Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-1998 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange February 2,1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary, Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1. Request by applicant, Toyota of Orange, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2204-97, Variance 2042-97 and Negative Declaration 1545-97 to Wednesday, February 18, 1998. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2204-97, Variance 2042-97 and Negative Declaration 1545-97 - Toyota of Orange - to the meeting of February 18, 1998. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue the Minutes of January 19, 1998 to the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2200-97 - MANILA PENINSULA A proposal to allow the on-premise sale and service of alcohol with meals within an existing restaurant located within the Ramada Inn complex, addressed 105 North State College Boulevard. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This item was continued from the January 5, 1998 hearing.) John Godlewski, Senior Planner, summarized the staff report. A number of issues arose at the previous hearing. The Commission requested that a more detailed drawing be submitted of the restaurant and ballroom area, information on operational plans of how the ballroom and restaurant would work, a site plan of the parking configuration after the 1-5 widening, and information on the semi-truck parking, number of parking spaces and how the Ramada Inn complied with all their existing entitlements. The staff report has tried to address most of the issues. The applicant has submitted another letter requesting that the ballroom dancing no longer be a part of the application. They do not want to create a night club type environment. The area will be expanded for restaurant use. The plans that were submitted indicate the parking after the Caltrans take. Because of the applicant's request to delete the ballroom dancing, staff recommends two of the conditions be changed, conditions 5 and 6, that would reflect that the ballroom 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 dancing is no longer part of the application. In response to the semi-truck parking and the noise they have created in the evening, that issue has been turned over to Code Enforcement because it is not in violation of the code to have trucks in the commercial zone or park at a motel. It's really an operational issue with the motel. If the parking spaces are being used up and they can't rent the rooms because they do not have enough parking, then that's a business concern. The code enforcement concern is if the noise or traffic create a problem. Code Enforcement is currently talking with the owners of the motel to resolve the code issues. In terms of previous approvals, staff reviewed them and discussed them in the staff report. There was an approval for an interim plan that was never constructed. And, because of that, there seems to be an additional area in the back that was used for tennis courts that has been converted to parking. Parking on a gravel surface is also being addressed by Code Enforcement. Commissioner Carlton referred to condition 5 where it says no public dancing permitted. She wanted to know if that excluded a wedding reception or private party where there might be music and dancing. Mr. Godlewski said public dancing is underlined to show that the wording has been added to the condition and it would not preclude private parties or weddings. Commissioner Smith stated she did not have a letter from the applicant requesting a change in the application. The other Commissioners did not receive this letter either. Mr. Godlewski shared Mr. Robert's letter with the Commission. The public hearing was opened. Consultant. Paul Roberts. 40 Via Madera. Rancho Santa Margarita, represented Manila Peninsula, which is a restaurant. They heard at the last meeting everyone was in support of a restaurant and no one objected to them serving alcohol. The concern seemed to be the ballroom dancing. They are removing ballroom dancing and only wish to operate a restaurant with alcoholic beverages. They feel there is sufficient parking on the site for the hotel and restaurant. Commissioner Smith was surprised and disappointed to see that ballroom dancing has been removed from the application. She wondered if they had outside pressure to do that. Mr. Roberts said they were surprised by the reaction of the community at the last hearing. He said the word "dancing" seemed to be more important than "ballroom". Dancing was such an issue and the fear of the community was that ballroom dancing would turn into a night club. It became an economic issue and they did not feel it was worth it to go through elaborate staffing and re-configuring the room for an activity that was not their primary business. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if the Commission ascertained that the dancing was not a problem, would the applicant be agreeable to include dancing in their application. Mr. Roberts said the owners were disappointed over the decision to remove dancing at this time, but it was a decision that was made in order to get the restaurant use approved. Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter dated January 30, 1998 from Bob King, speaking with concern regarding the truck parking and desire to have a review of the entire CUP for all uses on the site. Public comments: Bob King. 295 North Rampart. objected to the non-conforming use that is going on there now. There is no CUP on this property. He said CEQA does exempt if the application is for a liquor license in a restaurant. However, when dancing is added, it is not exempt as it will affect the neighborhood. He appreciated the applicants dropping the ballroom dancing. He referred to the staff report and prior CUP's, which raised serious concerns. He was concerned about the trucks parking on the property as it looks like a truck stop. 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Dan VanDorp. 295 North Rampart #A, was concerned about the truck parking and the removal of the landscaping. The illegal truck parking takes up 30,000 to 40,000 square feet of space. There is no screening from Rampart and the trucks are backing up adjacent to their property. He was opposed to the CUP until the owner takes constructive measures to remove the violations on the property. Barbara DeNiro, thought the City needs to be diligent in watching the dance permits after what happened on Eckhoff. Response from applicant: Mr. Roberts re-iterated they are a sub-tenant of the hotel and are renting space from the owner. The code enforcement issue is beyond their control. They removed ballroom dancing from their application and request to operate a restaurant which serves alcoholic beverages. Chairman Bosch asked if the applicant has had any communication with their landlord relative to the concerns and how they might be impacting their application. Mr. Roberts didn't speak to the owner directly, but was told the owner has owned the hotel for a long time and he was confused as to why this was being tied into Manila Peninsula's application. They found there is nothing from precluding truck drivers to stay there than anyone else. The owner did have approval for additional parking spaces in the back. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith thought they needed to be clear about the matter before the Commission. The CUP is for a restaurant and serving alcoholic beverages. It is unfortunate the applicant felt the need to withdraw the ballroom dancing. She thought the community needed to be careful not to be discriminatory to a particular form of ethnic entertainment. Ballroom dancing does not compare to the underground alternative dance club that was monitored in the same vicinity some time ago. The issue of the trucks and parking have been proposed as a problem, and the City has already begun an investigation of the permits for those uses. However, that is not under the purview of this particular applicant. Since the applicant withdrew their request for ballroom dancing, she will not advocate for it at this time. She encouraged the applicant to come back at a later date and request ballroom dancing as it is not a threat to the safety, health and welfare of anyone in the community. Commissioner Carlton thought ballroom dancing was a good, wholesome activity and she was disappointed it was withdrawn from the application. Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem in moving forward with the applicant's request. He had a little bit of a problem considering the approval of a CUP, when there are other violations on the property and they have not been corrected. The violations cannot be ignored and by taking action to approve the CUP without recognizing that it is part of the process, he didn't think it would be prudent. He would like to see some condition for an agreement by the property owner to correct those violations. Commissioner Romero agreed with the problems of parking and perhaps other violations of the City ordinance, but he didn't have a problem in approving the CUP for Manila Peninsula. Chairman Bosch didn't have difficulty with the applicant's request for a restaurant and alcoholic beverages. He encouraged the applicant to work with staff to try and develop language for ballroom dancing in order that it be well defined and managed to avoid it being a detrimental activity in the City. He noted however, that ballroom dancing was not being considered. He did share the concern that unless there are other conditions placed in the staff report, that without something being done in addition to the hard work of Code Enforcement, to assure that improvements are made and that the property be properly maintained, it is not going to be done. Code enforcement can be a very long term process. The applicant is caught in the middle as a tenant. It is not their responsibility to maintain the rest of the property. The CUP goes with the property and if a portion of the property is in non-compliance and is damaging the landscaping, changing the infrastructure relative to illegally constructed driveway rights-of- way, noise and other nuisances impacting the site, they impact all the tenants and all uses on the property. It must be looked at in the overall consideration of the proposal. The overall property needs to be brought into conformance with the existing ordinances. 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Mr. Jones thought any additional condition imposed must be linked to the operation and within the control of the applicant. He didn't believe the City could require the applicant remedy the parking of trucks across vehicular spaces or maintain other landscaping that is not within their control. Mr. Reynolds agreed. There is the one condition that says the applicant shall comply with all laws, local, Federal and State. He thought they needed to look back at the previous CUP's to see if there were violations. Revocation proceedings could then be implemented. The Commission and staff discussed the conditional use permits, the property owner's and tenant's responsibilities for the property, as well as their legal responsibilities. A condition could be included that identifies that the property must be in conformance with all previously approved entitlement applications and the plans on file. The one CUP expired and was never implemented. The 1972 CUP only has one condition. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2200-97, with conditions 1-14 listed in the staff report of January 26,1998, adding condition 15 that before granting this CUP, the entire property must be in conformance with all pre-existing permits on file with Federal, State and local jurisdictions, finding that the permit will be granted on sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community; that the granting of the permit will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located; that it has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and the neighborhood plans on which the site is located; and that as granted, is subject to all of the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. Mr. Reynolds had concerns with the motion in that the added condition was going farther than previously suggested. Mr. Jones stated the added condition is the course of action that Code Enforcement is pursuing for the entire property. Mr. Godlewski stated there are a number of issues related to the property itself. Many problems have been alleged by people who live in the neighborhood, some of which are not code violations. He suggested the Commission address the restaurant and alcohol license, and then direct staff to report on property violations within 30 to 60 days and also update the Commission through a progress report. Then, if the code violations are not addressed, revocation proceedings could be implemented. He pointed out this process could take a year. A substitute motion was offered: Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2200-97, with conditions 1-14 listed in the staff report of January 26, 1998. And, direct staff through Code Enforcement, to report back to the Planning Commission within 30 days relative to the status of conformance of the entire property relative to current codes and standards, including previous approvals governing the current development on the property. If, at that time, no plan for bringing conformance to the property has been agreed to by the applicant, that revocation hearings or other police action required or allowed through City ordinances, be undertaken to cause conformance for the remainder of the property. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 4. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 5-97 - DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY Review of a Parking Study which analyzed the parking situation in Downtown Orange. The Study recommendations include a proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code to establish an "in-lieu" parking fee and the concept of a "pay for parking" program within portions of the Downtown. Negative Declaration 1539-79 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the November 3, 1997 and January 5, 1998 hearings.) NOTE: Mr. Jones explained the purpose of the parking study is to look at the parking problems in the Downtown and to develop solutions. It's an outgrowth of a basic goal to improve the Downtown. The Parking Committee was formed as a result of complaints received from merchants. The Committee has volunteered their time over the last two or three years and he thanked the Committee members for their hard work, and thanked the other individuals who have had a real interest in this project. On November 3, 1997, the Parking Committee made a number of initial recommendations to the Planning Commission, which included an "in-lieu fee". The goal of this fee is an attempt to remove the administrative barriers of requiring variances for the Downtown area where most of the buildings actually cover 100% of the lots. The Committee also recommended a concept of a parking commission, a body solely devoted to parking solutions in the Downtown, and