HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-1997 PC Minutesci C-{ /' c-) -:.<l.
c;;.10 -c . Cj. 0".J MINUTES
Planning
Commission City
of Orange September
15, 1997 Monday -
7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners
Bosch. Carlton, Smith ABSENT: Commissioners
Pruett, Romero STAFF PRESENT:
Vem
Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Ted Reynolds, Assistant
City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant
City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording
Secretary IN RE: CONSENT
CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3,1997 Moved by Commissioner
Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue the Minutes of September 3, 1997
to the next regularly scheduled meeting.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton,
Smith None Commissioners Pruett,
Romero
MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED
HEARINGS 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1526-97 - CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS An environmental assessment
of a proposal to widen The City Drive from SR-22 Garden Grove Freeway to The
City Way/Dawn Way, to create additional travel and turning lanes. This project is in conjunction with the implementation
of mitigation measures contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration 1497-96 (Mills Corporation).
This
item was continued from the August 18, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting.)Mr.
Hohnbaum reported the critical intersection at Chapman and City Drive has been under way and under
design for quite some time. The City has been offered, at no cost, dedication of the rights-of-
way between The City Way and the 22 Freeway. This project will widen the roadway all the way
from Chapman down to the 22 Freeway. The negative declaration will provide the necessary
environmental clearance for the
project.Chairman Bosch noted this was consistent with the City's adopted Circulation Plan and Master Plan
of Arterial
Highways.The public hearing was opened, but there were no comments. The public hearing was then closed
and brought back to the Commission for discussion and
action.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative
Declaration
1526-
97.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero
MOTION
Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 1997
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2187-97 - GORDON BIERSCH BREWING COMPANY, INC.
A request for a General Alcoholic Beverage Ucense at a new restaurant to be constructed as part of the
Century Theater entertainment complex. The site is addressed 1623 West Katella Avenue, Suite #212.
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
This item was continued from the September 3, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting.)
NOTE:
Mr. Jones explained condition 1 is to be modified and he didn't know if the applicant is aware of the
change. The first sentence will remain, but the second sentence needs to be modified to read: No
changes to the floor plan will occur unless determined by the Community Development Department to
be consistent with CUP 2187-97. And, the third sentence should be deleted. The live
entertainment request is addressed under condition
5.It was noted there was a typographical error on condition 11. The correct word is "employ" rather
than
empty".The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was
opened.Aoolicant. John Murrav. The Reves
Grouo
Inc.. 1224 East Katella Avenue. Suite 105. Oranae. said
they were the agents for the Gordon Biersch Company. They read the staff report and agreed with
the conditions of approval. They, however, talked with Roger Brown, Director of Development for
Gordon Biersch, at 4:00 p.m. and he asked that the operating hours be approved from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.
m.,seven days a week, with the understanding that they will not serve alcohol one hour prior to closing.
With the stadium close by, they were unsure what the hours should be, and this would prevent him from
having to come back to request a change in the operating hours if the hours were
different.Sat. Barrv Weinstein. Oranae Police Deoartment. said they did not have a problem with the hours
of operation. He spoke with Mr. Reyes and they agreed to the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m.,
seven days a week for the sale of alcoholic
beverages.Chairman Bosch clarified the hours for sale of alcoholic beverages to be 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. or
one hour before closing time, seven days a
week.Commissioner Smith wanted to know if this were consistent with the hours of Old Towne
Brewing
Company?Sgt. Weinstein replied that was correct; however, the Police Department extended the hour for
the termination of alcohol sales based on their location and the fact it is not
residential.
Rebuttal Mr. Murray said after Mr. Reyes' conversation with Sgt. Weinstein, he called Gordon Biersch to let
them know the outcome of that conversation. That's when Mr. Reyes requested the hours of operation
from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. They did not have a problem of waiting until 11 :00 a.m.
to serve alcohol. And, they did not have a problem with stopping the sale of alcoholic beverages one
hour before
closing.The public hearing was
closed.Commissioner Carlton wanted to know the hours of the theater and asked how late they were open?
Her train of thought was if the theaters got out at midnight, a number of people would then migrate over
for something to eat or drink before going
home.Mr. Jones did not know the operating
hours.Chailman Bosch did not see a problem with the proposal. He understood the Police Department'
s review in terms of trying to conform with hours of operation of similar facilities except as might
be
Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 1997
modified by specific neighborhood conditions. He appreciated the applicant's representative stipulatingtothe11 :00 a.m. start of alcohol sales. In addition to staff's recommendation of modifying condition 1, healsosupportedchangingcondition6statingthe11:00 a.m. start of sales of alcohol. He also supportedthe1 :00 a.m. or one hour before closing, whichever is earliest for the cessation of sales, service andconsumption, in order to tie it in and be consistent with the other businesses in Orange. He felt theprojectwouldbeagoodadditiontothecomplex.
