2009 - July 6Planning Commission July 6, 2009
Minutes 1 of 12
Minutes
Planning Commission D~pO,~ July 6, 2009
City of Orange i i~ Monday-7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:52 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Item No.l, Approval of the minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of June
1, 2009. Commissioner Merino stated he had changes and corrections to the minutes of June
1,2009. The changes and corrections were recorded.
Item No.2, Approval of the minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of June
15,2009. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had a correction to the minutes of June, 15, 2009.
The correction was recorded.
Item No.3, Ordinance Amendment No. 06-09. Chair Steiner stated Assistant City Attorney
Gary Sheatz would present the item and be available for questions.
Item No.4, CUP, MSPR, AA 8L DRC, Villa Park Catering. Commissioners Merino and
Whitaker stated they would have questions on the item in regards to parking. Associate
Planner, Robert Garcia would present the item.
Chair Steiner asked if all Commissioners would be present for the next meeting? All
Commissioners present stated they would be there. Chair Steiner asked for any additional
information from Staff?
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated she only had one request to have all
Commissioners speak directly into the microphones as there had been some problems with
audibility during the last few meetings.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session closed at 7:01 p.m,
Page 1 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6,2009
2of12
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
June 1, 2009.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Planning
Commission Meeting of June 1, 2009 with the changes and corrections noted in the
Administrative Session.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham
MOTION CARRIED
(2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
June 15, 2009.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Planning
Commission Meeting of June 15, 2009 with the changes noted in the Administrative
Session.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham
MOTION CARRIED
NEW HEARINGS:
(3) ORDINANCE NO. 06-09 -AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ORANGE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS FOR REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS IN THE
PROVISION OF HOUSING
A proposal to establish, by ordinance, a process wherein persons with disabilities can
request relief from the strict application of the City's rules and regulations to
accommodate their disability.
LOCATION: City wide
Page 2 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2009
3of12
NOTE: The proposed ordinance amendment is not subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) because it does not meet the definition of a "project"
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. The
proposed ordinance merely establishes procedures for the City
and an applicant to follow when considering an application for
a reasonable accommodation from the zoning code. If a
reasonable accommodation is granted, then additional
entitlements may be required and the appropriate environmental
analysis will be conducted at that time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 30-09 recommending
that the City Council adopt Ordinance 06-09 to establish a
procedure to consider requests for reasonable accommodations.
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing with any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the three standards set forth for finding reasonable
accommodations were directly from the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Commissioner Whitaker stated they were just codifying what the Federal Law stated.
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Commissioner Whitaker stated as they had made those decisions in the past such as with
respect to a variance request and other things, he asked if those were the same standards
they had looked at in making those determinations?
Mr. Sheatz stated they were. Unfortunately it had not necessarily flushed out that way or
as clear as it had been spelled out in the Ordinance. Staff had looked at the criteria and
then fashioned it into something that was already in existence, such were the findings for
a variance.
Commissioner Whitaker stated what he was attempting to ascertain was that they were
not reviewing something new as the Commission had already taken those ideas into
consideration when fashioning their responses on previous items.
Mr. Sheatz stated he was correct.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for action.
Page 3 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2009
4of12
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 30-09, recommending approval to
the City Council of Ordinance No. 06-09-Amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal
Code to add provisions for reasonable accommodations for disabled persons in the
provision of housing.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham
MOTION CARRIED
~r~
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2751-09, MINOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 599-09, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4419-09 AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 173-09 - VILLA PARK
CATERING
A proposal to expand an existing 4,588 square foot restaurant/banquet facility. The
expansion will consist of a 3,512 square foot banquet room and an open air patio area.
Along with the expansion, the applicant is requesting a modification to the existing
alcoholic beverage control (ABC) license, thereby allowing alcohol to be served in the
entire 8,1 00 square foot restaurant/banquet facility.
As three previous CUPS (642, 1118-81 and 2437-03) are associated with the subject site
and are outdated, the property owner is also volunteering to surrender all entitlements
associated with those CUPS.
LOCATION: 510 E. Katella
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 Facilities) because
the project is for the expansion of a structure that is less than
10,000 square feet.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 25-09 to allow the
modification to an existing ABC type 47 license for the expansion
of an existing restaurant/banquet facility and for reduction of
required parking.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff .
Commissioner Merino stated he had a housekeeping question on the recommended action
Page 4 of 12
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2009
Sof12
that was published on the agenda. Those had not noted the variance as part of the
recommended action and he wanted to verify that it had not been missed purposefully,
and' he asked if there was something that should be added to the recommended action for
the variance approval?
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated the proposed project had not included
a variance, it was an Administrative Adjustment. The recommended action indicated was
adopting the resolution to allow modification to the existing ABC Type 47 for the
expansion of an existing restaurant/banquet facility and for reduction of required parking.
Commissioner Merino asked if there should be a notation regarding the Administrative
Adjustment?
Chair Steiner stated he believed the language referencing Resolution 25-09 was the
inclusive language, and he asked Staff if that was correct?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was correct. For the last year to year and a half the
recommendations were expanded on in the recommended action on the agenda itself.
Back in the day, the recommended action would have stated adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 25-09 and that was it. They had tried to add a little bit of language and
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz might want to expand on that. In making the motion,
the Resolution would be adopted and the language was just a very short summary of what
had been requested.
Commissioner Merino stated he had asked the question as previously the recommended
action had identified each component of the decision process and he wanted to verify that
everything was okay.
Chair Steiner asked Mr.. Sheatz if there was anything about the absence of the
Administrative Adjustment in the recommended action that would render any decision
regarding Item No.4 in anyway.
Mr. Sheatz stated no.
Commissioner Merino stated on the parking issue, there was a reference to the American
Planning Association and the Institute of Traffic Engineers reports. He asked if that was
sufficient basis for allowing, without prejudice to the proposed project, consideration of a
variance or any type of modification to a standard decision influencing the City
Ordinances that were in place?
Chair Steiner stated just to be clear; he asked Commissioner Merino if he was referring
specifically to page 6 of the Staff Report, first paragraph?
Commissioner Merino stated yes, that was correct.
My. Garcia stated those were documents that they looked to for guidance when the
applicant was not able to meet the parking requirement. They use those reports that
Commissioner Merino referred to as a rule of thumb.
Page 5 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2009
6of12
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was just a basis and a bit more background information
giving them another benchmark of what other cities might be looking at, what the
industry standard might be and all cities would deal with things differently. The reports
gave them a little more information when looking at the Administrative Adjustment.
Commissioner Merino stated the reason he brought it up was that it was documented in
previous meeting minutes he had specifically brought up those issues in reference to an
application and looking at those, the standards within the documents, which were an issue
of concern on another project. His concern was that Staff had the appearance of utilizing
a particular document to support a case and on another case that document was not used
or used and then Staff reverted back to the Ordinance. He wanted to understand where
Staff was coming from in giving weight to the Ordinance or to the documents referenced
in the Staff Report and how had they been applied?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she had not known what other project Commissioner
Merino referred to and she could not speak to that project, but on the proposed project,
they were looking at a reduction of 4%, which is roughly 4 spaces of the required 98
spaces. From a Staff viewpoint, it was a very small reduction and one of the reasons it
had fallen under an Administrative Adjustment and not a variance. The code looked at
4% as being so small, and if there had not been other factors for presenting the item to the
Planning Commission, the proposed project would have gone directly to the Zoning
Administrator. The Staff Report provided further information on how another agency,
such as the AP A, might review the matter. It was up to the Planning Commission on
making a determination. The findings for an Administrative Adjustment were much
different than those for a variance, they were much simpler and they had been intended to
be that way.
Commissioner Merino stated that went to the heart of why he had brought the issue up.
On several occasions the Planning Commission had to wrestle with whether the
Ordinance should be upheld or the Commission's discretion and he wanted to be clear in
looking at the proposed project. The Planning Commission had discretion based on the
supporting information provided by Staff and if those documents proved persuasive or the
Ordinance outweighed those documents, it became a discretionary view of either the
supporting documents or the Ordinance.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it came down to whether the Planning Commission could
make the findings.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was a bit confused as on page 5 of the Staff Report
there were two instances where it stated the parking would be going from 98 to 92 with a
reduction of 6 spaces, and it was stated another way; that parking was at 107 spaces and
parking would be reduced by 15 spaces to be at 92. In flipping to page 6 it appeared the
request was fora 4% reduction in the required parking to bring the parking down to 94
spaces. He asked, without having to count the spaces on the floor plan, was it 92 or 94?
