Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - May 17 MINUTES APPROVED May 17,2004 Monday - 7 :00 p.m. Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett and Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Domer STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Chris Cames, Senior Planner Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: None. (1) NO MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2494-04 - CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. A proposal to sell hard liquors, beer, and wine in conjunction with the operation of a new restaurant, the address of the site is 2202-A N. Tustin Street, located at the southwest comer of Tustin Street and East Village Way). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). The item was introduced by Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager. She noted that Chris Carnes, Senior Planner for the project was available for questions by the Commissioners. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: APPROVED May 17,2004 Planning Commission . Are there any figures on the build-out or number of establishments that have petitioned (or already come forward) for expanded liquor licenses in that vicinity? There is a possibility of perhaps one more restaurant, currently, that may request for an On-Sale License. It is difficult to predict what may happen with other uses, for example Sears may (like Target) decide they want an Off-Sale License. Subject to completion of these two buildings at the mall, it is pretty much built-out. . Is this potential new liquor license restaurant in the mall? It's at the location near the Red Robin restaurant. . The patio area on the building has a gate to the outside; where does that go? It does not go directly to the parking lot, it goes to a sidewalk, then to the parking lot. It is an Emergency Exit only. Chairman Pruett opened the public hearing, and the applicant was invited to come forward and speak to the proj ect. Randall Jones, 21622 Marguerite Parkway, #506, Mission Viejo, 92692 - spoke to the project. He will be the General Manager of the subject Chipotle Mexican Grill. He noted that the establishment is a quick, casual, counter-service style restaurant. The Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants do not have a full bar, do not sell liquor by the drink, and typically only sell beer & margaritas. Being a counter-service restaurant, most customers purchase a burrito or taco, and if they choose to have alcohol, they have a beer, they sit down and they leave. It is not typically the type of establishment where people come and spend a lot of time. Alcohol accounts for only 1.3% of their entire sales, and this is based on historical data from all their stores. The store is a food- based concept, there are no servers. Mr. Jones noted that there was also a 2-drink maximum for their customers. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns for Mr. Jones: . How are you going to monitor the 2-drink maximum? We have a training program for all the managers and hourly employees. The policy for the restaurant states that each person that purchases alcohol is only allowed to purchase one drink at a time, and they are only allowed to purchase a maximum of two drinks during their visit, regardless of how long they stay. By doing that, it sets the tone for how we control our alcohol sales. Employees must sign off that they have been thoroughly trained and understand the alcohol policies as well as the penalties that go along with selling to an underage/minor person. . An alcohol management plan has been submitted and approved by the Police Department. . Have you read the Conditions of Approval and find them acceptable? Yes. Officer Tom Kisela, representing the Orange Police Department, was invited to speak to the submitted Liquor License, and the Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . We note that the Conditions of Approval are quite thorough. The police department is comfortable with issuing this license? Yes. This is, quite possibly, the most comprehensive alcohol management plan I have seen. I wish most, or all, of our businesses would have an alcohol management plan like this. Based on what the applicant said, 1% of their total sales are alcohol, that is next to nil. Again, we don't have any concerns. 2 APPROVED Planning Commission May 17,2004 The applicant was invited to offer any other comments, he chose not to, and the public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Chairman Pruett commented that there had always been concern for the number of liquor licenses issued in this area, but it is a commercial area that really demands that type of service, and the competing restaurants are demanding it. Commissioner Brandman felt that the restaurant had a good plan, she also voiced her continued concern for the number of liquor licenses granted in the area, and felt that she did not want to impede the restaurant's ability to be competitive. Commissioner Smith also noted that the restaurant's 2-drink maximum was not noted anywhere in the plan or the Conditions of Approval, therefore the statement was moot. Both Commissioner Brandman and Commissioner Smith were uncomfortable that the 2-drink maximum was not included in the Conditions of Approval, even though the applicant stated so. It appears, from the discussions, that Officer Kisela and Assistant Attorney Sheatz found there was no legal basis to have the 2-drink maximum included in the actual document. The applicant was only offering this piece of information as an additional point-of-reference about how they manage their restaurant. The Police Department felt that this was the most comprehensive alcohol management plan that they had ever seen. Chair Pruett commented that he wished that all, or most, of the other establishments had one as thorough as this. Further, Officer Kisela stated that, under the Conditions of Approval, everyone who operated with an Alcohol Management Plan must operate under restrictions placed on them by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Assistant Attorney Sheatz stated that every establishment that operates under a C.U. P. must operate under an Alcohol Management Plan, and that if the applicant had chosen this plan, then they must operate under it. Commissioner Bonina moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 23-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2494-04. The motion was seconded by Chairman Pruett. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioner Domer MOTION CARRIED (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2497-04 - SUSHI 21 A proposal to sell beer and wine in conjunction with the operation of an existing restaurant. The address of the site is 3505 E. Chapman Avenue, Unit E. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager, introduced the item. Sushi 21 has prepared an Alcohol Management Plan, which establishes training procedures for employees on monitoring the sale and consumption of alcohol to ensure that persons under 21 are not served alcohol nor are alcoholic beverages removed from the site to be consumed by others. 