Commissioner Smith commented the hours were the most generous that have come before theCommission. She was concerned about the element of fairness to other people who have alsorequestedextendedhours. She thought they needed to be careful about inconsistencies and the hours,and be aware of fairness to all merchants for consistency. She will not oppose the project but she willvoteforapprovalwithreluctancebasedonthefactifthisvendorcanstayopenuntil1 :00 a.m., then otherpeoplewiththesametypeofbusinessshouldbeallowedthesameprivilege.
Chairman Bosch suggested staff go back and look through their records of approvals that have occurredsotheCommissionwouldhaveagoodreferenceinthefuturetobesuretheystayontrack. Again,appreciating the difference in location and neighborhoods along the way.
It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional UsePermit2187-97, with conditions 1-14, modifying condition 1 per staff's recommendation andhandout, and modifying condition 6 to read: "Sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages aretobepermittedonlybetweenthehoursof11:00 A.M. and 1 :00 A.M., or one hour before closing atthelatest,seven days a week." Also, to correct the typographical error in condition 11 to say "employ". This conditional use permit is based upon sound land principles of land use and in responsetoservicesrequiredbythecommunity, and thiS fits in with the approved plans for the overallentertainmentcenter,and is appropriate for the zone in which it is proposed. It will not cause deterioration ofborderinglandusesorcreatespecialproblemsbecauseofitslocationwithintheoverallapprovedsiteplanforthecenter. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and found thattheconditionswillpreservethegeneralwelfareandnottheindividualwelfareof
the
applicant.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero
MOTION CARRIED IN RE:
NEW HEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2186-97 - METRO
CAR WASH A request for a proposed auto lube building (approximately 975 square feet) to abut and blendwithanexistingcarwashstructure. The property is located at 387 North
Tustin Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301.There was no opposition, therefore, the full reading of the staff report
was waived.Mr. Jones stated the applicant requested that condition 2 be modified to not restrict theirhoursofoperationofMondaythroughSaturday. They would like to operate and be open seven days
a week.The public hearing
was opened.AODUcant. Malcolm Cobrink. 387 North Tustin Avenue, is the owner and operator of the MetroCarWash.Their normal hours of operation are seven days a week, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. During thesummertheyareopenuntil6:00 p.m. They do not change tires or do tune ups. They are just going to providealubeserviceandoilchanges. It Will be a simple,
quiet
Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 1997
The architect for the project spoke in favor of the project. They were going to remove the vacuums
a9.ainst the far east wall to help mitigate the existing noise problems. The area will be a little bit quieterWithoutthevacuums.
The public hearing was closed.
It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit
2186-97 with conditions 1-6, modifying condition 2 to indicate hours of operation are seven days
a week and that Sundays are to be included in the hours of operation. This conditional use permitISgranteduponsoundprinciplesoflanduseandinresponsetoservicesrequiredbythecommunity, that it
will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which itislocated.The conditional use permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and
it will be granted subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare and nottheindividualwelfareof
the
applicant.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero
MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2188-97 - ST.