brought forward a proposal for pay-for parking. Six different alternatives were studies and alternative 6 was the most cost effective. There was a lot of discussion at the November 3 hearing. The Planning Commission asked the Committee to do further study on a number of the recommendations that were proposed. The Commission also asked how the existing parking enforcement works, what it would take to get a parking structure built, a sunset clause, etc. All of those questions and responses have been prepared and are in Exhibit A. The Committee reviewed the issues the Commission raised and the three key areas are: The "in-lieu fee", the parking commission and the pay-for parking concept. The Committee has come back with a new proposed "in-lieu fee", one that is much more fair and business-friendly than the previous proposal. Everyone recognizes that Downtown is unique and the same parking requirements and ordinances that govern redevelopment along Chapman and Katella shouldn't necessarily apply here. They are recommending a single parking requirement for the Downtown that would be four spaces per 1,000 instead of a range of parking requirements based upon use. The existing uses would be covered with the existing parking and it would be new construction, not change of use, that would be subject to any in-lieu fee" so that if a use converted to a restaurant, they wouldn't have to pay any additional "in-lieu" fees. But if they were to build additional square footage, without providing the required parking, then they would be subject to an "in-lieu fee". The Committee heard the Commission's concerns about the Parking Commission becoming another layer of bureaucracy. Other alternatives were studied and the Committee recommends the City consider a Project Manager or a staff level position with some assistance from another entity such as a volunteer parking committee. Depending on the extent of the pay-for-parking concept, it could be either a full-time position or handled with the existing staff. The Commission had asked the Committee to look at other alternatives and study alternative 6 in more depth. Alternative 6 included a total of 605 pay-for parking spaces. Three hundred thirty (330) of the spaces would be on-street parking spaces that would have meters. There are six out of the 13 public parking lots in the Downtown area. Specifically, those that back up to Glassell Street and the North and South Orange lots, the North and South Olive Street lots would have pay stations. The alternative the Commission asked the Committee to look at was to move all of the parking meters onto the street, and keep the free parking in the six lots behind the buildings on Orange and Olive Streets (a total of 275 parking spaces). After looking at the two alternatives, the Committee felt alternative 6 is the one they can fully support. There are also a number of other recommendations that are addressed in Exhibit B such as improving access between public parking lots and the Plaza area, improving widening and circulation and other suggestions. 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Leason Pomeroy, one of the leaders of the Downtown Parking Committee, gave a slide show presentation. Safety, signage, promotion and streetscape improvements are woven into the parking study. The Committee identified through the parking study that a funding source was needed to provide the improvements in the Downtown area. Orange is at a place where it is either going to continue growing at a more rapid rate or it is going to go into decline. The cities of Pasadena and Santa Monica were used as examples in that both cities went through an improvement program and are now generating additional sales. Orange will be competing for customers in the future. Everyone agrees improvements are needed in Downtown to make it more successful. The Committee came up with an estimated budget of 11.2 million dollars over a 7-year period. They looked at self-funding sources and discovered funding could be generated through a pay-for-parking program. Phased improvements were outlined over a 7-year period. He stated that two-thirds of the available parking in Downtown still remains free under Alternative 6. A parking structure will be required if the Downtown is successful, and will self- fund if a pay-for-parking concept is adopted. The revenues from parking meters can generate additional parking, as necessary. Commissioner Carlton said alternative 6 shows the net revenue projected for 605 spaces. She understood Mr. Pomeroy to say that all the improvements would be around 11.2 million dollars. She asked about the shortfall and where the additional funding would come from. Mr. Pomeroy replied different sources of funding must be found such as assessing the property owners, Redevelopment Agency, bond issues, etc. Commissioner Romero asked how many permits were issued when the Temporary Parking Permit Program was established. He questioned why the program was not enforced. Did the Committee have an idea of how many business owners were in favor of this program and how many were opposed. Bernie Dennis responded there were 500 parking permits issued approximately three to five years ago. Because of budget constraints, the parking was not enforced. Mr. Pomeroy did not know the percentage of business owners in favor or opposed to the pay-for- parking program. A marketing study has not been done. Commissioner Smith asked if the City has shown any interest in coming along later to assist with the other funding sources. Mr. Pomeroy replied the City has been extremely cooperative in working with the Committee, but they are non-committal in terms of funding. He believed the City will help once a program has been recommended and implemented. Commissioner Smith asked if they put in parking meters, what will bring the people to the Downtown area. What will be the draw to get people into the Downtown to shop. Where will employees and property owners park. Who is going to enforce the pay-for-parking program. Mr. Pomeroy responded people do pay at the Mall of Orange, but not in the parking lots. The rent at the Mall is over $2 a foot and the customers are paying for that through the products they buy. It's hard to argue that pay parking is better than free parking. Revenues must be found some place and the Committee determined that's probably the only source they could find to generate revenues. Safety must be provided early on to create more lighting and security in the free parking lots, where employees and property owners can park. Or, through a parking program, employees could be offered discounted parking. Employers could pay for the employees parking fees. Merchants, owners and the City need to work together to address these issues. Sgt. Bob Green, Orange Police Department, said there are parking control officers who will enforce the parking, but at this time no provisions have been made for an increase in enforcement of the parking lots. Mr. Pomeroy said just the presence of uniformed security makes people feel safer. Many cities have small sub-stations in which a couple of police officers will work out of. Parking is monitored, as well as provide a presence of security. 