Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 20. 1994 July 6, 1994 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the Minutes of June 20, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2064-94 -JERRY GREUBEL A request to allow the construction and operation of a 94 dwelling unit "Senior Citizen Apartment Project", and the construction of buildings exceeding two stories in height. The proposal includes a request for a density bonus in exchange for renting 25% of the units to low or very low income senior households. Subject property is located on the west side of Newport Boulevard, 400 feet south of Chapman Avenue, addressed 340 North Newport Boulevard. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1454-94 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Staff requested a continuance of this item because of a problem with proper advertising of the application, as well as a chance to meet with the Orange Park Acres Planning Association to discuss the project in more detail. Staff has talked with the applicant, but would like the applicant's concurrence of a continuance to August 1, 1994. The applicant concurred with the project's continuance. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2064-94, with the applicant's concurrence, to August 1, 1994, because of inadequate notification and the O.P.A. Planning Committee was not advised of the project. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Smith, Pruett, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Commissioner Walters serves on the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee and he extended an invitation to those people in the audience to attend the upcoming meeting to learn more about the project before it is heard by the Planning Commission August 1, 1994. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2070-94 -HANK BOJORQUEZ A request to allow the reopening and expansion of a nightclub (formerly Sunset Beach Club), which includes activities such as live music entertainment, dancing, and the serving of alcoholic beverages. Subject property is addressed 777 South Main Street, Suites #33 and #35. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Mike Alvarez, 360 South Glassell, represented the applicant. They were concerned with a couple of items in the staff report, beginning on Page 2, under Development Standards, Item 1: one licensed, uniformed security guard must be provided for each 50 people. And on Page 5, Item 6: At least two weeks in advance of an event where an audience of more than 100 people is anticipated, the Police Department shall be notified. The applicant requests a guard be provided for 100 people. Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 5 on Page 5: One security guard shall be provided when the occupancy exceeds 25 people. Mr. Alvarez pointed out there were approximately 25 people in the audience. In order for a nightclub to be successful, more people would be needed than 25. That's why they were requesting the one per 100 ratio. They plan to have one uniformed security guard at the door, with a minimum of four dressed security guards on the inside of the club. He referred to condition 6, Page 5. They were not sure what was meant by the term "event". They interpreted "event" to mean a special event that's advertised to draw more than the maximum crowd. On Page 3, Item 2 (Development Standards), they wish to have that omitted. They do not want to notify the police every time 100 or more people are anticipated. Their maximum capacity is 300 people. Item 3, Page 3, naming the City as an additional insured -- they were not sure why this was necessary. Item 4, Page 3, an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the City they requested that it be omitted as well. Condition 7, Page 5, relates to the Police Department's door policy regulations. The applicant will be hiring a professional guard for the front door. Mr. Godlewski thought the Commission needed to concentrate on the conditions of approval in the staff report as opposed to the Development Standards. The Standards are given merely for a guideline with which to begin discussion. The Standards shown on Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report are for the Commissioners consideration and this is the way they are written in the code. The conditions themselves were crafted using the Standards as a guideline, as well as recommendations from the Police Department. Most of the conditions came from the Police Department's memo of what they would like to see in the application. Mr. Soo-Hoo referred to the municipal code and stated the Police Department duplicated those conditions that were suggested for the C.U.P. by code, although it was discretionary to the Commission. He cited Section 17.44.040 of the Municipal Code specifically states that for this type of use these conditions may be imposed by the Planning Commission, and it lists all of those with the exception of condition 7. Commissioner Pruett asked what the code was for condition 5 (referring to one security guard when the occupancy exceeds 25 customers? Mr. Soo-Hoo read that the code specifically states "At least one licensed, uniformed security guard must be provided for each 50 people, or fraction of number, thereof." Planning Commission Minutes July 6, .1994 Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Alvarez about their plan to have four dressed security guards inside the club, with one guard at the door? Mr. Alvarez said the guard at the door would be in uniform, and would be the "host" security guard. Then, there would be four, easily identifiable, guards inside (perhaps in tuxedos). There would be a minimum of five guards for a maximum occupancy of 300 people (1 to 60). Commissioner Cathcart asked why they would be against condition 7 -- the applicant would contact the Narcotics Unit of the O.P.D. for door policy regulations. Once they got those regulations, they would go about their business. Mr. Alvarez said the Police Department was looking to the security company to provide and enforce that. They were not against the condition; they were just clarifying ~t. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith asked what kind of license the establishment had prior to it's closing? Were they licensed for live entertainment? Staff advised they were licensed for live entertainment. Commissioner Walters thought one guard for 25 people after the hours of darkness was excessive. He thought 50 or 60 might be in order, but he didn't see it for 1 in 100. Experience has taught him with live entertainment in today's world, one guard vs. 100 people sometimes is not sufficient. He thought notification to the Police two weeks prior to an event with a crowd of 200 or 250 would be in order. Commissioner Smith called for consistency with similar applications. Several items on this project fall into the same categories as other projects. They previously approved a security guard for each 50 people. The Commission also required of the other people to notify the police for 100 people/special events one week in advance. Live entertainment was only allowed on weekends (because of residential neighbors). They've also required an interior layout of the establishment, which is not shown on the application. The entire plan needs to go back to the ERB for approval of police, fire and public works. It needs to be reviewed in this case because there is an addition of over 2,000 square feet. She agreed with the dressed security guards (1 to 50). In the interest of time and moving ahead, she would concede seeing the layout of the restaurant if she knew the project would go back to the ERB for review. Commissioner Pruett thought there was an importance to being consistent, but he also thought they needed to be sensitive to the differences in the projects. Some of the issues surrounding this project is the commercial nature -- not having residential neighbors. He could live with the 1 guard per 60 people. Commissioner Cathcart felt that one guard per 50 would be appropriate in that he doubted they would meet their maximum 300 very often. If they had five security guards for a crowd of 250 and use that as a break off point, then if they had a "special" event with over 250 people, they would notify the Police Department that would seem appropriate. He was also for being consistent; however, the difference was that this was not a pool hall. You cannot move pool tables quickly vs. tables and chairs; this isn't inconsistent. Staff was made aware if applications contained heavy furniture (non-movable items), then interior layouts were required for the Commission's review. It was noted this item was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2070-94 with amendments to condition 5 -one security guard shall be provided on Friday and Saturday nights for each 50 customers; condition 6 -audience of more than 200 people, one week in advance of an event, the police shall be notified; and add condition 13 -the entire application go back to the ERB for review and comments. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS July 6, 1994 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 01-94 -BETTY NOLDE AND BYBLOS RESTAURANT The referral by City Council of an applicant's appeal of a Design Review Board decision regarding modifications to a building's storefront in the Plaza Historic District. The Design Review Board approved the project subject to conditions, which the applicant is now appealing. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. NOTE: Design Review Board items are generally considered ministerial projects and are Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15266. Mr. Soo-Hoo commented on the procedure to follow in case of DRB appeals. This would differ from a public hearing in that there is no requirement that this be advertised and other formalities required of a public hearing. He advised the observance of due process that anyone interested in expressing an opinion be capable of doing so. Applicant David Kent, 1111 West Almond, architect and representative of Byblos Restaurant, presented their project and addressed three specific areas: the plan; how the project meets the historical guidelines, as well as the guidelines for historical place; and comments. The Byblos Restaurant is currently a thriving, take-out deli. They want to create the feeling of an interior street by the addition of an outdoor cafe at one end. This is to help promote foot traffic to the downtown area and to help expand the International flair of the area. The design incorporates a recessed entry, which provides the outdoor patio. The interior design is intended to reflect an interior street or paseo, with a thought to expand at some future date to expand to the alley way and connect to nearby businesses. The exterior materials are the same except for one improvement. It currently has an aluminum store front window. That is to be removed and installed with wood (wood detailing/wood doors). Colors have been selected from a pallet of historical reference based on an outside consultant. The project is referenced in the Design Guidelines. In 1910 it was a 3 bay building. Today, it is a 6-7 bay building. The .portion the Byblos Restaurant is in, is an add-on. Originally the building was designed off of the Chicago Fair (1893) when massing was heavy. But there was also a strong influence from Paris. That is where you start to see the influence of wrought iron. In time, the stores have been divided. It is looked at as a building of many stores. They are just over the guidelines (16%); they're not talking substantial impact to the building. The project