MATTHEW CHURCH A request to allow a church use in a commercial/office zone. The applicant is also
requesting shared parking. The site is located at 1111 Town & Country Road,
Building A.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301.There was no opposition to
this item.Mr. Jones said there was a modification to condition 1 since there is noenvironmentaldocumentation.Instead of a Notice of Determination being filed, a Notice of Exemption shall be filed. The restofthesentenceafter "Notice of Exemption" can be deleted. He stated conditions 3-9 are
basic City code requirements which should not be included as conditions of approval. Staff recommends eliminating those conditions as they are code requirements which the applicant will need to comply with, but they do not need to be
conditions of approval.The public
hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Remo Ottone. 2207 Oranaewood. represented St. Matthew Church. The Church
has been a part of Orange for seven years. They have outgrown their present facility and havefoundamoresuitablepropertyonTown & Country Road. It is their desire to stay in Orange and feel theywillbeanassettothecommunity. Services are held on Sundays, with occasional eveningservicesorspecialeventsafter6:00 p.m. during the week. There will be no conflict with thesurroundingbusinesses. They do have a church office and there are typically five to ten people in the office during thedayduringnormalbusinesshours. They are allocated 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and they will
have a minimal presence at the site
during the day.Commissioner Smith said if this were approved on the basis of shared parking, thatwoulddrasticallylimitwhattheChurchcoulddointhefutureduringbusinesshours. She recommended aconditionthatservicescanonlybeheldwhenparkingisavailable. Parking is available when the businessesarenotopen.When there is shared parking, there must be the understanding that just because theapplicantgetsthepermit, it doesn't mean a day care can be opened on weekdays because therewouldbeotherrestrictionsontheparking
during business hours.Mr. Ottone understood her concern. He assured her this was discussed with the PlanningstaffandeveniftheChurchwereusedtofullcapacity. they would not exceed the available parking. Theirintentistooperateduringnon-business hou,'s. It was not their intent to open
a
Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 1997
Greo Farrier helped the Church secure this office space. They did an in-depth search for thispropertybecausetheChurchwantedtostayinOrange. He asked for favorable consideration of their
request.The public hearing was
dosed.Commissioner Smith said the CUP goes with the land; not the applicant. She wondered ifthereshouldn't be a condition to somehow limit the hours of operation of the church services to thosehourswhenthebusinessesareclosed. This would help to clarify it for future use. She knows of churchesthathavedayuseanditimpactstheparkingneeds, such as daycare, youth camps, or extendedcounseling
programs.Chairman Bosch asked how the shared parking plan provision of code tied into the CUP approvaltoaddressCommissionerSmith's
concems?Mr. Jones replied the code requirement for this church use, based on the information provided and staff's understanding of the congregation membership and attendance, is that the demand for parkingisprojectedat50spaces. They are eight spaces short for Sunday services. That's what the sharedparkingsectioncovers. Any additional use such as child care or other services not identified in the staffreportwouldrequireamodificationtotheconditionalusepermit. The major concern would probably be iftheyweretogrowsubstantially, but not feel a need to expand beyond the existing space they areeitherpurchasingorleasing. On Saturdays and Sundays, the other businesses are closed and the churchwouldhaveaccesstomorethanthe50spacesintheparkinglotwithoutcausingaproblem. If theCommissionisworriedaboutthatkindofexpansion, they might want to consider some kind of a cap on someaspectoftheoperationssothatitiscleariftheyexceedacertainamountandgenerateparkingimpactsaboveandbeyondwhatisanticipated, the City would have some ability to require modification to theconditionaluse
permit.Commissioner Smith was concerned if there was to be a funeral or memorial service during theweek.According to the conditions of the staff report, nothing would prevent that from happening; however, that could limit the business parking if an event were to happen. If it were conditioned into the report, it would be clear the church could not have that kind of service during the
week.Chairman Bosch wanted to re-open the hearing. with the concurrence of the Commission, tohavetheapplicantaddresstheconcernsof
the Commission.Mr. Ottone pointed out the complex was a business condominium and parking is allocatedassuchamongthetenantsandowners, of which they will be an owner. Parking is allocated at 4 spaces per1,000 square feet and it entitles the church to 42 spaces every day. They will not exceed thatrequirementontheweekdays. On Sundays they will exceed the 42 spaces and that's the reason for thesharedparkingrequest. Their memorial services (based on past history) are rather small and he was confident
the 42 spaces would
be adequate.The pUblic hearing
was dosed.Chairman Bosch wondered how to construct a condition which limits occupancy during the weektothatwhichdoesn't use more than the allowable number of parking spaces. The church has 42parkingspacesavailableanditiskindofhardtobackintothatandcreatesomething. Typically, 95% of the timetherewillnotbeaproblem; it's just the rare occasion that would cause that to occur. He didn't want to getintothebusinessofpolicingtheproperty
owners' association.Mr. Jones suggested adding a condition stating the traditional work week hours, MondaythroughFriday,are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the applicant cannot exceed their allocated 42 parking spacesfor
any occasion.It was noted the project was categorically exempt from
CEQA
Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 1997
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2188-97, with the following conditions: Condition 1 is to be corrected in that the applicant shall