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Commissioner Pruett said there have been a number of applicants in the past that have protested certain projects because of the available parking in Downtown. The Commission has required those businesses to become involved in parking management and work with the parking committee to help resolve the parking issues. Parking management is part of this program. He asked if they have reached the maximum potential for parking or is there an opportunity to improve parking and how does that relate to managed parking through parking meters. What value does the committee see in the parking management concept. Mr. Jones thought the Committee has recognized that regardless of what program is in place, consistent enforcement is necessary. One of the advantages of having a pay-for-parking program is that it is self- enforcing. Commissioner Pruett asked to what extent have other businesses stepped forward to help resolve the parking issue. Complaints have been received about a parking problem. And, the demand for parking continues to increase. Mr. Jones said there are a number of merchants and property owners in Downtown who are very interested in finding solutions and have been very willing to work with the City. The Committee has tried to pull together a range of possible solutions and the pay-for-parking concept is one of the solutions. There are other things that should be looked at as well in order to resolve the parking issues. Mr. Pomeroy was not sure if they could really measure how many of the businesses have actually told their employees to park in the free parking lots. He thought most people are cooperating with the rules. Public comments of those speaking in favor: Lisa Ackerman. 2295 N. Tustin #28. has a business at 151 North Glassell and spoke in favor of pay-for- parking in Downtown. She believed the issues can be mitigated. She thought the pay stations or parking meters could be phased in. An adjustment period is needed for these new programs. Orange is a little behind the other cities and needs to plan for the future. Lisa Blanc. 368 South Orange Street, has a business at 122 North Glassell. She stated you can't study and talk about parking without talking about all the issues that goes along with it, like signage and lighting. You also need to talk about a way to generate revenue to make signage and lighting happen. Many residents say Old Towne should pay for itself. To ask people who shop in Old Towne to blindly sign a petition against parking without giving an explanation of the benefits, one might get thousands of signatures. But, if you were to ask those people who shop and dine in the Plaza area if their experience was worth $1 per hour, or if they would pay $1 per hour towards improvements that would enhance their visit, the answer would be yes. Alternative 6 is a comprehensive plan that addresses the short- and long- term parking needs for Old Towne, identified by the merchants themselves, in a proposal that provides for self-funding of the improvements. It is a plan that gives an alternative to parking variances and the parking variance process, but still encourages higher end uses in Old Towne. Adrienne Gladson. 700 East Lake Drive #97, recognizes it is important to do something now to try and deal with the issues of parking. She is not opposed to the pay-for-parking program to help fund new lighting, signage and other improvements. The Plaza is unusual and unique and people will come to Downtown for those reasons. This makes the users part of the process and will help with the additional needs in the future. The parking "in lieu fee" is strongly encouraged and needs to be implemented as soon as possible. Joan Crawford. 394 South Orange, said it sounds like everyone is in agreement that there needs to be some managed parking in Downtown. The parking meter concept is the most efficient and effective. She is glad to know the City is now enforcing a parking time limit. Most people can relate to a parking meter rather than signage. Robert Mickelson. P.O. Box 932, supported the Committee's recommendation. He was privileged to be part of five new projects in Old Towne these last two years. It's exciting to see the synergism that is starting to develop. There will be a parking problem if it is not addressed. The Committee has had the foresight to look ahead and try to resolve the parking issues before it becomes a problem. The concept needs to be carried forward so that the nuts and bolts can be worked out. 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Commissioner Pruett said a lot of people do not believe there is a parking problem in Downtown, but then there are some people who do believe there is a parking problem. Mr. Mickelson said there are tons of parking spaces in Old Towne today and many of them go unused on a daily basis. People want to park in front of the business rather than parking in a lot a couple of blocks away. He would prefer to pay the parking meter and have the privilege of parking in front of a business. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Mickelson how to mitigate the employee parking. Mr. Mickelson personally did not believe walking from the Lemon Street parking lot to many of the businesses is a very long walk, when compared to other cities. Granted, it is not the greatest walk right now because the lighting is bad. Commissioner Romero asked about the business owners or service employees who do not park for eight hours a day, but are in and out during the day. He questioned the use of the parking. Mr. Mickelson thought that might be the toughest problem to solve. In some cases, parking spaces can be marked for that person. Or, a voucher system could be implemented. Transponders are a wonderful tool and that could be a consideration. Details still need to be worked out, but the concept must be approved first. Public comments of those speaking in opposition: Carlos Gallegos. 30 Plaza, is opposed to parking meters. People come to Downtown Orange to enjoy the ambiance and they are not going to want to park four blocks away. Let the taxpayers pick what they want. He was sure people will vote against parking meters. Joe Magliato. 172 North Glassell, as well as 173, 169, 165 and 161 North Glassell. He is the pastor of Son Light Christian Center (the old theater). He will assume parking meters will not be enforced on Sundays. He would hate for the young people attending Church activities during the week to become discouraged for having to pay for parking. It seemed to him the laws on the books would work if they are enforced. Commissioner Smith asked if the Church were tax exempt for property tax. How many spaces does the Church use on Sundays. Pastor Magliato said the Church building is tax exempt, but they pay taxes on the other addresses. He did not know how many parking spaces were used, maybe 200. He represents a congregation of 700 to 800 people. Hank Mascolo. 1459 North Blake, thought parking meters are ugly and keeps business away. They will degrade the City. Barbara Kovac. 141 North Glassell, is opposed to the parking meters. She thought Orange was a different, unique community. She didn't like the idea of Orange being compared with Pomona, Pasadena or Santa Monica. Parking meters are not very friendly nor are they necessary. Her customers have not complained of not being able to find a parking space. Most of their customers park behind the store. Wanda Gould. 141 North Glassell, asked how long the City has been talking about a parking structure. She hasn't seen one thing come to tuition. She doesn't want to be another Pasadena. They don't need to run their customers off. The planters on South Glassell are empty. The planters in the new parking lot behind Army-Navy have weeds and trash in them. She wants to make sure that whatever they do is right. Carole Walters is President of the Orange Taxpayers Association and they do not support the parking meters or pay stations. She submitted a petition of 5,149 signatures opposing the parking meters. There was money from years ago for a parking structure in Downtown. What happened to that money. She suggested the City charge the film companies extra money when they use the Downtown area for filming. Chairman Bosch explained the money originally budgeted for the Downtown parking structure on South Orange was re-budgeted and utilized for the seismic upgrade of the existing buildings. 