Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - September 3 ~~.c.,j3 Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 1 of 11 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange September 3, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner, and Whitaker None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Dave De Berry, City Attorney Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Frank Sun, Department Director City Engineering Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:40 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Continued or Withdrawn: Item #1, Colburn Residence, would be continued to a date certain of September 15, 2008. Chair Steiner asked Staff why the item was being continued. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight stated the item was being continued to allow the item to be re-noticed in order to include the DRC action. Consent Calendar: Item #2, Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of August 4, 2008. Chair Steiner noted a correction to page 5, the response from Mr. Frankel should be changed to "an affirmative response". Commissioner Whitaker noted a correction to page #5, paragraph 6, to remove the third sentence of his statement. Commissioner Merino stated he would abstain from the vote as he had not been present at the August 4, 2008 meeting. Continued Hearing: Item #3, Meejana Restaurant - a proposal to upgrade an ABC Type 41 License to a Type 47 License. Item was continued from the August 18,2008 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would have questions concerning the number of conditions that were attached to the proposed upgrade of the CUP. New Hearing: Development Agreement between the City of Orange and Del Rio Land, LLC. Commissioner Whitaker asked Staff if they had received any input from the community. Mr. Knight stated Staff had received a couple of phone calls. Other Business: Chair Steiner asked for any news from City Council. Mr. Knight stated a new Commissioner to the Planning Commission had been appointed, Matt Cunningham, who he thought would be present at the next Planning Commission Meeting. Two of the projects recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, Holy Sepulcher Cemetery and the Definition Change to Single Family had been approved. Page 1 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 2 of 11 Administrative Session closed at 6:50 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: (1) MINOR SITE PLAN 547-08; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4294- 07; AND ENVIRONMENTAL NO. 1802-08 - COLBURN RESIDENCE This item was noticed on August 14, 2008 but would be continued to a date certain of September 15, 2008. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue Minor Site Plan 547-08; Design Review Committee No. 4294-07; and Environmental No. 1802-08- Colburn Residence, to a date certain of September 15,2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2008. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled meeting of August 4, 2008, with changes as noted in the Administrative Session to page 5. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None Commissioner Merino MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARING: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2701-08-MEEJANA RESTAURANT On August 18, 2008 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to upgrade an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 License (On-Sale Beer and Wine Bona Fide Public Eating Place) to a Type 47 License (On-Sale General Bona Fide Public Eating Place) for an existing restaurant located at 1840 North Tustin Street. Page 2 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 3 of 11 Associate Planner, Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had noted in the Administrative Session that he would question the number of extra conditions that had been placed on the item, opposed to the normal number of conditions generally attached to an Alcohol and Beverage License CUP. On condition No. 35, it read: "prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall pay all development fees". Commissioner Whitaker stated that essentially went without stating and there was not an application for a building permit with the proposed CUP upgrade. It would have been required when the initial building was built and he was wondering if Staff had added one more condition than was normally added due to the fact that there was an initial recommendation for denial. He wanted the permit to be more apples to apples to what was normally applied with an upgrade from a Type 41 to a Type 47 License Chair Steiner asked Staff for a response and commented earlier it was stated that the reason for the additional conditions were due to the initial opposition by the Police Department and somehow there would have been a number of conditions included if the Police Department weren't in opposition to the original application. Mr. Garcia stated he would address Commissioner Whitaker's concern regarding conditions No. 34 and 35. Those conditions would have been leftovers from the original approval and Staff had no objection to removing them. It was a matter of Staff reviewing the original Conditions of Approval and incorporating them in the CUP before them. Without having an affirmative recommendation from the Police Department it was more difficult to pick out conditions to incorporate into the resolution. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Garcia if he was suggesting if the Police Department had not been opposed to the initial project, the conditions he spoke of would not be required? Mr. Garcia stated the bulk of the conditions would have been required as they would have been carried over from the original CUP. From a Police Department and Staff level, some of the conditions would have been cleaned up a little bit better. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to clarify as he was not sure he understood what Staffwas stating. He asked if the Police Department had essentially stated that due to the fact that they were not in favor of the application that they had not wanted to add conditions. Mr. Garcia stated he would defer that question to Sergeant Lopez. Mr. Garcia stated typically if the Police Department had a recommendation for denial they would stay with that recommendation and not submit Conditions of Approval. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. He asked if the applicant had questions regarding the conditions Mr. Garcia had discussed. This would also be an opportunity to address any of his concerns. Page 3 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 4 of 11 Applicant, John Tannous Abi Najon, address on file, stated all the things that Mr. Garcia stated were items they had discussed over the phone and everything he had stated were his opposition to the conditions. Everything that he had stated previously still stood and he wanted to move forward with the proposal. Chair Steiner stated Mr. Garcia had indicated that the likely hours of operation would be no earlier than 11 :00 a.m. and he asked the applicant ifhe understood that? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated that would be fine. He had notice approximately a week ago while driving around the City that certain restaurants were open later than 10:00 p.m. on weekends only (Friday/Saturday). For example, he noticed Olive Garden, Lazy Dog and a few other restaurants around the area were open later and he wanted to have the option to remain open later. He was not certain that they would remain open later; however, he wanted that option. He was trying to avoid having to return to the City for a change in hours. Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant was in agreement with all of the other conditions? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he was in agreement with the conditions. Chair Steiner stated that Mr. Garcia had stated the applicant wanted a grace period related to alcohol sales, Condition No. 13, and was he requesting a grace period? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he had wanted a grace period to allow the business to get the word out that alcohol was available to existing and potential customers. Commissioner Merino stated, speaking for himself, he wanted Meejana to have the same opportunity that other restaurants in the area had to serve alcohol and they had already held a previous license. However, promoting alcohol, in his opinion, was something that he was not in support of. While it would be an additional service that the restaurant would offer, he asked the applicant if it was objectionable to the Commission, had the applicant felt so strongly that he would appeal the denial of a grace period? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated if the Commission felt it would be a burden or a problem to the business and the City he would be in agreement with what was recommended by the Commission. He did not want to promote alcohol but to show that the restaurant had an additional feature, such as a lunch special. Also being able to show customers what was available was his goal. Commissioner Merino stated previously the applicant had stated that they were trying to offer existing customers something the other restaurants had as well, and it appeared that he was currently trying to expand business based on the service of alcohol. He asked for clarification? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he was trying to expand his business and offer his existing customers another service. Obviously every entrepreneur wanted to expand their business; it was not his main motive to push alcohol. He was trying to build a business as Page 4 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 5 of 11 a restaurant and as a cuisine. If not having alcohol were to stop someone from coming into the restaurant he would want to push that service, if that is what it took to bring patrons in. Commissioner Merino stated he felt those things were not the same. Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he had felt that way as well until he opened a restaurant. When he received phone calls once or twice a week asking if the restaurant had a bar; that was when he noticed the need for that addition to the restaurant. Commissioner Imboden stated for a number of years there was a standard condition that a business serving alcohol would close no sooner than one hour after the ceasing of the serving of alcohol. He had not noticed a similar condition included in the proposal. He asked Staff for clarification. City Attorney, Dave De Berry, stated the reason such a condition was not included was based upon Staffs research. They were preempted by State Law from regulating the service of alcohol. While the hours of operation could be regulated, they were preempted from State Law and ABC Licensing from regulating the hours in which alcohol could be served. Commissioner Imboden stated he understood that; however, he asked could they not require a business to remain open one hour after they ceased serving alcohol to provide an opportunity for their patrons to sober up before they climbed behind the wheel of a vehicle? Mr. De Berry stated they could not. Chair Steiner stated he had a question regarding Condition No.6. There had been a request from the applicant to have the ability to remain open until 11 :00 p.m. based on his anecdotal observations of other restaurants in the City, and he asked for Staff s opinion on that request? Mr. Garcia stated the condition was drafted based on the original hours of operation requested by the applicant. Chair Steiner asked if there was opposition to the business remaining open until 11 :00 p.m.? Mr. Garcia stated no, there was no opposition. The applicant had stated at the previous meeting that if the CUP was granted he could be inclined to close earlier not later. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Merino stated he was in support of the application; however, the one request by the applicant that he could not support was the request for the promotion of the sale of alcohol. The intent of his support was not to disadvantage them from other restaurants. It was difficult in light of the fact that the Police Department had not been in Page 5 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 6 of 11 support of the application and he had not wanted to promote more alcohol use within the City. One of the arguments the applicant had made was that they had not wanted to be disadvantaged and he was in support of that. When the opportunity was given to advertise the fact that they had a greater amount of liquor available, it crossed an area that became very difficult to support. Commissioner Imboden stated he understood the discussion on Conditions No. 34 and 35 in terms of potentially removing those as they would become irrelevant with the potential revision of the CUP. Pertaining to Condition No. 45, regarding the security of the parking lot, he was not sure he would be in support of removing that condition as CUP's ran with the property and not with the applicant and the intent of the condition would remain clear. Regardless of what tenant was selling alcohol, the intent was to ensure that the property was safe and secure. He would not be in support of approval if condition No. 45 were removed. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the applicant asked to have Condition No. 45 removed or to have it amended to include only the applicant's premises? Chair Steiner stated he had visited the restaurant and the parking lot was substantial. It extended south to the Copy Center and hundreds of yards to the north. The condition in its plain language could be interpreted negatively for the applicant making it appear he would be responsible for the entire parking lot. He asked Staff how they proposed to correct the language contained in that condition? Mr. Garcia stated the language would be similar to the language contained in Condition No. 22, where it reads: "well lit, all adjacent parking lots under the control of the licensee." It would be changed to read similar to that condition. Chair Steiner asked Commissioner Imboden what his feeling was with that correction? Commissioner Imboden stated his concern was not to let the holder of the CUP off the hook in providing a secure environment regardless of how large the environment was. It was an obligation that came with holding a CUP on a property. He was interested in how the other Commissioners felt with the language of Condition No. 45. Commissioner Whitaker stated one of the issues confusing him was that Conditions No. 45 and No. 22 were very similar; there was also Conditions No. 10 and 38 that were very similar. There appeared to be some repetition and he worried it created ambiguity; when it read one way and then in another place read another way going over virtually the same issues. Would that give someone an out, so to speak, and he wanted to clean up areas of the Conditions of Approval that dealt with the same subject matter. In his opinion there was Condition No. 29 which addressed parking lot illumination, and then there was Condition No. 22 which also addressed illumination and would Condition No. 45 be required? Condition No. 10, with a few extra words added, would cover everything 10 and 38 were covering. Commissioner Merino stated many of the conditions were confusing and redundant and he asked if it would be helpful to allow Mr. Garcia to resolve some of the issues and Page 6 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 7 of 11 present it again to the Planning Commission in order to have a clean proposal? Chair Steiner stated he agreed with Commissioner Merino's recommendation. Rather than trying to cut and paste from the dais he wanted to allow Mr. Garcia, after hearing their concerns, an opportunity to review and clarify the conditions. He stated while Mr. Garcia was working on that he asked the applicant if he was in agreement to allow Mr. Garcia a few minutes to revise the proposal, while the Planning Commission proceeded with their next item. Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he was in agreement with Chair Steiner's statement. The Planning Commission proceeded to the next item on the agenda. Chair Steiner reopened the discussion and asked Mr. Garcia if he had made the changes to the Conditions of Approval? Mr. Garcia stated he had and presented that information. He stated on Condition No.6 it would be modified to read: "the hours of operation would be 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m." Condition No. 10 shall be removed in its entirety. Condition No. 22 shall be modified to read: "the front, rear, side and exterior of the premises along with the adjacent parking shall be illuminated at all times while the premises was open for business in such a fashion that a person standing outdoors at night would be identifiable by law enforcement personnel. " Commissioner Whitaker clarified that the language in Condition No. 22 took care of the control of licensee language. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. Conditions No. 34 and 35 would be removed. Condition No. 38 would be removed with a modification to Condition No. 39 to read: "at all times when the premises is open it shall be maintained as a bona fide eating establishment and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of food normally offered in such restaurants." Condition No. 45 would be removed. Chair Steiner asked on Condition No.6 the hours of operation were from 11 :00 a.m. and had he addressed the closing time? Mr. Garcia stated it was 11 :00 p.m. Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification on the change to Condition No. 39? Mr. Garcia stated the first two words "the premises" had been removed and the words, "at the time the premises is open" was added. Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the changes and if he had any questions on any of the changes? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he was in agreement and had no questions. Page 7 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 8 of 11 Chair Steiner stated he had an opportunity to dine at Meejana and he was impressed with the food and service and he was more certain now that they were taking the right course of action. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 30-08, approving CUP 2701-08- Meejana Restaurant an upgrade from an Alcohol Beverage Control Type 41 License (On- Sale Beer and Wine Bona Fide Public Eating Place) to a Type 47 License (On-Sale General Bona Fide Public Eating Place) for an existing restaurant located at 1840 North Tustin, noting the proposal was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORANGE AND NORTH ORANGE DEL RIO LAND, LLC A proposal to increase the number of certificate of occupancies that can be issued in Planning Area 1 and 4 prior to completion of the Sports Park. LOCATION: West of Glassell & North of Lincoln Avenue NOTE: The environmental impacts of the revised project and its project alternatives were evaluated by Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1720-03 (FEIR) which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 29-08 that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a First Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Orange and North Orange Del Rio Land, LLC. City Attorney, Dave De Berry presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. Chair Steiner stated there was a practical limitation to the park and was that due to the settling? Page 8 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008 9 of 11 Mr. De Berry stated that had been the major stumbling block in beginning construction of the sports park. A good portion of the sports park would be built on a fill area and the soil was continuing to settle. The City would not give approval to move forward with construction until a time when the soil finished settling. There might be a phasing of the sports park in areas that may settle sooner and that would be determined at a later date. Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Knight if any community input had been received on the matter? Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated they had received a couple of phone calls from residents of Del Rio regarding the project. The calls were neither in opposition to nor in favor of the approval for the certificates of occupancy. The concerns were that the park construction would not be delayed as there were rumors circulating that the park would not be built. The concerns from the community were addressed by Staff. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Applicant, Frank Elfand, 18101 Yon Karmen, Ste. 1280, Irvine, stated the applicant and its representatives were in agreement with the Staff Report and he had reviewed most of the items presented along with Carmen Mornelo and Dave De Berry as they somewhat lived the moment with Del Rio. In terms of the real resolutions pertaining to issues with the RJ. Noble there was actually a resolution of entitlement processing dispute agreement that was executed at a City Council Meeting which dealt with all the mitigation issues. He stated they were happy to move forward with the proposed request and there would not be a delay on the delivery of the park. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment. Brian Eastman, 3070 N. Torrey Pine, in the Riverbend Community, stated regarding Item No.4 he wanted to clarify that the proposal would not add dwelling units to land previously set aside for the park. Mr. De Berry stated that was correct and there would not be a change to the sports park. Barbara Cash, 101 Riverdale, Orange, stated one of the areas of the project was located next to a driveway, the one and only driveway they utilized to get into their condominium complex. Besides the noise associated with the new homes that were proposed, there were water shortages, energy shortages and she had not felt it was necessary for more homes to be built. She was in agreement with the park construction; however, she opposed the proj ect. Mr. De Berry stated, to clarify, he wanted to make it clear that the proposal would not add any new residential housing to the development. The number of residential units would remain the same number as those on the original plan. The proposal being presented would allow residents to occupy properties earlier than previously proposed and they were the same houses, not additional units. Danett Abbott, 101 W. Riverdale Ave #6, Orange, stated that the land that Ms. Cash was Page 9 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008 10 of 11 referring to which was adjacent to their property and she asked when homes would be built on that lot? It was the lot located at Riverdale and Glassell. The lot was currently empty and when it was windy there was a dust problem. Mr. Elfand presented a map to Ms. Abbott to locate the exact area she was referring to. He stated he would take her information and have the builder contact her to discuss her concerns. Ms. Abbott located the area on the map and stated her main concern was the dust factor. Commissioner Merino stated by moving forward with the Amendment they were promoting the development by allowing Certificates of Occupancy to be obtained and therefore allowing the development to move forward. Mr. Elfand stated yes, it provided for the project to move forward and the City would obtain, with the execution of an operating memorandum, the withholding of funds to be held for the construction of the sports park. The City would benefit in conjunction with the Amendment. Chair Steiner asked if the applicant was suggesting that the City's situation would improve by virtue of the request? Mr. Elfand stated yes, from the stand point of having the financial reassurance. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had met with the applicant prior to the meeting and in hearing the information presented it was clear that it would only hurt the City if the Commission recommended that the park not be built, and they were aware of the settling problem with the land. If the applicant could not obtain Certificates of Occupancy until the park was built the delay in property tax revenue and dusty areas developed would not be beneficial. Certainly where builders were in the present economy if homes were actually selling it would be a positive move to get residents in those homes. There was not a delay in the delivery date of the park and Commissioner Whitaker stated he was convinced it was a good thing to do. Chair Steiner stated the project was in the best interest of the City and also it was in the best interest of the residents in the area. The failure to move forward could actually be unfortunate for the residents in that area for reasons that had been discussed. He was in support of moving forward. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 29-08, recommending approval to the City Council, the First Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Orange and North Orange Del Rio Land, LLC. SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None Page 10 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 11 of 11 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED (5) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, September 15,2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:40 P.M. Page 11 of 11 Pages