Laserfiche WebLink
MOTION: Bacerra SECOND: Nguyen <br />VOTE: AYES: Bacerra, Contreras-Leo, McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, <br />Verino (6) <br /> NOES: None (0) <br /> ABSTAINED: Alderete (1) <br /> ABSENT: None (0) <br /> <br /> <br />6. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2016-03 AND VARIANCE NOS. 2017-05 AND 2017-06 TO <br />ALLOW A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (THE MADISON) WITH DEVIATIONS TO <br />PARKING AND SETBACKS LOCATED AT 200 NORTH CABRILLO PARK DRIVE – <br />CABRILLO COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC, APPLICANT <br /> <br />Legal notice published in the Orange County Reporter on December 1, 2017 and notices <br />mailed on November 30, 2017. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Arabe provided a presentation which included a site description, site plan <br />and photo, floor plans, renderings of project, and project analysis; mixed-use overlay zone, <br />landscape plan, and project outreach were also reviewed. Discussion ensued regarding <br />conditions of approval and the parking demand analysis. Jeff Larson, representative of the <br />applicant, spoke in support of the matter. Reported that the project will allocate 1.8 parking <br />spaces per unit. <br /> <br />Chairperson McLoughlin opened the Public Hearing. The following spoke on the matter: <br /> <br />Tim Paone, legal representative of the owner of the Xerox building, spoke in opposition; <br />noted concern with traffic congestion, opined that the project does not meet requirements <br />for a parking variance, and stated that the preliminary traffic study should not be used as a <br />basis for granting the variance. <br /> <br />Sam Danskin spoke in opposition; noted concern with traffic congestion and its effects on <br />the Xerox building employees, and traffic safety. <br /> <br />Howard Hall spoke in opposition; noted concern with traffic congestion. <br /> <br />Robert Bisno, applicant, spoke in support of the project; discussed parking ratio and traffic <br />conditions. <br /> <br />There were no other speakers and the Public Hearing was closed. <br /> <br />Commission discussion ensued regarding the requirements of granting a parking variance, <br />traffic conditions, and the parking demand analysis. Majority of Commission agreed that a <br />variance was not warranted and expressed concern with traffic congestion. <br /> <br />MOTION: Approve Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 as conditioned, Variance No. 2017-05 <br />as conditioned, and Variance No. 2017-06 as conditioned with the added condition that <br />the project allocate 1.8 parking spaces per unit. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A-7 DECEMBER 11, 2017