Loading...
2001 - July 16 d " L~....~ eA~n. G. A. 3- MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: INRE: July 16,2001 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None r-> => " => ".. ")-i ~ ---< ~j:S ..j ",/0 I ''"' -.0 n .-0 e ;." ::0 - ;oJ> AZ C"l .s:- rn .. Karen Sully, Planning Manager, Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, Jerry Bailey, Design Manager - Public Works ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None CONTINUED HEARINGS - None NEW HEARINGS 1. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS 105-99, 106-99, 107-99, AND 108-99 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2377-01, 2378-01, 2379-01 AND 2380-01, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1612-01 - EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST (SPIEKER PROPERTIES) A proposal to allow the construction of four new office buildings totaling 1.2 million square feet in "The City". MSPR 105-99 is a site located at the northeast comer of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Place. MSPR 106-99 is a site located on the west side of The City Drive approximately 400 feet south of Chapman Avenue. MSPR 107-99 is a site located at the northeast corner of Lewis Street and Metropolitan Drive. MSPR 108-99 is a site located on the north side of Metropolitan Drive between Lewis Street and The City Drive. NOTE: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 1612 has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project and is on file with the Community Development Department. Chair Smith asked if anyone opposed the application and with no response, a full reading of the report was waived. Ms. Sully stated that the recommended action was for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to approve FEIR 1612-01, MSPR 105-99 and CUP 2377-01, MSPR 106-99 and CUP 2378- 01, MSPR 107-99 and CUP 2379-01, MSPR 108-99 and CUP 2380-01. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, added to staffs presentation that if the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the FEIR, the decision should include the City of Anaheim's response to the comments that the applicant should participate in fair share funding for future street projects required to mitigate the proposal's impact on public streets. Specifically, Anaheim requested that the project proponent pay fair share costs associated with the widening of the Orangewood Avenue bridge over Santa Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2001 Ana River and possible re-striping of Orangewood Avenue travel lanes in the vicinity of the Orange Freeway. The applicant, the City of Orange Traffic Division, and the City of Anaheim Traffic Division have come to agreement with adoption of these conditions as a mitigation measure. Mr. Carnes also added that the applicant has indicated a 10-year phasing schedule for the construction of the requested entitlements subject of conditional use permit and major site plan review applications. However, the CUP will expire within three years (2 years plus one year extension) and the applicant may have to re-submit each application after expiration. If the Final Environmental Impact Report 1612-0 I is approved, it remains in effect unless conditions change or a project proponent substantially changes the scope or scale of the projects. Commissioner Carlton questioned mitigation measures 5.8-1 through 5.8-5 on how the City staff calculates the fair share costs the project proponent would have to pay in the distant future in 2005, 2010, and 2020. Mr. Carnes responded that the fair share amounts are calculated by the applicant's traffic engineer in consultation with the City's Public Works Department. The estimated fair share amount is a pro-rated portion of the total cost of the project with the project proponent responsible for payment of the cost associated with the projects. Chair Smith requested an explanation of how the City's Zoning Ordinance determines maximum building height. Mr. Carnes responded that the Zoning Ordinance established for the commercial zone has a maximum building height of 2 stories or 32', with additional height allowed subject to the building height not exceeding y., of the distance between the building and any residentially zoned properties. Projects are allowed to build higher than the y., ratio subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. The purpose of requiring a conditional use permit is to review the impact the building's shadow and size would have on nearby residents. Of the four properties involved, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for additional building height for each parcel. Mr. Carnes explained that the FEIR reviewed the height and resultant shadows for each building and found that the projects would not have a significant impact on any residentially zoned properties. The applicant was required to obtain a conditional use permit for the tallest building because the UCI Medical Center site, which is across The City Drive from the subject site, is zoned residential, however, the site is developed with an institutional use. Mitch Ritschel, 19700 Fairchild, Irvine, is the applicant for the project. He explained how on July 2, 200 I Spieker Properties and Equity Office Properties merged. From 1996-1997, six buildings totaling I.3 million square feet were constructed. No attention had been paid to the 10.5 acres of vacant