My. Garcia stated it was 94 spaces; the applicant was able to add two more spaces to bring
the parking up from 92 spaces.
Page 6 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2009
7of12
Commissioner Whitaker commented related to the outdoor patio, he had reviewed all the
conditions and there were many restrictions on what the outdoor patio on the southern
location would ultimately be able to do. Food could not be served there, no alcohol
service would be allowed, and in reviewing the southern elevation, it was difficult to see.
He asked if the space that appeared not to be able to be used had not added to the
architectural features of the proposed project and they were seeking to reduce parking.
Could that patio be eliminated and the space used to gain parking? There was a
residential area adjacent to the site and part of the finding was that the proposed project
would not be detrimental to the residents surrounding the facility. Banquets would tend to
have more traffic than an in and out restaurant when they were operational, and his
concern would be to have as much parking possible while allowing the owner flexibility
to do what he wanted. There was a space that the City was placing restrictions on and he
asked why they needed that space?
Mr. Garcia stated that was something they could discuss with the applicant.
Commissioner Merino stated the project was noticed and was there individuals from the
neighborhood who felt the proposed project would have an impact on them. Those
residents would have had, the opportunity to speak on the item, was that correct?
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Applicant, Tim Zimprich, address on file, stated there were conditions on the patio area
that no food or alcohol would be served in that area. The only reason they included that
space into their project was to accommodate smokers. The patio area would remain
closed and the neighbors were aware of the addition.
Commissioner Whitaker stated as they had on a similar situation when a restaurant
wanted to have banquet hours and live music, the live music in the current proposed
conditions was limited to wedding receptions or a special event and not open to public
events. He asked the applicant if he would be amenable to an additional condition that
when there would be live music, the door to the patio would need to be closed at all
times.
Mr. Zimprich stated the door would be closed at all times and he would not have a
problem with that condition.
Commissioner Whitaker stated on Condition No. 45, it referenced a door located on the
outside patio area, and he was attempting to clarify which door this pertained to, and was
it the patio door that went to the parking lot or was it the patio from the interior space to
the patio? The condition stated the door would remain closed during business hours and
used as an emergency exit door only. If patrons would use that door to gain access to the
patio, it could not be labeled emergency exit only.
Mr. Zimprich stated the door on the patio was the emergency exit door.
Page 7 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6,2009
8of12
Chair Steiner asked if there was a door on the patio leading to the parking lot.
Mr. Zimprich stated there was a door that lead to the parking lot from the patio area.
Chair Steiner stated Commissioner Whitaker made a good point as Condition No. 45
stated the door located on the outside patio area shall remain closed during business
hours, and it would not make sense to have that apply to the door that led from the
interior space to the patio.
Commissioner Whitaker stated it read to be used as an emergency exit only and signs
would be posted on emergency exits only and that had not made sense to him.
Applicant, Jon Califf, address on file, stated the patio door that led to the outside parking
lot was a required emergency exit door. The door on the plans had been moved to the east
elevation and scaled back to a more appropriate area. The exit door faced east and it was
on the exterior patio area leading to the parking lot.
Chair Steiner asked Commissioner Whitaker if his question regarding Condition No. 45
had been answered.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he understood the door situation and a change in the
language might be necessary.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Comment portion of the hearing.
Sergio Sondowsky, address on file, stated he had a couple of questions. The first question
was about parking. Prior to the current applicant taking over. the adjacent parcel there had
been overflow parking along Shaffer Street. He felt that the overflow condition would
continue, since the proposal was short in parking. The second question was regarding
noise. The residents directly to the south of the proposed project had no protection or
screening. There would be people on the patio smoking and he suggested that they put up
another wall or something outside to mitigate that issue. With the last question, it was
unclear to him what the parking requirement was. He wanted to know how the required
parking. had broken down into square feet of lost space based on the City Standards. Was
there enough parking to do the addition at all?
Chair Steiner asked Staff what the overflow situation was on Shaffer or if the applicant
could provide clarification?
Mr. Zimprich stated he was not aware of an overflow problem on Shaffer. He stated that
the curb along Shaffer was painted red.
Mr. Garcia stated as with any other business, the business owner would be required to
provide onsite parking and offsite parking was not allowed to be used in order to meet the
parking requirement.
