional landscaping.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1496-96 finding that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 15- r Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1996 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2143-96 and Variance 2011-96 with the conditions listed in the staff report and also the recognized findings stated earlier by Chairman Bosch. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith returned to the meeting.IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, asked if they were going to look into assessment districts for the downtown area?Chairman Bosch said his personal opinion was that it had to be part of the agenda of the Parking Study Committee.Ms. DeNiro wanted to know if the City was going to start allowing live entertainment in other requests?Chairman Bosch stated the City has approved live entertainment permits in many restaurants throughout the City, all with restrictions felt to be appropriate,including those anplied by the Police Department.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to a study session on Monday, April 15, 1996 at 6:00 p.m, in the Weimer Room to discuss the Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Area, in particular, the northwest corner of LaVeta and Main. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p. m. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED sld