Loading...
2010 - September 8Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 1 of 21 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange September 8, 2010 Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Whitaker opened the Administrative Session @ 6:47 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Chair Whitaker stated he was absent from the August 18, 2010 meeting and would abstain from the approval of that meeting's minutes. Item No. 2 Step Up Recovery. Commissioner Merino asked if the application was before the Planning Commission as a part of the appeal process or was there something specific that was being presented? Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated in order for the applicant to exhaust their remedies, it was before them as part of the appeal process. It was the same item that had been presented previously. Chair Whitaker asked if there was an analysis of facts. Mr. Sheatz stated the Director had reviewed the case and what had occurred on Maplewood and Craig Streets and had determined, from a business operating standpoint, they were like facilities. The issue was whether or not the site was operating as a single housekeeping unit. The item was before the Planning Commission to refresh and support the facts from the findings made by the Director. Chair Whitaker asked the Commissioners if there were any questions on the item. Commissioner Steiner asked if the home had been operating since 1999. Mr. Sheatz stated yes, that had appeared to be the case. Item No. 3 St. John Maron Church. Chair Whitaker asked if there would be questions on the item. Commissioner Cunningham stated he would have questions. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, stated in the Staff Report on page 10 the table's first sentence should read Sunday school not the preferred; the word "not" was missing. Commissioner Imboden stated he would have questions for Staff regarding the memo during the presentation. Item No. 4 Qwik Korner. Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions on the item. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 2 of 21 Item No. 5 Casa De Lazo. Commissioner Merino asked Staff if they anticipated any resistance for the proposed use. Ms. Thakur stated she had not anticipated any resistance. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated there was nothing additional to add. There was no further discussion. Administrative Session closed at 6:56 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2010. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2010 as written. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Imboden and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Whitaker ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 3 of 21 Commission Business: (2) APPEAL NO. 0527-10 -STEP-UP RECOVERY An appeal of the decision of the Community Development Director (CDD) in the denial for a reasonable accommodations (RA) request to permit ten residents and two house managers to reside at 506 N. Maplewood. The request specifically was for relief from the limitation of six tenants and a house manager at a Sober Living Facility as specified in the Orange Municipal Code Section 17.14.OSO.N. LOCATION: 506 N. Maplewood NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Planning Commission action on Appeal No. 0527- 10. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker opened the item to any questions for Staff. There were none. Chair Whitaker asked if the applicant was present for the item, Step Up Recovery? There was no response from ,the audience. Chair Whitaker stated the item was noticed for a 7:00 p.m. hearing and the Planning Commission Meeting had begun on time at 7:00 p.m., there was flag salute, call for Public Participation for items not agendized and there was a full report from Staff. Mr. Garcia stated he had understood that the applicant would be present for the meeting and he had not received anything further. Chair Whitaker opened and closed the Public Hearing. He brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion. Commissioner Merino made a motion to deny the appeal, Appeal No. 0527-10-Step Up Recovery, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker stated all of the Commissioners during the Administrative Session of the Planning Commission Meeting, including himself, reviewed all of the facts stated in the Staff Report. Those were facts included by both the appellant and by City Staff and he Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 4 of 21 concurred with the motion and the finding of facts; specifically with respect to denial of the Appeal. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, for clarification of the resolution and to bring the item back to the Commission; he asked if the denial was based on the findings of fact that had been made by the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Merino stated as the maker of the motion, absolutely. He stated one of the issues evident in the current information as it was in the previous submittal was a lack of a nexus between the need for a number of individuals at the site and the treatment of those individuals. There had not been substantiating information that convinced him and the underlying issue appeared to be that the financial interest of the operators was paramount and that was not necessarily a reason or motivation for the Planning Commission to base its decision. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting NEW HEARINGS: September 8, 2010 Page 5 of 21 (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2761-08 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0.0182-10 - ST. JOHN MARON CHURCH A proposal to modify the interior 14,667 square feet of administrative office space in an existing 27,211 square foot building and approval of an Administrative Adjustment for a 0.4% reduction, 1 parking space, in the total amount of required parking for the proposed church use. LOCATION: 300 S. Flower Street NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15332 (Class 32 - In-Fill Development Project) because the project site is less than five acres, has no value as a habitat for endangered or threatened species, would not significantly affect traffic, noise, water or air quality, and can adequately be served by all required utility services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 27-10 approving the conversion of 14,667 square feet of administrative office to a church use and parsonage within an existing 27,211 square foot building and Administrative Adjustment to permit a deficiency of one parking space from the total required church parking. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker opened the hearing to any questions for Staff. Commissioner Merino stated assuming that the charts provided with the memo were accurate, which were included in the Commissioner's hot file, where it indicated 21 floater spots, he wanted to be clear that if the spots actually existed and the float was there, would Staff be supportive of not having the condition that would not permit the church owned vehicle to be parked at the site? Currently Staff was stating that the applicant should not be allowed aStaff--owned vehicle due to the parking restrictions and if there was indeed a float, why would Staff object to a church van? Ms. Thakur stated the only reason that condition had been included was that when the applicant had initially submitted their statement of operations, they had not requested a church vehicle and during conversations with the church, it had been communicated that the church had not had an interest in securing a church vehicle. Upon receiving the Staff Report and reviewing the conditions, she believed they thought about a van in a bit more detail and entertained the possibility of having a church van in the future. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 6 of 21 Commissioner Merino asked, from a Staff perspective, what was the thought? Ms. Thakur stated it would not be an issue due to the staggered scheduling of the church events. Commissioner Imboden stated he understood that Staff supported the removal of Conditions No. 14 through 25. He asked if Staff supported the modification and revisions to Conditions No. 8, 10 and 12 that were referred to in a letter from Mr. Sheldon to the Planning Commission. Ms. Thakur stated yes, Staff supported the changes. Commissioner Cunningham asked on parking, was the calculation based on 2 people per vehicle for mass? Ms. Thakur asked if he was referring to the memo that had been provided by the applicant. Commissioner Cunningham stated he was referring to the Staff Report on page 13. It spoke to the highest number of church participants being present between the 11:00 a.m. service with 339 participants. It appeared to be calculated at 171 cars to be parked during that time. Ms. Thakur stated she was not following him. Commissioner Cunningham stated on page 13 in the third paragraph that referred to peak usage. Ms. Thakur stated the use was based on the parking analysis provided by the applicant and those were their assumptions of passengers per vehicle. Staff reviewed that data, but in determining whether there was adequate parking used, the parking requirements that were dictated by the code and outlined in Table 3 on page 6 of the Staff Report. With the modified request to have a van as opposed to having a deficiency of one parking space, that would then become two. Commissioner Cunningham stated he was attempting to get to the number of parking spaces needed for each mass. He had met with the applicant and applicant's representative and he was attempting to get at the number of necessary parking spaces given the number of anticipated church members that would attend mass. There were only two masses on Sunday and he was attempting to understand what the parking analysis was calculated on. There were different rules used in calculating number of members in attendance at a church service based on fixed seats or pews. Ms. Thakur stated Staff calculated the number of required parking spaces specifically by one parking space for every 30 square feet of assembly area, both for the sanctuary Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 7 of 21 assembly area as well as the ancillary uses. If Commissioner Cunningham was seeking specifics on the analysis based on vehicle occupancy, he could defer that to the applicant based on the analysis that they had provided. Commissioner Cunningham commented on Conditions No. 7 & 9 of the PC Resolution; on Condition No. 9 there was a requirement fora 15 minute gap between any scheduled church sanctuary use to provide sufficient time for ingress and egress and on site circulation. His concern was that it appeared to be micromanaging the church operations and he had not understood the point of the 15 minute requirement. He felt the church could operate just as efficiently without the City requiring a condition in the CUP. Ms. Thakur stated she was certain in reality that the church could self regulate themselves, the reason the Condition was included was that on Sunday there would be two church services; one from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and the other from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and there would be a one hour gap between the two, however, from 10:15 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. catechism classes would be in session and some of the parents could potentially be arriving at 10:00 a.m. If parishioners from the 9:00 a.m. service were still on site, Staff had wanted to allow a 15 minute cushion in order to allow vehicles to safely enter and exit