is separated by a dividing wall. They want to expand and make awalk-thru as the design shows. Staff made them aware of a parking problem. They realize that responsibility and asked about mitigating measures. Staff suggested seismic retrofitting as a good way to go about mitigating the parking problem. However, there is a technical problem for that to be allowed to continue. Regarding the building, they have not disturbed the height, nor touched the parapet. The building has a horizontal rhythm of the overall building. The bay Byblos is in has no columns; it is currently as is. They have only helped extenuate by creating more of the static rhythm. They have provided kick plates and are trying to compliment the rest of the rhythm. They must look at the entire building; not just one corner. They only want to make minor enhancements to the facade; it does not reflect a cumulative change. It's no secret the City's biggest challenge is bringing more business downtown. The downtown core needs to be supported as strongly as possible. People places need to be created to bring people to the downtown area. The Commissioners asked Mr. Kent to speak to the treatment of the building at the rear (outdoor eating area). What is the rationale for open air seating/eating rather than indoor eating? Mr. Kent said they proposed to have an outdoor eating area in the rear in the private alley. Those ideas need to be addressed by public safety and fire. There is a stronger feeling for outdoor eating; it's important to feel the wind and sunlight while eating. Commissioner Cathcart met with Rich Brumfield to look at the building. The architectural collaborative was strictly a suggestion. It's not an ordinance or requirement; it is to give the owners of the building some ideas if they have none of their own. He was concerned with the period store front frames out in front. They will become seats. He would prefer to see the whole recessed area be wide open. He liked the idea of having outdoor seating; however, one of the things brought up by Mr. Brumfield was that there was no place in Old Towne where the windows go all the way to the ground except that certain door. He 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 understood with the patio seating, those windows are to open up for an open air feeling. Is there a way to take those doors on either side of the entry that also open, and raise up the kick plate up to where you have a detailing that looks as though it is fixed? The look of the facades are very important. He likes the plans, but he would like to see that detail applied back on the door, raise up the bottom of the doors except for the entrance area. The store front frame needs to be removed so the area is wide open. The present building is very dark because of the overhang. The awning is low and the dark frame of the windows is not very inviting. The discussion was closed. as no one else wanted to speak. Commissioner Smith asked if the deli were fully licensed as a restaurant? Mr. Godlewski said it was treated as if it were a general retail establishment, including parking. They have been operating as this type of use for quite a number of years and as long as they don't expand beyond what they have, then they're ok. Parking probably is not to code, nor never has been in the Old Towne area. Parking can be a problem if they decide to expand. In order to alleviate that problem, they spoke about getting some concessions through the seismic retrofit program, which would allow some relaxed parking standards. Jim Donovan, Planning Staff, explained staff has run across this before with the Health Department and food service in general. Categorically, if there is more than 15 inches of counter space and they are selling anything that is consumed, it is considered to be subject to the same regulations as any restaurant. For years the Health Department has been involved in regular inspections and permitting of the business, whether it is called a deli or restaurant. The business complies with the Fire Code in terms of exits. Commissioner Smith was inclined to uphold the DRB's decision of denying the permit on the following premise: This particular quadrant had extensive photos and history. She was in favor of maintaining the architectural integrity of the entire Plaza Historic District. She was afraid by approving this design it would open the door and give permission to other property owners to change their facade in their own personal design and to ignore the recommendation of the Plaza Design Collaborative. She would have to vote against the project for three reasons: 1) The design, as presented, interrupts the architectural integrity of the entire building. The building is no longer treated as a whole, but it is chopped up into those small sections. 2) By putting the street facade back, it significantly interrupts the rhythm of the street facade. There is a zero lot line street facade that is included only on the West Chapman spoke street. 3) It sets a precedent which will influence future designs whereby incremental changes to facades could jeopardize the National Registry status of the Plaza Historic District. She was upset when the facade was changed illegally to the plate glass windows. She didn't think it would deter business by keeping the eating area behind the wall and in the back. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 29-79 as submitted by the applicant. It is proposed not to remove the kick plates. By leaving them in, it softens the alcove and creates a good elevation. There is no precedent for floor to ceiling windows. Amore appropriate facade would be windows raised up on either side, which would repeat the original facade design. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Walters NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED sld