file a Notice of Exemption. The remainder of the sentence can be deleted. Include condition 2, 10 and
11.Conditions 3 through 9 pertain to Rre requirements and are to be omitted as conditions of
approval.Add an additional condition that the applicant will not exceed the 42 allocated parking spaces during
the week days, Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The project met the required findings for
a conditional use permit under the Orange Municipal
Code.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Smith
None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION
CARRIED IN RE:
MISCELLANEOUS 6. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL 04-97 - ORANGE SQUARE,
INC.An appeal of a condition imposed by the Design Review Board on a sign program for an
existing shopping center (currently undergoing facade renovation) that prohibits the re-installation of
the ancillary Office Depot wall signs. The property is located at the Northeast corner of Tustin Street
and
Chapman Avenue.The full reading of the staff report was waived; the public hearing
was opened.Aoolicant. Lou Marimontes. 3636 Birch Street. Suite 200. Newoort Beach, is one of the owners
of the shopping center. They are currently remodeling the shopping center and as part of the
remodel, they submitted a new sign for the center. The Design Review Board imposed a number of
conditions, and they are appealing one of the conditions. He took some pictures and shared them with
the Commission.They request when the renovation is completed on the building, they be able to install their
existing two accessory signs, along with the Office Depot sign. Ancillary signs are not uncommon and they want
to be treated like
anyone else.Commissioner Carlton understood it was condition 4 the applicant was
appealing. (Yes.)Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Marimontes' understanding why the DRB wanted those
signs removed.Mr. Marimontes replied the DRB's response was that ancillary signs were not permitted in the
City
of Orange.The public hearing
was closed.Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Jones the same question relative to the ancillary signs. Exactly what
is the interpretation of the sign ordinance with regard to the Office
Depot facade?Mr. Jones said it was his understanding that this aspect of the code has actually changed a
number of times over the years. Currently the code allows the ability for the reviewing body to
make a determination to allow one additional wall sign for any singular tenant within a building. Staff's view
is that these signs have been there for a long time and they are legal, non-conforming signs. The
DRB has the ability to make a determination to remove them. In this case, the Commission has the
option of going either direction with this. Because there is a single tenant, by existing code, if the tenant came
in with a new sign request, then they could apply for one additional sign. This is a little
more complicated because two things are happening here. One, is the facade renovation and the other is the
sign program. The sign program is a combination of proposing to add more signage primarily to
the smaller, interior buildings, but to keep existing signage for other parts
of the center.Chairman Bosch clarified the Commission has the latitude to make adjustments they
feel are appropriate for the signs, that
is within reason.Commissioner Smith was in favor of the appeal and that the two signs be retained. It is
a very large,long facade and she didn't think the two signs detract. One 0,' the signs looks to be rather
small. The 6x6 sign is in an indented area. This particular shopping center has a little comer mini
shopping
Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 1997
somewhat impairs the view of the entire shopping center. She called that out as a particular circumstancethatispresentonthesitethatisnotalwayspresentonothersites. She did not see the signs as beingobtrusiveinanyway. She knew the Albertson's building is one of the newest buildings in Orange andthecodechangesfrequently. It has more than two signs, it's on Chapman Avenue, and she did not feelthiswasgrantinganyspecialprivilegetobeabletokeeptheexistingsigns.
Chairman Bosch concurred and he noted the SavOn Drugs at Tustin and Meats had two ancillary signs.It's a matter of how well they are done. He was also encouraged by the redesign and rehabilitation oftheOfficeDepotbuilding. It creates a facade that is a very good improvement over what is existing andreducesaproportionofthesigntothefacadesoithasevenlessimpact. He was pleased the centerwasundergoingamajorrehabilitationbecauseitwaslongoverdue. It's a good opportunity to remindtheownerandapplicantofthetemporarysignage, A-frames and banners in that they will conform tothecurrentCitycoderelativetotheirenforcement. The DRB acted in good faith, based upon trying tokeepintactthosecodeprovisions, and it's their duty to do that. The Commission has the opportunitytoproVidesomeeasingtothatbasedontheparticularconditionstheyseerelativetolanduseandconformitywiththerestoftheCity, whereas DRB is dealing with a specific design application onaspecific
site.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Design ReviewBoardAppealNo. 04-97 regarding DRB 3193 - Orange Square. Approval of this appeal is based on thefacttheexistingsignsaretoremainonalargefacade, that one sign is relatively smaller than the otheranddoesnotadverselyimpactthatlargefacade, the larger 6x6 sign appears in an indented area ofthefacadeandalsodoesnotadverselyimpactthetotalfacadelook. Because this building is in anexistingshoppingcenterwhichhasalittleminishoppingcenteronthecorner, the view is somewhatimpairedfromthestreet, and the retention of these signs would be
appropriate.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Smith NOES:
None ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION
CARRIED IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the nextregularlyscheduledmeeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.
m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Smith
None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION
CARRIED
sld