without creating chaos or the need for street parking. It was more of an insurance measure. Commissioner Cunningham stated he understood the rationale, however, questioned the necessity of the Condition. Practically speaking, and he had spoken with the applicant who stated the mass was typically 45 minutes and would end at 9:45 a.m. With catechism beginning at 10:15 a.m. and parents with children waiting around, and from speaking from his own church experience there were generally a lot of people coming and going on a Sunday and no one got hurt and events were scheduled much more tightly than what was proposed on the application before him. He was questioning the necessity of that Condition. On Condition No. 7, and he recollected that the same type of Condition was used on a previous submittal by the Coptic Church; he asked if it was typical for a City to require churches to get an approval on their mass schedule from the City on their property? Ms. Thakur stated Condition No. 9, from a Staff perspective, was an insurance measure. While in reality things could work out; their concern was that the City would not want to deal with a problematic situation after the fact. The Condition was similar to many standard conditions that were applied to both churches and banquet facilities; it was a way to control potential chaos. With that stated, should the Commission decide that it was a Condition that they would want omitted, would Staff be receptive to that request. On Condition No. 7, it was a standard condition that was applied to churches as well as on Resolutions for other uses. The reason for the Condition would be if the church changed the scheduling of the church sanctuary events and their other uses, it would render the parking analysis useless; not to state the church would be locked into a schedule but if they wanted to change with Staff, notification and analysis could be completed to ensure it met the Conditions placed on the application. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 8 of 21 Commissioner Cunningham stated he understood the Conditions were in place to monitor the number of activities. Ms. Thakur stated it was not to monitor the number of activities. The City was more concerned with what activities occurred, where they occurred and the frequency of occurrence as those variables would come into play in determining the sufficiency of parking on site and if circulation would work. Commissioner Steiner stated that Commissioner Imboden had asked a question that he had been concerned with, in regard to Staff's concurrence with the modifications to Conditions 8, 10 and 12. He was very familiar with the site, it was a great building with all sorts of opportunities, for a church, banquet facility and he also felt there should be some flexibility in scheduling and would support the striking of Condition No. 9. He asked what sort of parameters would be placed on the church for a community event, such as a BBQ or a fair. Ms. Thakur stated if it was a festival or event that occurred within the church utilizing their parking lot or grounds for fellowship or congregation, there would not be a need to secure a permit. However, if it was a special event open to the public such as an event with carnival rides, they would need to secure a special events permit through the City and those would be approved administratively. Another item she wanted to note was on Attachment No. 6. The applicant had provided Staff with a list of dates that the banquet facility would be restricted to operate. Currently the building was owned by the Orange County Medical Association and they had overseen the operation of the banquet facilities. The applicant was currently in escrow to purchase the subject site and in essence, the church would become the new owner of the property and would oversee the banquet facility by utilizing a joint calendar for scheduling. The church had stated that all future banquet tenants would be restricted to operate on Sundays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Good Friday after 3:00 p.m., Holy Thursday after 7:00 p.m., Fridays during Lent after 7:00 p.m., Christmas between 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 and it would be completely non-operational two weekends per year during church festivals or special events. Those were not restrictions the City was placing on the banquet facility, but components that the church would include on their lease contract. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution as written, would the schedule of services included in Table No. 4, of page 9, be the churches schedule and any changes to the schedule require a change request through the Planning Department? Ms. Thakur stated that was correct. Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission. Steve Sheldon, address on file, stated he was representing the applicant. He thanked Ms. Thakur for all her hard work and professionalism. It was a fairly simple church application and due to the banquet facility and other overlapping issues, there was the Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 9 of 21 need for scheduling and conditions based on those components. He had read all the Conditions and the only ones that they wanted changed were those that had been submitted for the record which included Condition Nos. 8, 10 and 12 and Condition Nos. 14 through 25. Chair Whitaker stated he had met with Mr. Sheldon along with the Father a few days ago and the modifications to the proposed Conditions were to address the concerns that they had discussed at that meeting. Mr. Sheldon stated that was correct. Chair Whitaker asked if the applicants were willing to accept the Conditions as written, assuming that Staff was in acceptance of the strike out Conditions submitted by the applicant? Mr. Sheldon stated that was correct. Regarding