land and now they were coming back for approval of additional office development. They now have a master plan and would like to move forward with that plan and approval of the EIR. Mr. Ritschel stated he agrees with the resolutions (conditions of approval) and thanked Mr. Carnes for processing his application. Dwayne Mears, 15580 Metro, Costa Mesa, is with the Planning Center who authored the EIR. He explained how the air quality was not less than significant and could not be mitigated. There are two pollutants which exceed the threshold; however, the project is still consistent with the General Plan. Air Quality is significant, but unavoidable, and overriding considerations must be adopted. Joe Foust, 2020 N. Tustin, Orange, is the Principal at Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., and is the traffic engineer on the project. Mr. Foust addressed Commissioner Romero's concern about the increase traffic flow on an already dangerous westbound "The City Drive" off-ramp. Mr. Foust indicated that the westbound on- and off-ramp at The City Drive is about to undergo major reconstruction and the ramps will be relocated to Metropolitan Drive. He also explained that fair share is a relatively simple process 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 200 I and mitigation would not be needed for 20 years. He further explained how the calculations for fair share were developed and indicated that the present day cost of the project would be placed in an interest bearing account and the money would accumulate over the next 20 years. The public hearing was opened. Roy Shabbazion. 3808 E. Palm Avenue. Orange, was in favor of the project but has a concern about the transportation demands. He would like to see money put into shuttle services to help reduce the number of auto trips to the area. He said that currently UCI Medical Center has shuttles to and from the Orange Depot train station. Mr. Ritschel responded to Mr. Shabbazion' s concerns by saying the potential traffic impacts have been addressed as well as the parking demands. Each resolution has a requirement (conditions of approval) that mass transit be promoted and encourages the work schedules of the tenants to use mass transit. Commissioner Carlton asked what the estimated time of completion for the reconstruction of the on- and off-ramp at The City Drive would be. Mr. Foust said the time frame is 5 years, with a completion date in 2005. Chair Smith wanted to explore the use of shuttle services from the Depot. Mr. Ritschel said he was open to exploring it. There would be various occupants and they would be encouraged to use the shuttle but they could not require them to use it. Chair Smith appreciated the openness to explore this option and that a condition of approval should be added to address this concern. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett would like follow up in regards to the shuttle service. He felt the tenants would know best and not the property owners. He would like to know from OCTA what will happen in 5, 10, 15 years. Chair Smith thought it was too big of a responsibility for each tenant to provide shuttle service. She felt nothing would happen if the responsibility was given to the tenants and that the property manager would need to assist in getting the employees to the site. Commissioner Romero was in agreement since it seems the property manager would be able to pool the large buildings. Chair Smith wanted to know from staff how the height of these proposed buildings would fit in with Uptown Orange. Ms. Sully indicated that "The City" is a regional business center and that the thresholds for development are consistent with the General Plan designations. She also indicated that Uptown Orange is currently on the back burner as City staff is looking at the development of a specific plan for that area. Chair Smith wanted to ensure that everyone was noticed about this project in the area including residential. Ms. Sully confirmed that property owners within a 300' radius of the site were noticed as well as typically, the property managers of rental property. Chair Smith had a concern that the proposed building height was precedent setting and would have an adverse impact on the potential Uptown Project. Ms. Sully responded that the Uptown project is being restudied and it is still being planned and designed as a regional commercial, office, and residential center and its proposed uses would be compatible with the proposed buildings and uses. 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 200 I Mr. Carnes explained that the proposed sites for the four buildings are adjacent to sites already developed with high rise buildings of similar size and height. Commissioner Romero has driven around the area noting how nicely kept the area is and he has no opposition to the height of the proposed buildings and feels it would be a benefit to the City. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know ifthe proposed building next to the Doubletree is in the line of the flight path and if it would have an impact on the VCI Medical Center helipad. Jim Beam, 3745 W. Chapman Avenue, Orange, representing the applicant and UCI, indicated that this building is not in the flight path and eventually the helipad will be relocated to another area of the hospital grounds. Chair Smith was not opposed to the height, noting the height of the Crystal Cathedral to the west, and finding the sites are appropriate for the proposed buildings. They would otherwise be built outside the City and it is preferred to have them in Orange to ensure proper mitigation measures. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to the City Council to approve FEIR 1612-01 finding that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to the City Council to approve Major Site Plan Review Applications 105-99, 106-99, 107-99 and 108-99 and Conditional Use Permits 2377-01, 2378-01, 2379-01 and 2380-01 with conditions I through 36, modifYing condition 18 by adding to the end of the sentence, and "the applicant shall explore the possibility of providing a shuttle or the use of shuttles from the Orange Depot Train Station to the project site to the extent feasible" and replacing Condition #33 with "The applicant shall pay its fair share of improvements for the future widening of the Orangewood Avenue bridge over the Santa Ana River to add an additional eastbound through lane at the intersection of southbound SR-57 and Orangewood Avenue". The Major Site Plan Reviews [would be] granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. [The project] will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located. [The project will be] considered to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. [Project approval will be] made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2374 - ZITO'S PIZZA A proposal to allow on-site sale and consumption of alcohol and up to 10 amusement devices within a 1,576 sq. ft. expansion into an adjacent tenant space at an existing restaurant in the Orange Villa 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 16,2001 Shopping Center - Zito's Pizza - 2036 N. Tustin Street. The subject site is zoned C- TR (Commercial _ Tustin Redevelopment Project Area). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Chair Smith asked if the applicant's were present. Upon seeing no one in the audience in opposition to the project, a full reading of the staff report was waived. Staff was asked to give an introduction to the item. Ms. Sully, City Planning Manager, presented a brief description of the project. Chair Smith asked the Commissioners if there were any questions of Ms. Sully and also asked if there were any additional comments or clarification Staff could give. Assistant Planner Mr. Eastman clarified a minor typo in the staff report, on page 8 under the sub-heading Design Review Committee. A sentence reads "because there is exterior alterations..."; that sentence should read in full "because there are no exterior alterations associated with the applicant's request, the project was not reviewed by the Design Review Committee". Mr. Eastman also wanted to clarify briefly, the majority of conditions in the staff report are standard conditions that have been adopted on previous projects by policy. As indicated on the Draft Resolution, there are 6 additional conditions for this project to address specific issues that relate to the proposal. Steve Silverstein, 2776 N. Roxburv - Orange, is the applicant for the project and stated that Zito's has been a fixture in Orange for 13 years. They attract customers in Orange and surrounding communities. The success of their longevity can be attributed to the ability to satisfY the needs of customers, and they have found there is a need for more interior space which has brought him here today. Their establishment is an asset to the City of Orange and he requests approval of this CUP. Chair Smith states there is a number of conditions connected with this project and asks Mr. Silverstein if he is in agreement with them? Mr. Silverstein states he is in agreement with all but one. Conditions #10 and #27 which seems to go hand and hand and deals with stools in the beverage area. At the present time they have 6 stools in front of the counter where beverages are poured and picked up by customers. These stools are provided for customers who are waiting for an order which is not ready, dining alone, or picking up orders to go, They have the same arrangement at 2 of the other 3 locations, one at 156 N. Glassell, and another one in Anaheim with a similar arrangement. Both locations in Orange and Anaheim were approved with no conditions. They have had this arrangement in Orange for 9 years with no problems with the Police Department, the City or anyone else. He would like the Commission to give consideration to this position. Ifnot, he would like a reasonable explanation as to why not at this location and why it's okay in the other locations. Chair Smith states they have heard his concerns and will take them into consideration and will ask staff at this time to give clarification as to why these conditions have been included. Commissioner Pruett would like clarification from Mr. Silverstein if the set-up in Orange (the new location) has the same type of set-up that is being proposed. 