3 APPROVED May 17, 2004 Planning Commission The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . The application for the Conditional Use Permit states that the restaurant will be closed on Sunday. To be consistent with the other permits granted, this item should be removed from the Conditions of Approval. The restaurant needs the flexibility to be able to change and be open 7 days a week if they want. . In the findings in Section 1, it suggests that one of the reasons is the operation would not be open on Sunday due to the proximity to a neighboring church. The management plan states that they would be open from 5:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The church services are normally during the day, so it would not conflict. This information was furnished by the applicant, but is not necessary for approval of this permit. The reference in the findings, per Mr. Sheatz, relative to the sensitive land use, can be struck if it is not necessary. Chairman Pruett opened the public hearing, and the applicant was invited to address the Commission. Reiko Sakata, 3505 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange - spoke on behalf of the applicant. She noted that the restaurant does not play music, is very small, and they are currently operating with dinner only, but may change it later. The Commissioners had the following comments/concerns: . Does the applicant understand that we are suggesting that your restaurant not have the exclusion of being open on Sunday? Yes, that is fine, thank you. The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. and the topic was brought back before the Commission. Chairman Pruett stated that Condition #3, which deals with being open on Sunday, the church impacts are insignificant because both the church and the applicant's restaurant are small, and do not cause a major concern. Commissioner Bonina noted that in reviewing the site, he was disappointed in the way the shopping center was maintained; he stated that when he visited there he noted there was trash everywhere, etc. Chairman Pruett asked that staff note this to the management of the property. Commissioner Smith moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 24-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2497-04. Commissioner Brandman seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioner Domer MOTION CARRIED 4 APPROVED Planning Commission May 17, 2004 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2502-04 - JOSEPH AND STEPHANIE RAFFEL A proposal to construct a 1,170 sq. ft. recreation room and guest quarters with full interior plumbing facilities over a 1,201 sq. ft. garage/workshop. The address ofthe site is 1643 Hunters Way. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager, introduced the item. Chairman Pruett asked the Commissioners if there were any questions of staff, and the Commissioners raised the following questions/concerns: . Commissioner Brandman stated that she wished to ask someone about the work currently underway at the property. Chairman Pruett felt it was best to ask that question of the applicant. . Chairman Smith asked how this project related to the State legislation that allows each single-family dwelling to also have an accessory living unit on the property. This project is billed as a guest room, so does this mean that the applicants can also build an accessory second unit at a later date? Ms. Roseberry stated that these guest quarters are not classified as a living unit (i.e., there is not a kitchen or any type of cooking facility), so it was her understanding that they were still allowed to have an accessory second unit of 640 sq. ft., if they could meet the parking code requirement. . What ensures that this is not a living unit, or what sort of monitoring is there to ensure that this stays a guest unit? This unit is much larger than what an accessory second unit would be (640 sq. ft.). A standard-sized garage is 400 sq. ft. This garage (the one that the guest quarters are built above) is 1201 sq. ft. and then a guest quarter above it is 1109 sq. ft. so there is a total of 2200 sq. ft. of building, and what precludes that this isn't occupied? One of the Conditions of Approval is to indicate that the property owner would record an agreement stipulating that it would not be an accessory second unit, i.e., a living unit. This would be a recorded document against the title of the property. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz clarified that it was, as such, a deed restriction. He also noted, that if the Commissioners wish, it could be noted as "Recorded with the County Recorder's Office" in the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Pruett, noting that there were no other questions of staff, opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and speak to the project. Don Greek, 44 E. Hillsdale, Orange, spoke as a representative for the owners of the property (Joseph and Stephanie Raffel). He noted that the owners were expanding the garage for storage, and changing the look of the outside to more closely resemble the main house. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: 5 Planning Commission APPROVED May 17,2004 . Is the group you are representing a mini-association? That is not really correct. There is an association, but it is not an official/organized association. (Commissioner Brandman asked for clarification due to her home's proximity, 300 feet, to the entire area. It was determined that it was not an official group, i.e., having control of any additional property, and therefore she did not need to recuse herself.) . Commissioner Brandman noted that she pulled into the driveway to view the property and saw workers working on the property already. Is there something currently going on? Yes, they are replacing the roof, and are cutting down a number of trees. Chairman Pruett, noting that there were not other questions of the applicant, closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and brought the matter back before the Commission for discussion and/or action. Chairman Pruett clarified with Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz that when a document is recorded against the property, it is, in fact a deed restriction. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Regarding "accessory second unit" versus "guest quarters," is the only limitation on the accessory structure the square footage restriction in relationship to the main building? They are still subject to setback rules, etc., and all the accessory structures on the site cannot total more than 50% of the primary structure. Commissioner Brandman moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 22-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2502-04. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Commissioner Smith noted that the existing structure on the property was 4,144 sq. ft., and the garage and guest quarters totaled 2,380 sq. ft., and that is more than 50%. Commissioner Bonina clarified that 525 sq. ft. of the garage already existed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioner Domer MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Brandman motioned to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, June 7, 2004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioner Domer MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 6