the timing of services and catechism, they had gone back and forth with those Conditions and in protecting the City and neighbors, Staff was conservative in the times and he felt they could work with the times as proposed. A fifteen minute window was a bit tight, and an 8 to 10 minute window was more of a reality of how the church operated, but he was certain the church could work with Staff to work that out. Commissioner Merino stated he had also met with the applicant's representative and asked on Condition No. 9, the Staff was reticent to have no time between activities and there was chaos there as he had attended banquets at that site and there was a lot of parking juggling and a limited amount of ingress and egress between activities for vehicles. He asked if it was completely objectionable to the applicant to have some timing between events to allow a cushion for ingress and egress. Mr. Sheldon stated he definitely felt some time between events was appropriate and many cities placed conditions on church schedules and on the time between services and it was typical. The first service would be from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and the church might want to begin mass at 9:15, with a fifteen minute break for the start of catechism and they had felt the 15 minute gap might be a bit long as many children would go from mass to catechism and the concern from Staff was that there might be parents dropping children off at 10:00 a.m. and have a conflict with the first mass. If was from a practical standpoint that the timing gap was required. With the conclusion of catechism at 10:45 a.m., there would be another 15 minute gap requirement that they might want to narrow to 10 minutes. Commissioner Merino stated on the basic principal of having a gap between events to provide for traffic de-confliction, was the applicant agreeable to having such a requirement? Mr. Sheldon stated he understood the need and was in agreement with the requirements. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 10 of 21 Commissioner Cunningham stated he had a question for Father Bach. Father Antoine Bach, address on file, Pastor of St. John Maron Church, stepped forward to answer questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Cunningham stated when he had met with him, Father Bach had mentioned in referring to the schedule of masses included in the Staff Report, that he had preferred beginning mass at 9:15 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. and he would prefer that they included a schedule that the church preferred. As it stood if a change to the schedule was needed, the applicant would need to return to the Planning Department. He asked what the church preferred their schedule be. Father Bach stated he would want to begin mass at 9:15 a.m. and end at approximately 10:00 a.m. with catechism beginning 5 minutes later and they would then go to approximately 5 minutes prior to the next mass which would be scheduled at 11:00 a.m. Practically speaking most people arrived late, whether that was to mass or catechism. The times were very generic and people would stroll in sometimes 20 minutes late to both mass and catechism. It was just numbers on paper and people would do what they wanted to do. Commissioner Cunningham asked what percentage of parents who attended mass had their children remain on site for catechism. Father Bach stated approximately 30%. There would be some overlap, some people came to the early mass and then their children went to catechism, and some came later and remained for the next mass. Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for Public Comment. Andre Khoury, address on file, stated he was in support of the church in their community and he could send his kids to a neighborhood church. Gina Lazo, address on file, stated she lived with her family and had been a member of St. John Maron and supported having the church in their City. Abir Coury, address on file, stated she had been a member of St. John Maron for the past 10 years. As a church member and resident of Orange, she would support the church and ask that the Planning Commission support it too. Abdou Coury, address on file, thanked the Commissioners for their time and efforts and as a member of the church for 10 years would ask for their support on the CUP before them. Chair Whitaker closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 11 of 21 Commissioner Merino stated he supported the project. In regard to the comments regarding micromanaging; he had a greater hesitation to have the specifics of the masses provided and he was willing to maintain the 15 minutes between events as that would allow the applicant adjustments during the day in order to de-conflict the traffic. In his opinion and in hearing Staff, the concern was that the project, in a worst case scenario, would be underparked and it was the main factor in driving the scheduling requirements and there could be an impact on the site. He would lean towards maintaining the scheduling parameters as proposed and wcsuld allow the church flexibility. Commissioner Imboden stated his feelings were very much along the same lines as Commissioner Merino and the intention of having an interval between the church assembly times mitigated the somewhat borderline parking situation on the property and he had less concern regarding the planning of the events. The proposed requirement for a gap between events would mitigate those concerns. Commissioner Cunningham stated he welcomed St. John Maron to the City of Orange. It was a very wonderful ancient link to Christianity and the Middle East and it would be good to have it here in Orange. He would want Condition No. 9 eliminated altogether and realistically speaking the church could self regulate the activities of mass and catechism and he felt it was not