Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - October 6 C:'-6 00. G. ..,.~ Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2008 10f6 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange October 6, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner, and Whitaker Commissioner Imboden STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:35 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #1, Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of September 3, 2008. No changes or corrections were noted. Commissioner Cunningham stated he would abstain from the vote as he had not been present at the September 3, 2008 meeting. New Hearing: Item #2, Tutto Fresco, proposal for a Type 41 permit. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would have a few questions. Commissioner Merino stated he had no issues unless there were questions that came up during the discussion in chambers. Chair Steiner asked if a representative from the Police Department would be present? Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur stated a Police Department representative would be present. Other Business: Chair Steiner asked for news from City Council? Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight stated the second reading of the Parking Ordinance had been deferred, awaiting additional information and input. Commissioner Cunningham asked if there had been an appeal on the Manhattan Supper Club? Mr. Knight stated no appeal had been filed; the applicant had a 15 day appeal period which had ended September 30, 2008. Chair Steiner stated there had been an article in the O.C. Register regarding the application. It was a substantial article and well balanced. He had been contacted by the register for a statement regarding the application. Mr. Knight stated there had not appeared to be any controversial items in the upcoming meetings. The Administrative Session closed @ 6:40 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None Page 1 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2008 20f6 CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2008. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 3, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None Commissioner Cunningham Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2723-08 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4376-08-TUTTO FRESCO TRATTORIA A proposal to permit a Type 41 (On Site Beer and Wine-Bona Fide Eating Establishment) Alcoholic Beverage Control license for a new Italian restaurant within an existing commercial building and construct a new entry trellis and modify (partially enclose) an existing outdoor patio dining area to permit the service and consumption of beer and wme. LOCATION: 1333 N. Glassell NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per state CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1- Existing Facilities) because the project involves the construction of a new ten foot wood entry trellis, a 40" high stucco wall to provide for an outdoor patio area and a request for a Type 41 ABC license. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 31-08 approving the On-site sale of beer and wine (Type 41 ABC License) and the construction of a new entry trellis and outdoor patio area. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Whitaker stated in the Police Department's report under Condition No.5, their recommendation was that sales and service be allowed between 11 :00 a.m. and 9:00 Page 2 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2008 30f6 p.m. The applicant had noted that they would remain open only until 9:00 on two days of the week. Staffs Condition No. 28 for the CUP noted the hours of operation to be from 11 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There appeared to be an inconsistency and he asked Staff for clarification? Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur stated the Police Department had recommended the hours of operation to be from 11 :00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., as the applicant had originally stated those would be their hours of operation. When Staff spoke with the applicant they mentioned that their Rancho Santa Margarita restaurant location remained open until 10:00 p.m. In crafting the condition in that manner it would allow for extended hours and the reasoning was that if, at a future date, the applicant wanted to have extended hours of operation they would have that option. Staff also felt that 10:00 p.m. was an appropriate time for close of business and would not impact the surrounding residents. Commissioner Merino stated Staff had mentioned in the presentation that the restaurant was located in an area characterized as a high crime area; however, the Police Department's report denoted it was not a high crime area. He asked ifit was a difference in definition as he wanted to be clear on that issue. The document he was referring to was a memo, Control No. 00004. Ms. Thakur stated there was a discrepancy, the memo stated the restaurant was not in a high crime area and in reading further down in the memo it stated the restaurant was in a high crime area. The error appeared to be a typographic error on Staffs part. The reported average crime was not 20% above the average, it was at 15%, and she ventured to say it was not a high crime area. Commissioner Merino clarified that the determination of a high crime area was based on the 20% threshold and it appeared the restaurant presented in the application was not in a high crime area. Sergeant Lopez stated that the restaurant was not in a high crime area; the area was only 15% above the average. The definition of a high crime area would be 20% above the average. The area presented in the proposed application was 5% below the threshold. Chair Steiner stated that Page No.7 of the Staff Report shall be corrected to read not a high crime area. Commissioner Merino stated the site plan had lines on the drawing leading from the patio area that appeared to be a sidewalk and he asked for clarification on where that sidewalk led? He was concerned that someone would be able to provide alcohol across the wall and asked if it was a proposed or an existing sidewalk? He directed Staff to review the first page of the drawing provided. Ms. Thakur stated it was a landscape area and there was no sidewalk in that area. Commissioner Merino stated there was a gate and the implication to him was that perhaps a concrete sidewalk would be installed there that led to the parking lot. Page 3 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2008 40f6 Ms. Thakur stated there was not a sidewalk proposed and she had understood the area he was questioning to be a landscape area. Commissioner Cunningham stated if there would be seating in the patio by a host or hostess with no self seating, and he asked for the reasoning behind that condition? Ms. Thakur stated having patrons seated by the host or hostess would allow more monitoring, rather than having patrons walking in and out of the gate with alcohol. Staff wanted to emphasize the seating in the patio area would be controlled in that manner. Chair Steiner asked if the surrounding areas had been noticed and had any opposition been received? Ms. Thakur stated the surrounding area was noticed and no opposition had been received. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to step forward and address the Commission and asked the applicant if he could address the concerns of Commissioner Merino regarding the patio area and sidewalk? Applicant, Steve White, 18 Oakbrook Drive, Coto de Caza stated there was a sidewalk that stepped down to the parking lot. There would not be access to that sidewalk without exiting through the gate. The sidewalk was quite a distance from the patio area and the area would be screened with a hedge and landscape. Commissioner Merino stated there was an existing sidewalk at the gate that went out to the parking area. Mr. White stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino clarified that there would be landscaping that would provide a screen in order to limit accessibility to the parking lot. Mr. White stated that was correct. Their main goal was to secure the area and that was the reason for the addition of the wall. The existing sidewalks were for ingress and egress for patrons visiting the center, as a public access to the other businesses on the property. It was not a private walkway. Commissioner Merino stated he had a concern that a person could be tempted to provide alcohol across the wall. Mr. White stated they wanted to ensure that those types of incidents would not happen. At their current restaurant location they had a much more open patio and common area and they had not encountered any issues. The public area at the proposed restaurant location was quite a distance from the public right-of-way. In 8 years of business at their other restaurant location they had not had that problem and had not anticipated any problems. Page 4 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2008 50f6 Commissioner Whitaker stated on Sheet No. 7 which had the southern elevation of the property, he clarified that the patio was on the right side with a wall and a gate and pointed out the sidewalk they had been speaking about ran in an east-west direction. He had interpreted Commissioner Merino's question to be: would there be a north-south path heading out of the gate connecting to that sidewalk. Commissioner Whitaker had understood that question to be no. Mr. White clarified that there was a landscape area in that particular part of the property they spoke about; however, there was a gate located in the area as well with a good amount of distance from the gate to the sidewalk. Commissioner Whitaker stated there would be no concrete pavers or access leading down to the sidewalk. Mr. White stated there were steps that led down from the gate to the sidewalk. They would be adding the gate as the area was currently open. One of the conditions of approval was to add a gate to that location. Commissioner Whitaker asked during the hours of operation how would the gates be secured? Mr. White stated the gates would be secured with panic hardware. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commissioner for further discussion. Commissioner Cunningham stated he lived not too far from the proposed restaurant site and he was pleased that someone was opening a restaurant at that location. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 31-08, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2723-08 and Design Review Committee No. 4376-08 to permit a Type 41 License for on-site beer and wine in a bona fide eating establishment noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED (3) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, October 20, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None Page 5 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Commissioner Imboden October 6, 2008 60f6 MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:18 P.M. Page 6 of 6 Pages