Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1997 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission May 19, 1997 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 5/5/97. Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2174-97 -THE PATIO LLC A request for an on-sale beer and wine license for a new restaurant located at 144 South Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Cynthia Kouremetis, 144 South Tustin Street, explained this was a new family restaurant and bakery. They have been in operation for about three weeks. They serve breakfast, lunch and dinner; breakfast is served all day long. They are open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Most of their customers are adults; the environment is centered around the family. She believed they needed the beer and wine license to serve drinks with their dinner specials. They will comply with all the restrictions set forth in the staff report. They do not have anyone under 18 working for them; everyone is older than that. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Smith would like to see this business succeed. In today's market, the beer and wine license is probably pretty essential for any type of restaurant. It was noted this project was categorically exempt from CEQA Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit X174-97, subject to all conditions listed in the staff report. It was found that the restaurant would not detrimentally affect nearby residences, and will not adversely affect the welfare of the surrounding community, or will not result in undue cona3ntration of premises for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the area in which the restaurant is located. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-97 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend certain provisions of Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) for the purpose of refining the site plan review process. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Joan Wolff, Senior Project Planner, presented the full staff report and explained the site plan review process. Through this process, it gave the City discretionary authority to either approve or deny a project which actually meets code, where the use is a permitted use in the zone and where the project complies with all the development standards. The process was established in 1995 as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinanc3 Update. The purpose was to achieve the higher quality development product in the City of Orange, to assure that prolects work, were compatible in design and layout with surrounding developments, and it also provided public notice of upcoming projects so that neighborhood issues could be identified and addressed. There have been approximately 35 projects that have undergone site plan review. Most of them have been minor site plan reviews, acted upon by the Staff Review Committee. A few, however, have come before the Planning Commission, and some have even gone to the City Council on appeal. The biggest pro acts -- Mills, Century Theaters, Wal-Mart come to mind. In each case, site plan review allowed the t~ity to hear input by all interested parties and to add conditions to make the projects better than they would have been otherwise. In general, site plan review seems to be working in achieving the intended purpose. Staff has found a few things that could be refined to make the proa3ss better. Staff recommends a couple of refinements to the process rather than a general overhaul. They recommend to modify the site plan review criteria that are used to evaluate projects. They want to streamline the criteria by eliminating those items that are covered by other sections in the Orange Municipal Code. They also recommend to modify the findings that are required for approval of site plan reviews. These are clarifications and re-ordering so that they correspond to the sections of site plan review criteria. Another recommendation is to change the way site plan review can be applied to auto repair shops. That was one of the issues staff heard last year that was a problem. Auto repair is a use that may have some impacts. And, through the site plan review process they are only able to look at the site plan. The modification proposes to change when site plan review would be required. Currently, a conditional use permit is required for auto uses only if they are adjacent to residential zones. It is being suggested that a conditional use permit be required if an auto repair use is within 100 feet of a residential zone. Otherwise, site plan review could be the process it is heard by. Lastly, staff recommends a change to the parking axle. It would clarify that enclosed parking spaa3s in the commeraal and industrial distracts may not count toward meeting the parking requirements in that zone. This is an issue staff has looked at a number of times in the Staff Review Committee. There is a provision under minor site plan review that any time adeveloper/applicant is proposing to restrict aca3ss for parking spaces, they need to have a site plan review approval. This has become an issue several times. When parking is enclosed, it generally turns into storage or some other kind of use and does not remain parking. The public hearing was opened. Public comment Ann Seibert, 340 South Olive, was concerned about CEQA review. She didn't hear that mentioned, but thought with the National Register District coming forward, she wanted to make sure if the zoning code were amended, CEQA should be included. Will someone at the Planning counter know where the threshold for CEQA will activate review? Will staff be able to explain to the people at the counter what CEQA review means? Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1997 Chairman Bosch explained the proposed amendment includes simplifying the language in the existing code relative to the major site plan review to make it clear that all projects shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Ms. Wolff explained CEQA review ties in with the site plan review process in that site plan review is a discretionary review process wherein CEQA will apply. A threshold has been established for minor site plan review. That corresponds to items under CEQA which are categorically exempt. Major site plan review is subject to CEQA. Projects in the Old Towne area will probably be subject to CE(~A regardless of whether the numbers of units or size of buildings fall under the category of exemption. CEQA also has provisions for anything in a historic district to be recognized or acknowledged as a historic area, and thus requiring CEQA review. There may be some projects in Old Towne that will be subject to site plan review and will also be subject to CEQA. Some of the other projects in Old Towne might be conditional use permits, variances, etc. and CEQA will apply. Staff has a working knowledge of CEQA. With the new district status, it may take them a little while to get a response to each individual project, but staff is ready for that. Chairman Bosch said within the Old Towne area and historic districts, there were on-going discussions relative to ordinance modifications that also support that need, and recognize the complexity of the situation of different districts and different plans having different boundaries and characteristics. Mr. Jones referred to the report dated May 6, 1997 from the Community Development Director through the City Manager to the City Council recommending changes to the development review process with respect to the proposed designation of the Old Towne area as a historic district. It specifically identifies alternatives, as well as a recommended course of action as to how CE(~A would be applied to projects within the Old Towne area. That is a separate process, on a separate track. The site plan review process will not cause any problems in terms of dealing with the historic district. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Pruett brought up the issue of enclosed parking stalls. He understood in the residential districts, an enclosed parking stall would be counted. (Right.) He wanted to see it worded in such a way that it is counted only if there is an automatic garage door opener. He didn't think garages were used as parking spaces in a residential area if it didn't have an easy access. Chairman Bosch appreciated the sentiment, but without a survey, a significant percentage of garages do not have automatic garage door openers. In many cases, in the historic district there are horizontal sliding doors, folding bi-fold doors and a variety of things that would set up a lot of existing non-conforming uses that would be difficult to police by doing that. Commissioner Pruett asked if the non-conforming use would present a problem? He was concerned they were setting up a problem where someone could come in and basically propose a project that would be able to utilize and define that parking, and not have any parking available other than within the garage. People would then be parking on the streets, such as an apartment complex. Mr. Jones explained the way the proposal was worded, it would not change any of the current parking requirements for apartment projects. If this were changed, they would have to require (in the future) automatic garage door openers for anyone who came in and wanted to get any kind of discretionary action on their residential property. In the meantime, it would create quite a number of non-conforming uses which may or may not be an issue. There have been a number of projects where the Commission has required automatic garage door openers for the roll up doors to address some of the issues on a project-specific basis. Commissioner Smith agreed with the intent, but in the historic districts and in Old Towne, it would create a design problem. A roll-up garage door would not fit with the architectural integrity of the properties. It would deter from the architectural integrity of the property if owners were mandated to do that. It was noted this project was categorically exempt from CEC~A review. 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 2-97 and amend certain provisions of Title 17 of the Orange Murncipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) for the purpose of refining the site plan review process. AYES: - Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None sld MOTION CARRIED 4