necessary for Staff to step in and stipulate certain minutes between activities. He appreciated the sentiment of wanting to assure against future problems and he had not seen a track record of problems. Lacking a compelling rationale to keep the Condition, he would want to eliminate it. He would also support the revision of Condition No. 7 as he was concerned with the City minutely regulating the timing and schedule of church services. It would be one thing to have a say in the number of activities that would occur at a church site, but to require the church to come to the City if they wanted to start mass at 9:15 a.m. instead of 9:00 appeared to him to be overkill; it could be modified to be less onerous and less regimented. He would support the other changes as submitted by the applicant. He would want less micromanagement of the churches operations rather than more. Commissioner Steiner stated he was consistent with his feeling to remain silent on those two areas and had faith that the church would be able to conduct their own affairs and he recognized the difference in opinions and he would support modification or elimination of Conditions No. 7 and 9; and supported the recommendations by Staff. Chair Whitaker stated after listening to his fellow Commissioners and the testimony presented, his thought was that Condition No. 7 was not necessary and on Condition No. 9 to shorten the gap to 10 minutes. It would allow the church to schedule their sanctuary in a manner that would work for them as long as there would be a 10 minute gap. There would be an allowance for enough flux for parking, and with a two space deficit, there would be enough of a gap in scheduling to allow for egress and ingress and it would eliminate the need for the church needing to return to the Planning counter each time they required a change. The church would need to ensure that between uses they would build in a 10 minute gap. He proposed those changes. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 12 of 21 Chair Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 27-10, approving CUP 2761-08 and Administrative Adjustment No. 0182-10-St. John Maron Church, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the noted Staff and applicant amending Conditions No. 8, 10 and 12 and elimination of Conditions 14 through 25 and with the additional elimination of Condition No. 7 and a modification to Condition No. 9 to be 10 minutes. Commissioner Merino stated he would second the motion and ask that Table 2.0 which specified the actual activities of the church be eliminated. Chair Whitaker stated he would support removal of Tables 2.0 and 4.0. Commissioner Imboden stated for the record it should also be noted that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. Chair Whitaker stated he would add that to his motion and asked if there was any further discussion? There was none. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 13 of 21 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2758-10-QWIK KORNER A proposal to upgrade an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license for an existing convenience store. LOCATION: 481 S. Glassell NOTE: This proposed 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: This proposed 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.wireless communication facility consisting of six 1 sector panel antennas and a GPS antenna on an existing SCE tower on property zoned P-C. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker stated Sergeant Peterson from the Orange Police Department was present and he asked that he offer additional support of the Police Department's findings. Sergeant Peterson asked if Chair Whitaker was referring to the findings based on crime statistics. Chair Whitaker stated crime statistics and the general recommendation to deny. Sgt. Peterson stated the Police Department's recommendation was to oppose the proposed application. The findings were based on the site's proximity to a school, church and park and the saturation of ABC licenses within the area and the high crime rate in the area. From January of 2010 just at the address of 481 S. Glassell, there were 23 calls for service for that location or from the pay phone out in front of the business; or subjects that were contacted at that location. Out of the 23 calls, 4 were for arrests, 2 disturbances and 2 for unknown problems. Included in the study was Hart Park at 701 S. Glassell and from January 7, 2010, there were 366 calls for service; of those 31 were alcohol related, 23 drug related, 19 suspicious circumstances and 20 were disturbances. Chair Whitaker asked if there were any questions for Staff or the Police Department. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 14 of 21 Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Garcia if the Planning Commission were to deny the application, would they be removing the existing CUP at the site, or could alcohol continue to be sold at the subject location. Mr. Garcia stated alcohol could still be sold at the site. Commissioner Merino stated if the Planning Commission approved the application, would the City have the ability to provide additional conditions that had not currently existed. