Loading...
2012 - March 5Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 "ROVED Page 1 of 12 Minutes Planning Commission March 5, 2012 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION Chair Steiner opened the Administration Session of the Planning Commission Meeting at 6:49 p.m. Chair Steiner welcomed new Commissioner, Bill Cathcart, to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cathcart stated he was pleased to have been appointed and that he had served on the Planning Commission previously from 1990 to 1995. Chair Steiner stated there were 3 Public Hearings on the Agenda before them. The minutes would be voted on by all members who had been present and Commissioner Cathcart would record an abstention. Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions or clarification needed on the Agenda? Commissioner Buttress asked in reference to Agenda Item No. 4.1 would Commissioner Cathcart be able to participate in the discussion as he had been a member of the Design Review Committee when that item had been presented to that body. Commissioner Cathcart stated he had been present, as a member of the DRC, when the item had been reviewed and it had been for the signage and now the item was being brought forward for the approval of a CUP. Commissioner Buttress stated there was also another item. The 7- Eleven Agenda item which might be a conflict. Commissioner Cathcart stated that he had reviewed the design and landscape on that project as a member of the DRC. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the 7- Eleven Agenda item was before the Planning Commission for approval of the site plan proposal and Commissioner Cathcart would need to recuse himself from the presentation of that item. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated the Agenda Item No. 4.1 was for Chipotle and the item had been brought before the DRC for signage as the other improvements to that site had' been internal only. Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 2 of 12 Chair Steiner asked who would be presenting the items. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated he would be presenting Asiana Grill and Mr. Garcia stated he would be presenting 7- Eleven and Chipotle. Commissioner Buttress asked if there had been any concerns expressed by the public on the 7- Eleven item? Mr. Garcia stated that Staff had received correspondence from 2 members of the public. They were property owners in close proximity to the proposed site. Their concerns included an increase in traffic and concerns with the approval of alcohol sales. Chair Steiner asked if the correspondence was from residential owners. Mr. Garcia stated yes, that was correct and they were property owners who lived down the street. Chair Steiner asked if there were any further questions. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that the seating arrangement of the Commissioners at the Administrative Session would mirror the seating arrangement on the dais, as it was customary to place the newest member next to Planning Staff. She stated that the Salem item would be presented to the DRC this week and that would be coming to the Planning Commission soon. Chair Steiner asked if Commissioner Cathcart's position had been filled on the DRC. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated no, it had not been filled. There was no further discussion. Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:57 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Laura Thomas, address on file, congratulated Commissioner Cathcart on his appointment and stated she was from Orange Park Acres and some of the Commissioners might know her from her real estate business, the Chamber or Orange Park Acres. She was the president of the Orange Park Acres Association and she was filling Tom Davidson's big shoes; it was a big job for her. She had been in OPA for 30 years and she had been on the association board previously. She had come back onto the board over the last few years; what that meant for the Orange Park Association was that she would act as the chair for the Orange Park Acres Advisory Committee to the City of Orange. They reviewed all projects that affected the OPA. The OPA was ever watchful to insure their heritage and unique area, just as Old Towne had. Ms. Thomas stated that recently the OPA Advisory Committee met with the Salem representatives that would be coming up for review. She was available for questions and she could be found around town. Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 3 of 12 REGULAR SESSION Chair Steiner opened the regular Session of the Planning Commission Meeting with a review of the City's appeal process. Consent Calendar: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OF February 22, 2012 Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2012 as written. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 4 of 12 CONTINUED HEARING: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2839-11 — ASIANA GRILL This item was continued from the February 6, 2012 Planning Commission meeting per request of the applicant. The applicant proposes to sell beer, wine and sake under a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 license in association with an approximately 2,000 square foot restaurant use. LOCATION: 1273 N. Tustin, Unit A 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 only involves the licensing of alcohol sales and no new construction is proposed in association with the request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 06 -12 approving an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine — Eating Place) license with a Finding of Public Necessity. Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Bill Fancher, address on file, stated Yoshinoya wanted to re -vamp its concept, it was old and something needed to be done with it. They wanted to upgrade the outside and they would change their menu to a broader Asian concept. They were proposing to add a glass case to sell Sake and Sapporo and some Japanese beers in one display case. The alcoholic beverages would go along with the Asian food they would be serving. Commissioner Grangoff asked Mr. Fancher if he had a preference on Condition No. 13. Mr. Fancher stated they would want the option of staying open until midnight. They would want to be open after the movie theatres closed when patrons might want to stop in to get a bite afterwards. If they were closed they would not be able to get that business and it was the dollar that they were after. If they were not doing a big business after Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 5of12 some time they would continue to stay closed; they had not known what the new concept would bring them. They wanted the flexibility. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Grangoff stated he was a bit confused on Condition No. 13, and if the Commission wanted to allow the applicant's business to remain open until midnight that they would not want to have Condition No. 13 remain as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Ortlieb stated that would be correct. If that condition was removed the business would operate under the ABC License permit terms. Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to Adopt PC Resolution No. 06 -12, approving CUP No. 2839- 11 -Asiana Grill, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the removal of Condition No. 13. Chair Steiner stated there were 31 Conditions of Approval and he asked Mr. Fancher if he was in agreement with all of the conditions. Mr. Fancher stated he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and he had worked with Staff and the City of Orange Police Department and everyone was pleased. SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 6of12 NEW HEARING: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2817-11 -7- ELEVEN The applicant proposes to demolish an existing automotive fueling and service repair station to construct a new 2,798 square foot convenience store with fuel dispensing. The site has an existing Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer and Wine) License which requires modification. LOCATION: 615 S. Tustin NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction) because the project is a single structure that is less than 10,000 square feet and where all necessary public services and facilities are in place. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 12 -12 recommending to the City Council approval for a new 7- Eleven convenience store with fuel dispensing and a modification to an existing Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer and Wine) License. Commissioner Cathcart recused himself from the item's presentation as he had been a member of the Design Review Committee when the item had been heard at the DRC level. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Gladson asked if the 2 inquiries received by Staff, that were in opposition to the proposed project, had been emails or were they phone calls? Mr. Garcia stated one had been a phone call and the other had been correspondence received via email. Commissioner Gladson stated that Mr. Garcia had reiterated the content of the concerns for the Commissioners and she wanted to understand if Staff had received something in writing. She asked if the email had been received late. Mr. Garcia stated the email had been received late. Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 7of12 Commissioner Gladson asked for further details on the layout of the proposed building and the adjacent buildings and residential uses in the immediate area? Mr. Garcia stated the proposed building would be located towards the rear of the property. Behind the property was an alley and directly after the alley there was an apartment building. There was a wall that separated the alley and the rear of the property. Commissioner Gladson asked if he knew the distance of that separation. Mr. Garcia stated the alley was 20' wide. Commissioner Buttress asked if there were windows on the apartment building that looked out toward the subject site. Mr. Garcia stated he had not recalled seeing any windows. Commissioner Buttress stated she had not remembered any windows, as she had visited the site. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Joseph Karaki, address on file, stated he was the architect on the project. They had been working on the project for quite a while and they were before the Planning Commission to present their case for the hard work they had put forth on the project. The project had gone through the Design Review Committee and they concurred with the Conditions of Approval. They also concurred with the conditions from Staff and the Planning Department and they had no objections to the conditions. Mr. Karaki stated to answer the question regarding windows, their proposed building had solid walls along the alley and the only windows would be at the front of the building facing the street. There were no windows facing the neighboring properties. Commissioner Buttress stated her question had pertained to windows on the apartment building. Chair Steiner opened the hearing to Public Comment. Peggy End, address on file, stated she was the business manager of the apartments directly behind the gas station and mini mart. She had a concern with the hours of operation and if the business was to be open all night that there would be an impact on the community. The bedroom windows were right on the other side of the wall. The wall was approximately 5' tall and the lights, and continued traffic would impact the residents of that area. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 8of12 Commissioner Gladson stated there was a bit of a puzzlement as they had opposition to the CUP before them. She wanted to understand a bit more about the connection between the use and the separation between the subject site and the residential uses. She had a concern with the fact that the building would be further back on the property and closer to the residential uses to the east. Not having windows was a good thing, but there was also the concern with a 24 hour operating business. They needed to flush all of that out as there had been concerns from the neighbors. Commissioner Buttress stated that it had appeared that there would be no parking close to the alley way. Mr. Garcia stated there was parking to the rear of the parking along the wall. Commissioner Buttress asked what the south facing business was. Mr. Garcia stated it was a hotel. Commissioner Buttress asked if there was another 7- Eleven in town or another 24 hour operating convenience store. Mr. Garcia stated there was a 7- Eleven on the corner of Batavia and Chapman. He was not certain if that location was open 24 hours. Commissioner Buttress asked if there had been any issues with the other 7- Eleven locations. Orange Police Department representative Sergeant Dave Nichols stated there was another 24 hour operating 7- Eleven store at Glassell and Taft and the store at Chapman and Batavia also operated as a 24 hour store. There had not been an over abundance of calls for service. The other stores that they spoke of had surveillance cameras and good security and those stores had not been problematic. They had received calls for service at those locations, but those were for theft and things of that nature, but nothing above the ordinary. Chair Steiner asked how the other stores compared in size to the proposed project. Sgt. Nichols stated the stores at Batavia and Glassell were very similar in size and the new store would be very similar in size to those locations. Commissioner Grangoff asked if the proposal was approved and if over the next few months there were an inordinate amount of calls for service at the new location was there a means to clamp down on the hours of operation and ways to remedy such a situation? Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Garcia stated yes, the recommendation by the Planning Commission was to the City Council and there were conditions in place to mediate problems that might occur. In particular conditions 6 and 7 addressed that issue. Commissioner Grangoff stated it was important to note if a business was not a good neighbor that there were conditions in place that would address that. Commissioner Gladson stated that was a good point that Commissioner Grangoff made. She stated she had another question for clarification purposes, and stated alcohol sales were regulated by the State of California and as she read the conditions the sale of alcohol would not be permitted between 2:00 and 6:00 a.m., and she asked if she was understanding that correctly? Sgt. Nichols stated that was correct and the alcohol cases and coolers would be secured during those hours; and it was State regulated. Commissioner Gladson stated that was another measure of protection and something that might be of concern with the operation of a 24 hour business. Conditions No. 6 and 7 clearly added a level of performance requirements. The speaker, Ms. End, had a concern with lighting, and in reviewing the conditions there was protection for that component as well. She wanted to understand the clarification on the canopies; and the DRC had looked at that element in great detail and she wanted to clarify that the canopies were part of the package that they were approving as it was an important design component of the proposed project. Mr. Garcia stated she was correct; the canopies were part of the approval. Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 12 -12, recommending approval to the City Council, CUP No. 2817 -11 -7- Eleven, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, noting the items categorical exemption from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 10 of 12 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2837 -11 — CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL The applicant is requesting an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine — Eating Place) License to have on -site consumption of beer and wine for patrons of the establishment. LOCATION: 3440 E. Chapman #G7 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 13 -12 approving the allowance of an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 License (On -Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Eating Place). Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Perla Lara, address on file, stated she was an area manager for Chipotle. They had a second location in Orange at the Village and she had brought a sales report that showed their alcohol sales were less than 1% per month. Alcohol sales were a small percentage of their business -and they just wanted to have it available to their patrons. There store hours were 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and business typically died down around 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Gladson asked if Ms. Lara had reviewed the Conditions of Approval and if she was comfortable with all 36 conditions? Ms. Lara stated she had reviewed the conditions and they were in agreement with all of them. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Gladson stated as they had spoken about the hours of operation on the previous item, Asiana Grill, she wondered, being that there was a similar condition contained in the draft resolution for Chipotle, it was Condition No. 7 that they might want Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2012 Page 11 of 12 to consider removing it unless there was a reason not to? She wanted to clarify that point. Mr. Garcia stated in the old days there were conditions associated with CUPS that limited the hours of alcohol sales; as Staff was no longer able to impose those conditions they had begun to limit the hours of operation and that was a carry over to how they proceeded on those types of businesses. He had not discussed a change with the applicant. Commissioner Gladson asked if there was any opposition to removing that condition. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated Staff had no objection to removal of that condition, however, the Police Department might want to comment on that recommendation. Orange Police Department representative Sergeant David Nichols stated what was important was consistency. On the Asian Grill vs. Chipotle they were very different venues all together, but consistent in the amount of their alcohol sales in relationship to food sales. They wanted consistency with the sale of food with alcohol sales. The reason for Condition No. 7 was a reiteration of the hours of operation that the applicant had given to the Police Department. Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 13 -12 approving CUP No. 283 7-11 -Chipotle Mexican Grill, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the items categorical exemption from CEQA. Commissioner Grangoff stated in reference to Condition No. 7, on the previous item that had been presented it had been pointed out that Staff had been agreeable as they wanted to have consistency with neighboring businesses and that was not the issue with the item before them. Commissioner Buttress stated she felt there was not an issue with Condition No. 7 as written and she would not suggest removal in her motion and the business owners had not had issue with the condition. SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting (4) ADJOURNMENT: March 5, 2012 Page 12 of 12 Adjournment to the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday, March 19, 2012. Commissioner Gladson made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, March 19, 2012. SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Meeting Adjourned @ 7:40 p.m.