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 200 1 Mr. Silverstein describes the counter where they prepare the orders and states it is also an area where you would pick up your order. You would pay and go to the back counter where drinks are prepared and given to you over the counter, which is the same set-up in all 3 stores. Chair Smith wanted clarification of the location. The downtown location is considerably smaller than the site being addressed. Her opinion is that the downtown location does not present itself as a bar and the location on Tustin is more like a bar since it's a bigger place. Commissioner Pruett wanted clarification of Phase I and Phase II. Mr. Silverstein stated that they realized after approximately 4 years of being in the building that they needed more space, this is part of Phase I which exists now. The store next door (Van's Electronics) was getting slow on rent and they were going to give up some of their space. Zito's removed that part of the devising wall and took over that space. He had received some bad advice that this wasn't a bearing wall and was told by the contractor that no permits were needed through the City. When an ABC license was applied for (they incorporated) with a new layout of the building as it exists, the ABC Investigator said the floor plan had not been approved and that they would have to re-apply with ABC and apply for a CUP for the new area. Phase II is another area where the tenant could not pay the rent, and moved out of the building. A new tenant came in and Zito's asked them for more space. They were given the back part of the existing store, and now are waiting to do Phase II when they get approval. Mr. Silverstein says all the video games will be relocated to the back area. Chair Smith asks staff where condition #10 on page 2-7 came from (Type 41 License)? And also would like clarification of Police Department's letter saying there shall be no bar or lounge area. Mr. Eastman stated that Condition #10 on the draft resolution is a standard condition. All requests in the past (particularly those less than 10 years old) typically have these conditions. In addition the Police Department specifically recommended the inclusion of certain conditions, many which are already included in the standard conditions. The Police Department has recommended conditions they specifically want applied to this project, including Condition #10. Additionally, Condition 27 was added which requires Zito's to remove seats or bar stools. This ensures that Condition 10 is properly addressed. Mr. Eastman also responded to the question regarding why some facilities have or do not have these conditions in place. They may not be in place at other City establishments because I) the nature of the other establishment encourages food service more so than this location, whereas the Police Department feels that Zito's bar is more conducive to alcohol sales 2) other establishments may have had their CUP's issued at a time when standard conditions were not in place, or at a time when the sitting Planning Commission felt that a standard condition was not relevant. Chair Smith also wanted to point out that this is a "Type 41" ABC License which allows on-site alcohol at an eating place, which is spelled out on page 2-7. Commissioner Romero had a concern about the bar stool being an invitation to "sit down and have a beer". Mr. Silverstein stated that alcohol sales, at the location, are very, very low. They've had the business there for 9 years. Commissioner Romero responded that he could understand Mr. Silverstein's position, but when the police give a viewpoint and a position of what they would like to see, it's taken as gospel, because they have more experience in that area. 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 200 I Chair Smith states they have the information they need to help them in making their decision. In addition Commissioner Carlton has a question. Commissioner Carlton wanted clarification on procedure they have in the restaurant for serving beer and wine. For example: Do servers bring dinner and beer/wine to the tables, or do servers pick up order at the bar and serve to patrons at their tables? Mr. Silverstein responded that they do not have servers. All orders are taken at the counter and picked up at the bar area. If someone wants another beer, they walk to the bar area and if they hadn't ordered beer or wine previously they will get carded (ID'd) and then take their drink back to the table. Commissioner Carlton states she has never ordered and stayed there to eat, she has always done take-out. She also wonders, in the location where drinks are served, is it the job of one employee to check all ID's? Mr. Silverstein responds that this is correct and that he doesn't know what item it is on the report but the Police Dept. wants them to be ID'd at the counter when they place their order (if there is alcohol involved) and ID'd at the bar from the person who serves it. Commissioner Carlton asks if a patron could place their order at the front, go to the bar, and actually have their food served to them at the bar? Mr. Silverstein responds that this is correct and that this is the only area that they have unless you want to sit by yourself at a table. But he finds it nice to be sitting at a bar like that where you can still have conversation and watch what's going on and not feel like your by yourself. To him it's a comfortable arrangement. Chair Smith asks if there are any other questions for Mr. Silverstein and with no response asks Mr. Silverstein for any closing comments. Mr. Silverstein responds that he doesn't know a lot about how decisions are made and if the decision might be put off to another time, he prefers that's not done because he wants to get back to the ABC so they can finish the work. He would like this to be resolved at this time. And if decision isn't to his satisfaction, he feels he has other appeals he can go back to. That is his only request. Chair Smith states this will be a final action unless appealed. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair Smith states that a request for a CUP is before them, which includes on-site sale of alcohol and 10 amusement devices and is categorically exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Carlton doesn't see any problem with eliminating the 2 conditions. As the applicant stated he could put in high top tables and stools and would still have the same affect. She would like to put forth a motion approving this CUP. Commissioner Romero states that in reading the letter again from the vice unit regarding conditions #10 and #27, he is ofthe position to approve CUP as requested with conditions 1 through 27. Commissioner Pruett holds a similar view as Commissioner Romero. Beer and wine licenses have been approved where the gross sales of alcoholic beverages have not exceeded the gross sales of food and other 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 200 I commodities in the same period are an interesting issue. With your typical restaurants where you have the food, beer and wine sales, the food always exceeds the alcohol consumption. What we have here is a business that has a lot of take-out. When you take that take-out away and only look at the food that was sold in the establishment on-site and the alcohol consumed on-site you have a different equation of balance in terms of the alcohol consumption verses the food. Commissioner Pruett believes there is an issue there that is a concern. He thinks that by approving the condition as laid out, that it makes certain that it is mitigated to some extent. In the future the City may want to consider food sales on-site consumption verses take-out. This may have a major impact in terms of how it is calculated. Commissioner Carlton wanted to add to her earlier comment. She sees no difference in someone going in and placing an order for food and deciding to have a beer while they are waiting as they sit at one of the tables. What's the difference ofthat or sitting at the bar? Or if they don't order food, they can still go in and order a drink and sit at the table and drink it. There is no requirement that they have to order food. So sitting at the bar or sitting at a table is really irrelevant. Chair Smith thinks that it's a visual thing that one presents as a place where you can just go in and order alcohol, without food, by the presence of the bar stools. Whereas, when only tables are there you might just order alcohol, but you don't have the visual invitation. One of Chair Smith's concerns is that the Police Departments memo sites that there shall be no bar or lounge area. There are a couple of issues with this application that weren't touched upon, such as why the construction was done with no permits, why a proper CUP was not requested when the site moved. Chair Smith feels the Police have been extremely lenient in limiting it to only this. They could have canceled the whole recommendation, which has happened in the past on approximately one third of the applications that have come before them, The police could have recommend against them. And if the Police Department is saying there shall be no bar stools, she feels it's a small price to pay. Chair Smith would like to support the conditions in the staff report for that reason. Hopefully with the understanding of the applicant that several other major pieces have been dealt with in a very kind manner, a very soft glove approach because the business was out of compliance in a few areas. Commissioner Pruett states it is also important to recognize that how this Conditional Use Permit is dealt with sets a precedent in terms of other requests which may come forward that would have the request of the bar stools and this condition would go to future uses as well. While in this situation, the applicant may make a good argument that this type of activity is appropriate in his establishment, the next tenant who would be able to operate under the same CUP, might have a different operation that could be problematic. The idea of following the policies that have been set out by the Police Department is reasonable. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Conditional Use Permit 2374 with Conditions I through 27, as listed in the draft resolution. The Conditional Use Permit is granted upon sound principles ofIand use and in response to services required by the community because sale and consumption of alcohol and amusement devices are ancillary to a bonafide restaurant. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located because conditions of approval ensure the use shall remain ancillary to a bonafide restaurant. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. The ancillary amusement devices at a restaurant are compatible with land uses in the surrounding area. It is being made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, and not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 200 I ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED INRE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adjourn to a special joint study session with the Design Review Committee regarding St. John's Lutheran Church on Tuesday, July 17,2001. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED 9