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission. Peter Whittingham, address on file, stated he was representing the ownership of Qwik Korner Market. The request before the Planning Commission was an upgrade to an existing ABC Permit. The applicant and previous owners of the market, dating back to 1975, had responsibly provided beer and wine for purchase under the existing permit. The current owner purchased the store approximately 2 years ago and had brought the same level of professionalism to the Orange location that they had demonstrated at their other locations throughout Southern California. Since the acquisition of Qwik Korner, the owners had made improvements both internally and externally and they had expanded the variety of merchandise to their customers. The owners had never received a violation related to their ABC license or any other violation related to the operation of their store. The owner held 7 ABC licenses and had never received a violation related to any of those licenses. The census tract allowed for 4 off sale licenses and 4 currently existed, including the current license that was in place for Qwik Korner. As mentioned, the license had been in place for some 35 years and it would be a stretch to believe that the upgrade to the license would create a spike in alcohol related crime or arrests. He appreciated the concern in the proximity to sensitive receptors in the area, primarily the church and school. They reached out to Holy Family Church several months ago to apprise them of the application and check if there were concerns. There were none at that time. He believed there were not any negative responses to the posted request for the ABC License. Mr. Garcia stated he had only had contact with one individual who had voiced support for the license from a resident on Cambridge. Mr. Whittingham stated what was important to note was that in granting the upgrade the Planning Commission, for the first time at that location, would have the ability to impose conditions governing all types of alcohol at the store. There were over 3 dozen potential conditions for the operation of the store; those included such items as business hours, security, size and quantity of offerings and signage. If the Commission acted to request that Staff prepare a Resolution in favor of the application, they looked forward to working with City Staff in developing conditions for the Planning Commissioner's subsequent review and approval. Approval of the application would be a win-win Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 15 of 21 situation for both the applicant and the City. Chair Whitaker opened the item to any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to ensure that the applicant was completely willing to accept all the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Whittingham stated yes, that was correct. Chair Whitaker stated there were some potential conditions for Qwik Korner, dated September 8, approximately 23 of them and at one point there had been 36 conditions. Mr. Whittingham stated there were over 3 dozen. Chair Whitaker asked if they were reviewing conditions that the applicant had proposed to the City. Mr. Whittingham stated he had not believed that to be the case. Mr. Garcia stated the conditions outlined were potential conditions that were typically standard for similar CUP's. If the Planning Commission moved forward to a recommendation for approval, City Staff would ask that they be allowed to consult with the Orange Police Department over the conditions of approval to ensure there were not any necessary changes, modifications or deletions to the conditions. The Police Department had seen the conditions, however, there had not been a discussion regarding actual conditions. Chair Whitaker stated there had been some discussion in the Staff Report regarding the additional 418 linear feet of total merchandise, 136 linear feet of beer and wine and adding 125 linear feet of alcohol for beer, wine and hard liquor which increased the percentage of linear feet; and he asked how that related to the percentage of sales increase and where would the hard alcohol be located within the store? Mr. Whittingham stated he believed the hard alcohol would be located behind the counter, as it was usually required by ABC. In terms of a percentage, the standard rule of thumb was anywhere within 10 to 20% of total sales would be alcohol and with the additional space, it would be a fraction of a percent increase, possibly 3%. Commissioner Merino stated he had a question for Sgt. Peterson. He asked if the Police Department had weighed the benefits of the new conditions against the upgrade, as the location would continue to have alcohol sales that were impacting issues the Police Department was concerned with, yet the City would have potentially new conditions that could address those concerns, and had the Police Department weighed those? Sgt. Peterson stated they had not. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 16 of 21 Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Steiner stated he understood Staff was not making a recommendation. Chair Whitaker stated that was his understanding. Commissioner Merino stated he believed with the Police Department's concerns would not change if the application was denied. He believed the opportunity to actually provide conditions to address some of the concerns and mitigate what the Police Department had identified far outweighed any concerns that the upgrade would create. In the current business climate, if the upgrade created an improvement for the business owner, it would be a win-win situation. If the store continued to be viable and there was a means to condition that would control some of the activities that could create potential problems, he would be in support of the application. Commissioner Cunningham stated he was in agreement with approving the application before them, the applicant had a good track record, a reputable business and there had not appeared to be a reason to deny the application. As Commissioner Merino had pointed out denying the application would not prohibit the sale of alcohol at that location. Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve, CUP No. 2758-09-Qwik Korner, subject to conditions that would be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval that would be created by City Staff and the applicant. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker NOES: Commissioner Steiner ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 17 of 21 (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2791-10 & DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE N0.4486-10 - CASA DE LAGO A proposal to operate a banquet facility in an existing commercial restaurant building. The applicant is also proposing to expand the existing 5,697 square foot restaurant/banquet facility with the addition of a 2,018 square foot enclosed patio area. In association with the enclosed patio expansion and operation of a banquet facility, the applicant is requesting a Type 47 (On-Sale General -Eating Establishment) and Type 58 (Caterer's Permit) Alcoholic Beverage Control License. As two previous CUPS (Nos. 834-77 and 855-78) are associated with the subject site and are outdated, the property owner is also volunteering to surrender all entitlements associated with those CUPs. LOCATION: 1615 E. Lincoln Avenue NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facility) because the project is for the expansion of a structure that is less than 10,000 square feet. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-10 approving the modification of CUP 2720-08 to permit a 24-hour drive thru lane and modifying the permitted hours of operation for the loading zone. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker opened the item to any questions for Staff. There were none. Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission. Jonathan Brown, address on file, stated first of all he wanted to thank Ms. Thakur, the City, Police and Fire Departments as they had all been excellent to work with and they had been very accommodating in helping him through the process. It was something that had blind-sided them as a business and he had not known that the issues existed when they had walked into the lease. They had gotten caught in a bad situation. The City had worked with them and he appreciated that. The one thing he wanted to point out was that it was very, very difficult to book a wedding and tell a customer it had to end at 10:00 p.m. He understood the responsibility that went with later hours and the ramifications; they had been in the catering business for the last 6 years as a company very successfully and had virtually no issues. The two phone calls that had been received by the Police Department were anonymous calls, and the Police Officers themselves stated they had Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 18 of 21 not perceived any issues when they had approached the site. That was his understanding as indicated to him by the Police Department. His request would be that on Friday and Saturday nights to allow events to end at midnight as opposed to 10:00 p.m. He would work with the Police Department and keep the parties under control; all the events they held were weddings and social type events. There were no parties and they were all controlled events. He felt they would have a problem if they had to tell customers that they needed to end their event at 10:00 p.m.; it would be difficult to conduct business. The City had his word and they would take whatever measures necessary to meet the City's requirements. They had other venues that operated until midnight and had no issues there, in San Clemente and Silverado Canyon. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to draw their attention to Condition No. 31, which stated the use of a promoter or subleasing a property for any reason, such as a nightclub was prohibited, he asked the applicant if he understood and accepted that condition without reservation? Mr. Brown stated yes, absolutely, 100%. Commissioner Steiner asked if the facility was limited to 75 guests. Mr. Brown stated that was only for breakfast and lunch, the hours were 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he could count on both hands how many events he would do for breakfast or lunch; it was not an area of focus for them. Every once in a while they would host a women's club that wanted to hold a luncheon for 50 people, but it was not what they marketed towards. Commissioner Steiner asked the applicant if he was familiar with all 56 Conditions of Approval. Mr. Brown stated he had reviewed them and the only one that jumped out at him was the 10:00 p.m. end time. Again it would not be for any other reason except to be able to have a very successful business. That was what was driving that need. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the 10:00 p.m. end time would only be a problem on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Brown stated he booked 90% of his events on those nights, Sunday was a bit easier with the next day being a work day and it was easier to sell to a client. Commissioner Cunningham stated on Condition No. 28 it stated entertainment, amplified music and dancing should be permitted during business hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and was he requesting an extension of the end time on Friday and Saturday of those activities as well? Mr. Brown stated what would be acceptable if alcohol had to be cut off at 11:00 p.m. and that gave an hour of down time before people went to their vehicles, and they always cut Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 19 of 21 their bars off 45 minutes prior to the end of an event, due to safety reasons. On the music, once music was turned off the event was over. He was not certain he needed the music until midnight, maybe 11:30 p.m. Chair Whitaker stated Staff had a number of Conditions of Approval and he wanted to ensure the applicant understood and could accept all of them. With respect to the amplified music in an enclosed patio and the reverberation off the lake to residential properties; being sensitive to business needs, if there was a cut off of music at 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday night with the actual close of business at midnight, he asked the applicant if that would be agreeable? Mr. Brown stated it was certainly better than what was initially proposed. If the Planning Commission recommended that he would accept that over a 10:00 p.m. close; would that make it harder to sell, yes, anything before midnight was harder to sell. He understood there were other venues with a 10:00 p.m. stop time and those locations had not stopped at 10:00 p.m. and he had not wanted to operate outside of the law. He had law enforcement in. his family and a very integris company. Chair Whitaker stated the Planning Commission could only regulate operation and land use and not the hours of sale of alcohol; that was why the hours of operation were being controlled and only the State had the ability to dictate when alcohol service stopped. They needed to be sensitive to the receptors in the area. Mr. Brown stated he had not believed ABC licensing had placed any restrictions on his business. Commissioner Cunningham stated on Condition No. l l which stated any event held in the banquet facility between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. shall not exceed a maximum of 75 guests and were there any events on Friday and Saturday that began before 5:00 p.m.? Mr. Brown stated none that he could recall and he had asked Staff if for any reason he had a request for an all day event with 200 people that they could go to the City to get a special events permit and that would be an exception. Chair Whitaker asked Ms. Thakur if the day time restriction was in place due to the occupancy of other tenants in the center and the potential impact on parking; rather than the actual capacity limit in the facility itself. Ms. Thakur stated that was precisely the reason for that condition. Commissioner Steiner asked if Sergeant Peterson had a perspective regarding the banquet facility operating until midnight. Sgt. Peterson stated it was the Police Department's standpoint that 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. was the desired hours of operation. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 20 of 21 Mr. Brown stated the recommendation from the Police Department in their letter had been 11:00 p.m. but had gotten changed. Ms. Thakur stated the change was made when the investigator, who had gone to the site, had interviewed Mr. Brown and the reason the condition was written with the end time for operation of the business at 10:00 p.m. was to be consistent with other entitlements for catering that the Commission had approved, namely Villa Catering, which was also in proximity to sensitive receptors. Ten o'clock p.m. was also the time listed in the noise ordinance, as after 10:00 p.m. people had a greater tendency to be sensitive to noise. Mr. Brown stated in regard to the noise he completely understood that noise could be the worst potential issue that could come up. One thing that they had done over the weekend was there had been open vents that he believed could have been the cause for noise leaking out; and they had been completely open vents. They had sealed those openings in the roof. Commissioner Steiner stated he was attempting to get a visual of where the business was located. There were a lot of houses on Katella and Shaffer. Chair Whitaker stated it was right next to Eisenhower Park. Commissioner Steiner stated it was not next to houses like Villa Catering was. Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt PC 26-10, approving CUP No. 2791-10 and DRC No.4486-10-Casa De Lago, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and permitting the banquet room to operate from 7:00 a.m. to Midnight on Friday and Saturday nights, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Cunningham stated he would second the motion with a clarification that the change in operating hours would apply to Condition Nos. 10 and 28. Commissioner Steiner stated he would amend his motion to include the change in hours on Friday and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to midnight and those changes would be noted for Condition Nos. 10 and 28. Commissioner Merino stated he was torn a bit on the motion; they had a great applicant before them, but the CUP would be in place for the site. He believed the hour cool down period and having the music cut off at 11:00 p.m. to allow the party to cool down for an hour would show some deference to the sensitive receptors in the area and he asked the maker of the motion if he would consider amending the motion to have music cease at 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights? Commissioner Steiner stated he would leave his motion as presented. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2010 Page 21 of 21 Commissioner Imboden stated he heard the concerns on both sides and in a perfect world 11:00 p.m. sounded good. However for weekend weddings, the business probably would require the midnight closure. From his perspective, he felt it was a different circumstance from Villa Catering. Villa Catering had residential properties adjacent and much closer and there had been a number of those residents present at that hearing who had shared their concerns over the project. He hesitated when there were residences nearby and noted there was a possibility of backing up on the issues if the problems got out of hand. He would fall in favor of the midnight end time. Chair Whitaker stated he would concur with those comments and Commissioner Steiner's motion. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED (6) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the next regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 20, 2010. Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on September 20, 2010. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Meeting Adjourned @ 8:30 p.m.