Loading...
2010 - September 20Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 1 of 12 Minutes Planning Commission September 20, 2010 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Vice Chair Cunningham opened the Administrative Session @ 6:50 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. He asked if there were questions regarding any of the Agenda items? Commissioner Imboden stated that on Item No. 2, Zone Change, there had been discussions regarding recusals of Commissioners when the General Plan was heard; and he asked if the Zoning Amendment would follow the same guidelines. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated the item would be continued, however, when the General Plan was heard there was segmentation on the General Plan components due to conflict areas and those conflict areas had been split. In regards to the same issue with zoning; in determining the conflicts he had consulted the FPPC and with the General Plan all Commissioners were able to participate with the exception of Scott Steiner on various sections of the General Plan due to a property being within the conflict area but there was a difference when zoning was being looked at. Commissioner Imboden might conflict out and the exact distinction on that conflict area would need to be checked out. Chair Whitaker had so many clients that touched the areas and the specifics of whether they presented conflicts for him would need to be determined. Commissioner Imboden stated he had not wanted to dance around the issue and find out there could be a conflict on the eve of the hearing. Mr. Sheatz stated he had spoken with Staff and had understood that the item would be continued due to a noticing situation and there would be time to resolve the conflict issue. Commissioner Imboden stated on Item No. 4, Watson's Drug Store, the building owner was a client of his and with 2 of the Commissioners absent there would not be a quorum for the item's presentation. He stated he would register an abstention on the motion for the item. Vice Chair Cunningham stated when the item came up on the Agenda they could determine an action and vote accordingly. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page2of12 Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated the continuance of items No. 1 and 2 would be taken care of as consent items as part of the agenda covering continued items. There was no further discussion. Administrative Session closed at 6:57 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None Continued Hearin Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated there were a couple of items that Staff would be requesting a continuance on. The first one was Peltzer Ranch Tree and Shrub Farm. The applicant needed to go before the Orange Park Acres Board Advisory Committee and that had been accomplished on September 16, 2010 and there had been insufficient time for Staff to receive a response from OPA and prepare a Staff Report for the Commission's consideration. Staff was requesting that the item be continued to October 18, 2010. (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2775-09 - PELTZER RANCH This project was continued from the August 2, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Due to a request by the applicant, the project was being continued to a date certain of October 18, 2010. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to continue CUP No. 2775-09-Peltzer Ranch, to a date certain of October 18, 2010. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting NEW HEARINGS: September 20, 2010 Page 3 of 12 (2) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1258-10-MIXED USE ZONING STANDARDS A proposal to add an ordinance amendment adding new mixed use zoning standards to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to establish zoning and implement the new mixed use land use designations of the 2010 General Plan and Zone Change 1258-10 applying new zoning classifications in order to achieve consistency- between General Plan land use designations and zoning in accordance with state law. LOCATION: CITY WIDE NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1815-09 for the Comprehensive General Plan Update was certified on March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed activity is within the scope of the previously approved General Plan and is adequately described in the previously certified General Plan Program EIR for purposes of CEQA. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 33-10 recommending City Council approval of an ordinance amendment adding new mixed use zoning standards and definitions to Title 17 of the OMC to implement the new mixed use land use designations for the 2010 General Plan. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 34-10 recommending City Council approval of Zone Change 1258-10 establishing consistency between General Plan Land Use designations and Zoning classifications in accordance with state law. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated notices had been sent out for the item and there had been additional notices that needed to be sent. Staff was requesting a continuance to a date certain of October 4, 2010. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to continue Zone Change No.1258-10 -Mixed Use Zoning Standards, to a date certain of October 4, 2010 due to the requirement to notice additional properties. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden and Steiner ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 4 of 12 (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2771-09 -HENRY'S GRILL A proposal for an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine -Eating Place) License for the opening of a new restaurant within the Plaza Historic District. LOCATION: 149 N. Glassell NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities) because the project is within an existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 29-10 denying a request for an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine -Eating Place) license due to the over concentration of licenses in the tract and the high volume of crime in the area. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Cunningham opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner stated he had a question for Sergeant Peterson. Sergeant Peterson came forward to address the Commission. Commissioner Steiner stated he noticed that the CUP for Henry's Grill was not being recommended by the Orange Police Department, but Watson's Drug Store was being recommended and he asked if the reason for that was due to different census tracts. Sgt. Peterson stated that was one of the reasons. It was based on concentration levels in the census tract. The census tract for Henry's Grill had twice the amount of concentration of licenses vs. the census tract for Watson's. Vice Chair Cunningham asked if the applicant had previous problems with any of their licenses or businesses in Orange, for the IHOP or Jalapeno's locations. Sgt. Peterson stated no. Vice Chair Cunningham invited the applicant to address the Commission. Todd Bellamy, address on file, stated he was one of the partners in the project and he wanted to mention a few things regarding the crime rate and their restaurant and the experience and licenses that they held. He wanted to speak about the experience of Henry's Grill. If someone wanted to go there and eat a burger, basically that was what Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 5 of 12 they sold and they wanted to be able to offer a beer to go with that. He felt that their business hours and their menu and the way they served would not contribute to any crime. There were security cameras there and there was no crime in the surrounding area. Basically, mostly what it was that they would not want to impede the choices of people wanting to come to Henry's to eat; if people had a choice of going to a location down the street that served beer vs. their location that could not serve beer. For Sunday morning brunch if someone wanted to go to Henry's after church or with their family and have a nice glass of wine with breakfast, salad or chicken salad and wanted to join that with a glass of wine, they wanted to be competitive with other locations around them. Watson's was a couple of blocks away, Jalapeno's was across the street, Haven was down the street and the restaurant business was very competitive and it was a hard business to run. One sensitive issue could damage a business and they were not looking to serve lots of beer and wine, it would be 1 to 2% of their sales. If a group of 6 wanted to go to a restaurant and 2 of those patrons wanted to have a beer and 4 of them had not wanted that, they might choose to go somewhere else and it could be a chain effect of people not going to their restaurant, word of mouth about how good their food and the service was would not get out. They wanted to remain competitive with the other businesses in the area. Being open from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. would not contribute to any of the crime statistics in the area. Other than those points, he totally respected the decision of the Police Department and he knew they were experienced. His partner had an IHOP and had been in business for 30 years and his father started Darby's 34 years ago in the City and they were passing on the torch to him and he wanted to be able to remain competitive with the other restaurants. The service and experience and the way they managed their restaurant would not affect any of the statistics and the crime rate in the surrounding area. Jack Selman, address on file, stated he was the building owner and it was kind of a co- application. He had prepared a PowerPoint, but it was not working and he handed the Commissioner a map of the quadrants that Sergeant Peterson had spoken about with the restaurant locations. He pointed out the area where Henry's was located and stated the restaurant was being judged on the census tract 32E; and the rationale being that across the street at Watson's the crime statistics was less than 49% in comparison to Henry's which was 105%, and he wanted to point out Henry's location which was noted with a yellow star. There were only 3 other beer and wine locations in the 23W quadrant and the only hard liquor location was the Elk's Club and he had thought that they had not caused a big problem. Hopefully the crime was not coming from them. On the bottom of the map where Watson's was there was only 2 existing. He was not certain how the intensity thing worked; and it had not seemed that on that side of the street it was that intense. His problem, and he hated to state anything .negative, and he respected the Police Department; he felt the numbers and the manner in which they looked at those numbers was not meaningful. The assumption was being made that there was no difference between beer and wine at a restaurant and a 2:00 a.m. bar and he felt it was important as Henry's was a place that served a burger and a beer. When they were interviewed by the Police Department they had agreed that there would be no happy hour and there would be no entertainment. It was obvious that the main element of their restaurant was food first. It was the same thing that Watson's wanted and it had been granted to the BBQ place a Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 6 of 12 year ago, as well as the new Italian place that had been granted recently. He had not agreed with the Police Department, they had crimes listed such as strong armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, commercial burglary, there were about 10 commercial burglaries and 20 residential burglaries, petty and grand theft, auto burglary, another 10 to 15 petty thefts and grand thefts, a bunch of those and then they had part 2 arrests. There was also a minor possessing alcohol, and they were not selling alcohol so that would not be an issue. There was a marijuana possession and DUI's which would be the relevant one. With the other crimes, someone would not have a burger and a beer and commit the other types of crimes; he had not felt there was a correlation between the high crime area and Henry's Grill. There was something else that was causing the crimes. As far as the DUI's, arguably at Henry's Grill someone could go there and have too many beers, however, he felt it would be more likely that someone would be at one of the hard liquor bars or just happen to be driving through the area and the point where a person was stopped would be the area where the crime stat would be logged. He was not certain that was quite right either. There was something in the statistics, but it had not led him to conclude that Henry's Grill would be a problem for the community. The Police Department's conclusion was that their recommendation opposing the CUP was due to the application only serving the interest of the business and not the City of Orange and he had not agreed with that. They would have a different menu and a different opportunity, different setting and they had a great patio with trees in the back and it presented a good option for the City of Orange. The Police Department's strategic plan was to provide for a safe community and enhance and promote quality of life; and again he felt the restaurant promoted a good quality of life within the community. The final conclusion from the Police Department was that the likely increase of serving beer and wine would increase calls for service and he had not agreed with that. Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification, referring to the percentages that he had included on the map what had those been referencing? Mr. Selman stated on the 105%, the average in Orange was 77% and those were referring to the crime statistics contained in the Police Report. Commissioner Imboden stated that included in his data were those restaurants with licenses and not liquor stores or other businesses with alcohol sales. Mr. Selman stated that was correct, he wanted to compare restaurants only. Vice Chair Cunningham opened the hearing for Public Comment. Al Ricci, address on file, stated Old .Towne Orange was becoming a restaurant destination and he thought at last count there were 27 restaurants in Old Towne. It was necessary for those restaurants to serve beer and wine as a compliment to their menu. Less than 5% of sales in a typical restaurant were for beer and wine and Henry's was not a bar. Currently there were 22 licenses per the Police Department's report and the ABC over concentration number was 8; over concentration went out the window 14 applications ago and not including what was on the current Agenda. He felt the Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 7 of 12 application was needed because the restaurant was a full service restaurant and it was open 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and it held 36 people and there were restaurants in Old Towne that only served lunch and breakfast and they had beer and wine licenses. The operation of Henry's necessitated beer and wine service. As far as the crime statistics which Mr. Selman referred to, those were developed into quadrants but there were no walls between Chapman and Glassell where people could go across and commit a crime and being divided into quadrants was not a real good argument and all of Old Towne had more crime. The reason Old Towne had more crime was that more people came to Old Towne. He was certain that when the City had vacant stores and antique stores, that there wasn't a lot of crime, but now that there were more restaurants and a lot of people there would be an increase in crime and he was not certain if the crimes were alcohol related, but when there were more people, there would be more crime. He felt Henry's should be able to serve beer and wine and that Mr. Medali owned two other restaurants in Orange and he had been a very responsible retailer and he urged the Commissioners to approve the license. Vice Chair Cunningham brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Steiner stated if the Planning Commission allowed the on sale beer and wine at Henry's, he asked Vice Chair Cunningham if they would expect that there would be conditions of approval attached to the CUP, such as those for Watson's CUP that contained 29 conditions of approval, as far as the City's requirement in allowing the CUP? Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated if the Planning Commission permitted Henry's to receive a beer and wine license, it would be subject to a resolution that would return to the Planning Commission with all the Conditions Staff would craft with the Police Department and it would be placed on the Agenda as a consent item to allow the CUP requirements to be debated in an open forum. Vice Chair Cunningham stated he was inclined to approve the applicant's request for a Type 41 liquor license and there was a lot of merit in the arguments made by the applicant and Mr. Ricci in regard to the census tract, as it appeared they were just lines on a map and Old Towne was a whole. As Mr. Ricci pointed out, there was not a wall that kept people from crossing Glassell. He had not seen a correlation between another Type 41 license and an increase in crime and he was not opposed to permitting a license to Henry's. Commissioner Imboden stated he agreed with the applicants and their representatives in that they had stated a fair case. As Mr. Ricci pointed out, the over concentration had happened quite some time ago which led to another issue which he would address and stated he supported the application. He had often argued that the census tract data was somewhat flawed and problematic if they only simply reviewed that document; of course there was concentration in certain districts rather than others and that was because they used zoning which concentrated similar uses and therefore indicated the incidence of Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page8of12 higher concentrations in some districts vs. others. That was obvious and there needed to be some further correlation, and he had not seen that correlation with the application before them. In regard to the over concentration, not only had they brought a number of restaurants to the downtown area of Orange with a lot of vitality, but a frequent concern he was hearing were concerns with the management of the success that Old Towne Orange was experiencing, not only had more restaurants been brought to the Plaza but there was also traffic and parking issues that the City was not addressing. At some point he believed they would need to begin pulling the plug on some of the requests. It was not anything against the application before them as he was in full support of the CUP. He wanted to draw a line in the sand and he stated that at some point the management of the success of downtown needed to be controlled or else it could fall on its face if that was not done. Commissioner Steiner stated the Planning Commission reviewed applications on a case by case basis and on some occasions they were very supportive of the recommendations by Staff and the Police Department and at other times they might have some disagreements. There was a fine line in terms of the vitality in the Old Towne area and they had not wanted a situation that was seen sometimes in Fullerton, and it was a fine line with law enforcement and there needed to be reasonable accommodation of the various uses. He had never spent as much time as he had recently in downtown Orange after having lived in the City for 42 years, there were wonderful restaurants in the area. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to adopt PC 29-10, approving CUP 2771-09- Henry's Grill, subject to conditions of approval and requesting that Staff draft a review resolution, noting that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Steiner AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 9 of 12 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2783-10 - WATSON'S DRUG STORE AND SODA FOUNTAIN A proposal to approve an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine - Eating Place) License in an existing 1,751 square foot restaurant area within the larger 4,454 square foot Watson's Drug and Soda Fountain building. LOCATION: 116 E. Chapman NOTE: This 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 is within an existing restaurant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-10 allowing an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 License. Commissioner Imboden stated he would abstain on the item as he had a business relationship with the property owner. Vice Chair Cunningham stated with the recusal of Commissioner Imboden to hear the item, and the absence of two Commissioners it would only leave 2 Commissioners and a quorum was needed to hear the item. He apologized to those present for the presentation of the item and the need for a continuance. Vice Chair Cunningham made a motion to continue CUP No. 2783-10-Watson's Drug Store and Soda Fountain, to a date certain of October 4, 2010, due to a lack of quorum. SECOND: Commissioner Steiner AYES: Commissioners Cunningham and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Imboden ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 10 of 12 (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2802-10 - SNYDER RESIDENCE A proposal to install plumbing facilities (sink and toilet) in a new, detached accessory structure. The accessory structure that is currently under construction will have an office, recreation and restroom. The proposed restroom would be 42 square feet. LOCATION: 1341 E. Jacaranda NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities) because the project involves addition of plumbing facilities within the building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 32-10 approving a toilet and sink within a 660 square foot detached accessory structure upon property zoned R-1-6. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Cunningham opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none. Vice Chair Cunningham invited the applicant to address the Commission. Kerry Snyder, address on file, stated Staff had been very helpful. He had discussions with the Mayor, City Attorney and City Staff and they agreed that the particular process for a CUP .for a sewer line could be an administrative review, as Staff would recommend the project with conditions; and that it could be handled at the counter with issuance of a permit. It would save 3 months of going through a public hearing and $1,000.00 in CUP fees. It was pretty basic, but very onerous for anyone going through the process and he stated the code needed to be changed. The City Attorney had stated the same thing that he was wasting his time standing before them and that he could be home by now. He was not opening a restaurant or putting a bar in the facility; it was basic and an administrative review by a Staff member as long as the conditions were met would be enough. He felt the Planning Commission or City Council needed to review the process. It was extremely expensive. Chair Cunningham opened the hearing for public comment. Adrianne Forester, address on file, stated she had acquired the property in the mid 70's and at the time they purchased the property, it had been zoned Light Industrial and they had just received the notice in the mail. Vice Chair Cunningham asked which item was the notice referring to. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 11 of 12 Ms. Forester read from her document. Vice Chair Cunningham stated she was referring to the Zoning item that had been continued to October 4, 2010. Ms. Forester stated the letter was dated September 9, 2010, but she had just received the notice 2 days ago. She asked what she needed to be prepared for with regard to the notice. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated she could contact Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, for further clarification and to discuss any concerns. Ms. Thakur assisted the speaker with locating the contact information on the letter. Vice Chair Cunningham brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Steiner stated as he was a new appointee to the Commission he asked if he could get some feedback from Staff regarding Mr. Snyder's comments. Mr. Knight stated the reason the CUP was brought before the Commission was due to the City's code requirements. Generally speaking the zoning code in regard to similar uses had seen changes over the years; a property owner could build a granny unit, accessory unit that had not required a Conditional Use Permit and the facility could have plumbing and considered a second dwelling unit on the site. He could not state it was an item that should not be reviewed; it was part of a zoning code that had existed for many decades and it could obviously be amended to what the applicant was indicating. At present, the rules required that accessory structures that contained plumbing required CUP's. That requirement evolved from a point in time when plumbing installations were easy and units could be changed out to independent living units and it had been a concern within the community. He had worked in several cities over several decades and it was a common requirement in every city he had worked in. Commissioner Steiner stated he assumed there was a process, such as the General Plan Amendment, that after many years, rules, regulations and requirements were looked at and there were opportunities to review those that were diminutive and could be dealt with administratively. There was opportunity for dialogue regarding those issues and changes. Vice Chair Cunningham stated he agreed with Commissioner Steiner's comments and it had made sense in regard to the time and money spent, and it would be something that would be under the City Council's jurisdiction to review and recommend changes. He encouraged the applicant to speak with the City Council members regarding his concerns. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt PC 32-10, approving CUP No. 2802-10- Snyder Residence, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. Noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2010 Page 12 of 12 SECOND: Commissioner Imboden AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (6) ADJOURNMENT: Adjournment to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, October 4, 2010. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on October 4, 2010. SECOND: Commissioner Steiner AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED Meeting Adjourned @ 7:41 p.m.