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Commissioner Smith heard Ms. Walters say that Old Towne should pay for itself; that the City puts too much time and money into Old Towne. She wondered why this parking concept is not acceptable. This is proposed to help generate revenue. Ms. Walters thought some of the taxes should go back into Old Towne. She is against parking meters. An association or group should not be able to handle the money. The problem is, they want the money. Commissioner Romero asked if Ms. Walters had a guess as to the number of business owners opposed to parking meters and those who favored the meters. Ms. Walters did not know how many business owners were against meters. She would have to check it out and take a survey. Mike Learakos. 1774 GreenCJrove Street. has a business at 1325 West Katella. He thanked the Committee for all the work they've done on their own time. Everyone has the same interests in mind, but unfortunately a couple of things are holding them back. He believed "pay-for parking" will keep people away. The business community needs to make Downtown a little more inviting and safer. A parking problem is great; it's just the solution that is important. Commissioner Pruett said one of the issues being put forward is the concept of the parking meters to generate the funds to increase the safety issues and a variety of other issues. If they are moving in the right direction to solve these problems, some of the issues are going to require an economic investment to make it happen. He asked if Mr. Learakos is suggesting that the business owners in the Downtown area need to form a special assessment district or is there some other way to fund these improvements. Mr. Learakos responded yes and he believed the initial component is already in place with Economic Development. If property values increase, it has a snowball effect and then it is worth the City putting additional tax revenue and less risk is involved. Rapid change is not always a good change. Smart change is what is best. Carroll Johnson. 100 South Glassell, is the owner of Sir Wickett's. He believed parking meters do not bring people to the Downtown area. He suggested putting in parking meters around City Hall. Every employee should pay for their parking. They voted to have a parking assessment district eight or nine years ago, but nothing was done about it. The money went somewhere else. The southwest corner of the Plaza is booming because people care. Barbara DeNiro said the Downtown needs improvement, but so do other areas of the City. She wanted to know who the Parking Committee members are. What happened to the Redevelopment money for a parking structure. She is concerned about the lighting and safety proposed for Downtown. How is it determined that the parking money will be used for a parking structure this time. The opposition has concerns, but they are not the "bad guys". She felt opposition was good to bring out what really needs to be done. Diane Zalay. 140 North Glassell, stated "pay-for-parking" hurts businesses and she personally knows this because she lives in Dana Point and has experienced the failure of businesses in that community caused from having to pay for parking through parking stations and meters. She felt there were other ways to create improvements in the Downtown area. She thought they needed to enhance the uses and provide things such as a major bookstore, a theater, diverse restaurants, specialty grocery and wine shops, galleries, bakery, ice cream, flowers, gifts, etc. Arnold Behrmann. 1133 East Mardell. suggested removing the planter boxes and trees to add more parking spaces. He understood the parking fines go into the General Fund, but the fines should go into a separate parking fund. There should be permit parking for employees and property owners, but make sure every merchant has a right to a certain number of permits. He drove around and checked the parking lots and they were not full. The lot on Grand is used by City employees and yet the lots behind City Hall are only half full. City employees should be parking in the lots behind City Hall and make the lot on Grand a permitted parking lot. Steve Garner. 400 South Flower #176. is a customer who shops the Downtown area. He thought flavor, character and ambiance brings dollars to the community. 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Nancy Magliato. 172 North Glassell, is the pastor's wife of Son Light Christian Center. The petition of 5,000 names should not be dismissed easily. Perhaps to be fair, business owners should start their own petition to see how many signatures are received in support of parking meters. She encouraged placing the parking meters at City Hall to be used by City Council and Planning Commission, employees and staff before placing them Downtown. Response from Applicant: Mr. Jones heard one of the questions about the hours proposed by the Committee in which pay-for- parking might be enforced. The Parking Committee has proposed that the pay-for-parking concept be in effect Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and would not be enforced on Sundays, holidays or after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. There are not too many ways to make a parking meter more attractive. The Economic Development Department had retained a consultant to talk about the concepts of both parking meters and the "in-lieu fee". The feedback was that there was more concern about the in-lieu fee in terms of discouraging a business than there was parking meters. A statement was made that parking meter revenue should not go to a special group. The proposal in front of the Commission is that any revenues generated would go to the City and be placed in a special fund. The revenues would not go to any individual group. A budget would be drafted every year to identify the improvements and money would be allocated by the City Council, based upon recommendations. A question was asked about getting in touch with the Planning Commissioners. Anyone who writes a letter and provides it to the Planning Department, staff will make sure it is passed on to the Commissioners. A phone message will also be forwarded to the Commissioners. There was a request to identify the members of the Parking Committee. In the original November 3, 1997 staff report the Committee members were identified. They are interested volunteers and not everyone participated to the same level. He read the list of Committee members to the audience. The in-lieu fee would apply to new construction; it would not apply to a change in use. Exhibit A describes that concept in more detail. Distribution of the parking lots is a problem and part of the problem is that there is not equal access between all of the public lots and the major streets and Plaza. One of the proposals is that they look for ways to create better access between the public lots to help increase that distribution. Chairman Bosch asked about the legal basis for parking fines going into the City's General Fund. Mr. Jones understood the citation dollars collected must go to the General Fund. There is an inherent danger of setting up a special fund or special department that might benefit from the proceeds of those funds. Sgt. Green also stated the full amount of the citation does not go into the General Fund. There is a general court cost and also a handling fee which is taken off the top and then the remainder goes into the General Fund. The Commission and staff discussed funds being used for street maintenance rather than a parking structure and fund raising events such as films and the Street Fair in Downtown. A parking assessment district or business improvement district were also discussed. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton said they were looking at a 7.7 million dollar shortfall and she wondered where it will come from. There is no answer or source at this time. She thought this was a dead issue because they were at an impasse without a way to raise the money. With the people speaking at the hearing, there were 72% against parking meters and 28% in favor. She felt this was not the time to be making a decision on this matter. There should be more research done as to how to fund this and when it needs to be funded. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Chairman Bosch thought there was a lot they could do. He had great respect for the people who care enough to show up and speak. There has been wonderful input from the discussion. He didn't want anyone to crucify the Parking Committee because they may end up saying the Committee was right. The parking meters are the right mechanism to raise revenues and the Committee has provided a well thought out plan to implement the parking meters and pay stations. The question becomes, what are the other alternatives for funding this. He sees the City looking for ways to move funds from the General Fund and from any other special funds they can find towards that end. He doesn't like parking meters either. He much rather desired that there was a way the business district Downtown were already so successful that 10 Planning Commission Minute February 2, 1998 the owners and merchants would find a way to create a business improvement district and be able to fund that and move ahead to make it self-supporting. It would also be wonderful to be in a position to fund this out of the General Fund. It's important to have a kit of tools. This proposed method is one way in which issues can be resolved, but is the City willing to pay the price for it. The "in-lieu fee" is a concept that has to occur to solve the problem of being locked up. He needs to know, though, that the monies generated are locked up and goes back into the improvements for Downtown. The parking management plan is something they can move forward with now to solve some of the problems. Commissioner Carlton did not mean to diminish the work and time that the Committee has spent on this parking study; however, she did not have enough answers right now. Commissioner Pruett appreciated the work of the Committee and also the comments received from people who spoke. He thought they needed to see how they could implement parts of the program and look at the timing. It might be good to have the Committee take a look at some of the suggestions that were made, look at the priorities and timing issues and research a business improvement district. Commissioner Smith wants what is best for Orange. She has lived in Orange all of her life. When she first saw the parking proposal, she didn't like it. She didn't like the "in-lieu" parking plan or parking meters on the street. There were too many loop holes. Some recommendations were suggested to the Committee and they revised their proposal and answered many questions. Two-thirds of the parking still remain free in Downtown and that is a very freeing concept to her. People are not locked in to having to pay for parking. There is absolutely no reason to pursue anything if they can't guarantee the money stays to improving the Downtown area. She is not in favor of the money going into the General Fund of the City and being redistributed. It will cost the people of this area something in order to have this plan. It will be inconvenient and it will cost money. There definitely has to be something in place. She is not convinced the business improvement district is the best way. She agreed tenants and owners have to work together to make this work. But, she didn't think they could bear any more of the financial burden of that. People have spent a lot of money on seismic retrofitting their buildings. She felt the consumer should also invest as well. There is a lot of discretionary money being spent in the Downtown. She did not think parking meters would keep shoppers away from Downtown. Those people who do not want to pay can use the free parking lots. She liked the "in-lieu parking" plan a lot better based on new construction, rather than a change in use. She won't oppose that anymore. She agreed they need to move forward and do something, whether it's a small step or a large step. She also thought the parking fee should apply on City employee lots, as well as other employee lots, and the City should pay the bill as a sign of good faith and support in this movement. That's not too much to ask at this time when there is no City money coming forward. She would also like to look at a 15-minute grace period at the beginning of everyone's parking time to sway some of the fears of running in and out on small errands. Her history with Orange has been sitting back and watching Anaheim build Disneyland, the Pond, Anaheim Stadium -- all across the street from Orange. She didn't like the idea of Main Place being up the street and Orange having the traffic come into Old Towne. She wants to take action and not be the sleepy little town that sits back and just watches while everybody else grows. This could be a step forward with improvements to the Downtown area. She believed this will only help the Downtown merchants. She also believed in the City's support on this study/plan and didn't believe the City would abandon it. The 11.5 million dollars is the Cadillac budget and maybe they will only get 4.2 million dollars, but that is more than they have now to invest back into the Downtown business district. Timing is everything and it feels right for Commissioner Smith to move forward. So many people are involved in this, both opposed and in favor. Finally, she has heard so many people talking about the Street Fair and she really wished they would do something about it and charge everyone a dollar to get in. Commissioner Romero requested an answer from the City Attorney with regards to the reimbursement of costs such as filming and the Street Fair. He didn't understand the reasoning or logic. Why can't the City generate revenue from the number of people at the Street Fair or the amount of beer that is sold. With regard to parking funds being used to pave streets, is there a possibility of those monies being returned. Planning creates success, but when you don't plan, there is failure. They are planning for the future of the Downtown area by using parking meters. He is going to call Dana Point to determine what caused their success or failure, as well as Pasadena and Glendale to inquire about their parking meters. 