75A - CRAZY HORSE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2006-02 Site Plan Review No. 2006-01 May 22, 2006 Page 4 Various standards are proposed to be added or amended to the SD-8 zoning district. First, the minimum lot size of a parcel in Zone III needs to be 2.8 acres, which is the lot size of the proposed project. Second, other standards and uses would match those permitted in Zones I and II. Dancing and indoor entertainment uses in conjunction with a bona fide restaurant would be permitted with an approved conditional use permit. Dancing, concerts or other types of indoor entertainment are not proposed as part of this approval and would require separate permits and approvals. Due to the zoning ordinance amendment associated with this proj ect, a consistency determination is required from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The proj ect is located wi thin one of the 60 CNEL noise contours for John Wayne Airport. It is anticipated that the ALUC hearing will take place on June 15, 2006. Southern California Edison Easement Although no formal action is required by the Planning Commission pertaining to the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, the project will be constructed on the east and west side of an existing easement for transmission lines that will remain in place, with 63 of the required 174 parking spaces provided within the easement area. The property owner has entered into a long term lease agreement with SCE to utilize the Edison easement for required project parking. The lease has been executed for a period of 20 years with two 10 year right of extensions. The applicant has in good faith tried to secure this easement area to satisfy City parking requirements for the life of the project. Staff is comfortable with this lease arrangement; however, the possibility exists that the lease agreement could be revoked or terminated which could result in a reduction of available parking. Should this worst case scenario occur, the property would become legally non-conforming, which means the property could not be added on to, expanded or uses intensified without curing the parking deficiency. With the easement agreement in place, the proj ect complies with City parking requirements. A parking variance was not required because city parking requirements are satisfied by parking on the Edison easement. A parking variance would have long term implications that would affect the future development of the property since it would run with the land and 75A-5