11 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 The Commission had concerns about projections of revenues and the degree of certainty on estimates. They wanted to know about the alternatives for funding the short fall and identify whether those sources are available. A time line is needed. There are too many controversies that need to be sorted through, but they don't stand in the way of accomplishing what needs to be done. Some of the creative approaches need to be explored to get additional revenues to help offset the pay-for-parking concept. Chairman Bosch said the key for him is the basis for assuring that any revenues that go into any of these revenue generating concepts are segregated and kept for Downtown improvements. He would like information on how to craft ordinance recommendations. This all relates to thresholds for implementation. There are a variety of parking management efforts and feasibility studies. How can they be implemented and what is the cost, if any, on some of them. How can they be moved ahead simultaneously with the process of obtaining information that may be lacking to assure the best possible recommendation to the City Council. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Negative Declaration 1539-79. The environmental considerations which reflect upon the proposed amendments to the Parking Ordinance have been adequately addressed with regard to the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council that Section 17.34.020 of the Orange Municipal Code be modified as set forth in Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of the staff report dated 1/22/98, adding exception for Plaza District as developed in that proposal, Pages 1 and 2, relative to the adoption of an "in-lieu parking" replenishment fee program. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The Commission was not comfortable with moving ahead on the remainder until questions are answered. Mr. Jones stated the Committee would like to request a continuance to the next meeting in order to formulate answers to the Commission's questions and concerns. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Ordinance Amendment 5-97 - Downtown Parking Study - to the meeting of February 18, 1998 for a report from staff relative to the questions and concerns raised by the Commission. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 96-183 AND VARIANCE 2031-97 - PAUL CLARK AND GEORGE ADAMS A proposal to subdivide a 19,860 square foot property into three individual parcels. Because the resulting lots and existing development would not comply with zoning requirements, the applicants are requesting waivers of site development standards for lot size, lot width, lot depth, building setbacks and parking. The site is located at 633 West Maple Street (northeast corner of Maple and Parker Street). NOTE:Negative Declaration 1520-97 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 This project was originally proposed as a four lot subdivision, and was denied by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1997. The City Council heard this item on appeal, at which time the applicant revised the project to include only three lots. After several continuances, the Council heard the appeal on January 13, 1998, found the project to be substantially different from the original proposal, and acted to send the project back to the Planning Commission for action. Jack McGee, Community Development Director, stated this is now a three lot proposal and there are 12 separate issues which require variances. Staff is concerned about the creation of lots which are smaller than the minimum lot size. The lots that are proposed are 4,956 on the corner, 6,380 and 5,478 square feet in size. The City Council made a few comments, which he read from the staff report. The Council also stated the Planning Commission's action is final unless appealed. The public hearing was opened. Applicant. George Adams. 811 East Chapman, explained this project is dying to have something done to it and desperately needs help. The property was left over as a remnant and is pretty close to a slum condition. They are proposing to give up six more feet of their property to increase the width of the street and put in curbs and gutters. The two middle houses are to be torn down and a new duplex could be built. The other two houses on each end of the property could be saved with some repairs. He is willing to put a deed restriction on the property to restrict further subdivision of the property. Commissioner Pruett looked at the parcel map and noted parcel three has the garages for both residences 633 D and 633 C. Then on parcel two there is the driveway that has parking for 633 A and 633 B. But, parcel one has no parking on it. Mr. Adams explained they would have to put two parking spaces on the first parcel in order for the parking to be in conformance with the plans. He needs a variance for the actual lot size. They intend to comply with the City's parking requirements. Commissioner Smith asked if the applicant had considered dividing the property into two parcels. Mr. Adams said it doesn't work economically for them. Commissioner Pruett stated Parker does not go through. He asked if there has been discussion about putting in a turn around at the end of Parker instead of a hammer head. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if a car could be parked in the garage on the back piece of property. Mr. Adams stated the garages need to be replaced as they are not suitable for use. Chairman Bosch understood the applicant is proposing on lot one to construct a two-car garage. On lot three, they propose to tear down the garage and replace it to provide code compliant parking. On lot two, to construct a new duplex and provide parking on the site. Setback requirements must be met. Mr. McGee is fairly confident that on lots two and three there is room to meet all the requirements. It appears on lot one at the rear of the lot there is probably adequate space. By accessing off of Maple it may be difficult. Mr. Adams said this is a marginal piece of property and there are not a lot of options. The garage on lot one is going to be close to the property line. A person must enter the garage off of Parker. The street will be 30 feet wide with curbs and gutters and will be nice compared to what it is now. Chairman Bosch noted this property lies within the boundary of Old Towne and the Old Towne Design Guidelines apply. The hearing was opened for public comments. Dave Ryan. 630 West Palm Avenue #45, is the President of the Hampton Court Homeowners Association that is located on the North end of Parker. The property is an eyesore to the homeowners and it is a slum. At the end of Parker, there is an area that has been deemed as emergency access to the complex. 13 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 His concern is with the never ending battle of cars parking in there and blocking the egress for emergency vehicles that may come down Parker Avenue. He has fought with Code Enforcement for at least two years to get the fire hydrant painted and a red curb. Because of a lack of enforcement by traffic officers, people will continue to park in this area. Chairman Bosch understood Mr. Ryan's concern about emergency egress. If the project isn't approved, the site may stay the way it is, or some other proposal will come forward. Other than this critical issue, the Chairman asked for Mr. Ryan's response to the proposal. Mr. Ryan did not think they were allowing enough consideration for the normal habits of the people in the general area who park their cars anywhere. Because of a lack of enforcement in that regard, it is a danger to the 54 homeowners north of this proposed project. It wouldn't bother him so much if the 12 foot easement were continued all the way down to the northerly end of the property line. Response from applicant: Mr. Adams thought Mr. Ryan's concerns makes his case that much stronger. He is going to add 12 feet to the width and make that side of the street no parking. All of these things will improve the property. He didn't design the street and felt it was wrong to condemn him for the emergency access problems. The condition of Parker was there when the 54 homes were built. Chairman Bosch talked about parcel 3 where the 12 foot additional dedication stops, and the northerly 40 feet of lot three with a 26 foot right-of-way. He asked how that is proposed to be improved. (With a curb on Mr. Adam's side.) Commissioner Pruett asked if the no parking fine for a fire lane is different than it is for any other part of the street. Mr. Ryan responded to that question. Commissioner Pruett suggested the area that is beyond the 30 foot street be striped red with paint on the street stating that it is a fire lane and post it as a fire lane. This could be more of a deterrent than a sign that says no parking. Mr. Adams agreed with that suggestion and did not have a problem with it. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith asked what could be built on the substandard lot. Mr. McGee recollected the lot was 6,400 square feet and the applicant would need to comply with all the setbacks of the zone as well as parking requirements. He could put a two-story structure on the property with garages under a portion of the structure. Small duplex units above the garages would also work. Commissioner Pruett wanted staff's reaction to striping the street as a fire lane and enforceability. Mr. McGee couldn't imagine a problem in doing that to the street. They would be creating a long-term solution. There would probably be a need to have a neighborhood watch meeting for all residents in the area. Mr. Hohnbaum stated the fire lane could potentially be problematic. Currently on the westerly side of the street parking is allowed and is currently utilized. Staff would need to confer with the Fire Department to discuss the facilitation of such a fire lane, whether it be on one side only (easterly side). He could see a few operational problems. Commissioner Smith was not in favor of this project. There are so many lots in Old Towne already that are substandard and that create development problems. She is not in favor of creating three more substandard lots. She would be in favor of a lot division of two lots that would allow for ample size duplex, parking, turn arounds, etc. It sets a precedent and given the constraints on the street, it is inappropriate. 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Commissioner Carlton said this is a really tough piece of property. The Orange Housing Development Corporation looked at this four years ago and there was no way to envision any allowances because it would be affordable housing. She didn't know how anyone could make it work on this piece of property, unless they bulldoze it down and start over with a couple of duplexes. She didn't like this proposal, but she didn't know what to suggest. Commissioner Smith agreed it is a difficult piece of property and she sympathizes with the applicant. She feels very strongly about not demolishing structures in Old Towne, but for this property that is the only solution -- to demolish all structures on the property and start over. Chairman Bosch said there were still variances on the property regarding lot widths and setbacks. Parking can be handled. There may be a solution on the fire lane if it can be worked out. If the property were divided into two lots, each could hold more than one unit and the City could end up technically with more units. Mr. McGee stated this is a high density residential area, which will allow 15-24 units per acre. It's just under a half acre so it's somewhere around six or eight units. Chairman Bosch stated there is no good solution and that's why it is a candidate for a variance. There is no other way to keep this as a legal piece of property, yet it can't be taken away. The question is, what provides the best possible result. They have to look at the subdivision of the property, even more than what is existing on it, without deed restrictions, to control what's existing to remain. He would like to see something done to clean the property up, rather than just have it disappear. He didn't know what could be built new that meets the setback requirements and still leave open space on the property. How do they craft what variances would be allowed on the property. Mr. McGee said staff approached it not from the perspective of that new construction, but from a perspective of what's on the property right now. If there were new construction, it would need to meet the required setbacks of the ordinance. The R-3 zone requires a 15 foot front setback and a 10 foot rear setback. When you have a 54 foot deep lot, that doesn't leave a lot of room to put in that new unit. Chairman Bosch summarized the applicant desires to leave a single family residence on the front parcel and on the back parcel, and a duplex on the middle parcel, and stipulate through deed restrictions that never would there be any more units on any of the lots. There will be no more than four units on this piece of land vs. if the land were cleaned up and let go, someone might come up with a way to put six units on the property. Mr. Hohnbaum referred to condition 5 in which it asks for a dedication and improvement of 12 feet all the way down Parker. It does not exclude the one residence that sticks out. If the Commission were to adopt the conditions, it would require the demolition of that structure as well. Public Works would very much like to have the full 12 feet all the way down to the end of the street. The Commission concurred if they modified condition 5 to have the dedication except for the northerly 49 feet, and then require that within that constraint, the applicant work with the Public Works Department and Fire Department within that northerly 49 feet to develop a red curb for no parking, signage for the fire lane, and striping of the pavement for a fire lane. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1520-97 and find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 15 Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 96-183 and Variance 2031-97 and that prior to filing, that deed restrictions be developed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's Office and recorded as permanent restrictions on the properties to limit lot one and lot three to no more than one dwelling unit and lot two to no more than two dwelling units, but any redevelopment of the parcels will be subject to the City's development standards for setbacks, parking and open space on the lots, with the variance for minimum lot size and lot dimensions. And, modify condition 5 that the improvements must be within the property constraints subject to the approval of Public Works and the Fire Department, for proper markings, signage, striping, curb construction and curb return, and striping of the pavement for a fire lane. The additional dedication would not include the northerly approximately 49 feet of the subject property, but improvements would be required on the remaining existing right-of-way. There are special circumstances relative to project size, shape, location and surroundings where the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, and because of the conditions of approval, would not grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bosch asked staff to investigate a policy for a curfew and length of time at Planning Commission meetings. He knew the City of Irvine, at one time, wouldn't take up an item after 10:00 p.m. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 1 :25 a.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED sld 16