Chair Steiner asked if there would be a parking situation in the future, such as an
overflow problem on Shaffer, would that be something a resident could report and the
Page 8 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6,2009
9of12
City could take action on and would the business owner be responsible for overflow
parking?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they would review a parking problem on a case by case
basis; was it an anomaly or was it something that was an ongoing problem? It would
begin with an inquiry to the business owner to ascertain if they were having too many
people at their events or that type of thing, and the worst case scenario being that the
project would be brought back to the Planning Commission with possible revocation of
the ABC License or something of that nature. Staff would attempt to work with the
business owner on their onsite parking.
Chair Steiner asked Staff, with respect to the screening efforts on the patio, if there was
any particular feedback to that concern.
Mr. Garcia stated the patio area was completely enclosed with walls.
Chair Steiner asked, with respect to the parking, what was the actual number of parking
spaces required under the City Standards for the project?
My. Garcia stated the requirement was for 98 parking spaces. The proposed project was
for 94 spaces and the 4 space deficit was the reason for the Administrative Adjustment.
The reason for the reduction in the 4 spaces was to comply with the 30' drive aisle, which
the applicant does not currently comply with.
Commissioner Whitaker stated, in reference to the 4 spaces, on Al.l of the plan, currently
there were spaces there and he had visited the site many times; his question was when
those 4 spaces were created, had the site been non-compliant at the time or was it non-
compliant due to current code in regards to the drive aisle?
Mr. Garcia stated the applicant was not currently compliant with the proposed project.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if there was the ability to grandfather in those existing
spaces or had the additions to the property necessitated the change? Was there a way to
state, because the spaces had existed to leave them there, as the traffic pattern currently
flowed well? As an individual who had been on that property, he was reviewing it with
less concern for the 30' drive aisle as he was with the loss in the 4 parking spaces.
Commissioner Whitaker stated when that site was busy, there was not enough parking
and that was a fact.
My. Garcia stated that issue became a traffic concern and it would be a Public Works
determination.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated a 30' drive aisle off an arterial was for stacking and safety
purposes. If that was something the Planning Commission would want to consider
revising, she would check the code; it would likely necessitate a variance. It would be a
deviation from the standards and would not have been a part of the project that had been
- noticed. Staff could review that and there would need to be a reason to do that based on
reviewing the findings and the need for a variance. There was nothing substantially
different in the lot size
Page 9 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6,2009
10 Of 12
or the lot itself, it was rectangular and the topography was flat and those were things that
they looked at.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the applicant had not come before the City for their
project, would Staff go out to the site and tell the applicant that he had to close off spaces
for accommodation of the drive aisle.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated when an applicant comes to the City with a request for a
change or upgrade to their property, they look at upgrading the entire site and bringing
that site up to code.
Commissioner Merino stated the basis Staff was .asking the Planning Commission to
consider, the change which required an Administrative Adjustment, were based on the
two documents, the American Planning Association Standards and Institute of
Transportation Engineers. Assuming those were valid and that Staff supported those
documents in their request for a recommendation on the proposed project, he stated the
concerns that were presented were somewhat alleviated based on the supporting
documents. The concerns expressed by Commissioner Whitaker were somewhat
mitigated if the issues were analyzed based on the documents provided. Commissioner
Merino stated he had a question for the applicant and it was sort of the Quan's question;
were there types of activities, and he had been to the proposed project site, were the
activities not those types of activities where patrons would park onto the side streets
because there was a giant disco thing going on, and based on the comments made by the
applicant that there were red curbs, and based on the types of activities anticipated it
would support the Staffs position that the parking overflow might not occur? He stated he
felt the activities at the proposed project site were not activities that were huge parking
generators. He asked the applicant if he agreed with that statement.
Mr. Zimprich stated he had not anticipated that type of activity. The overflow parking had
been to the adjacent business which he now owned and that eliminated an overflow
parking situation. He now owned that property.
Commissioner Merino stated the applicant had addressed his parking situation by
purchasing the property that the overflow had been parking on anyway. If an issue was
created by the adjacent property that would need to be addressed, however, it was not the
project that was before them.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was not.
Mr. Sondowsky began to speak from the audience.
Chair Steiner addressed Mr. Sondowsky and stated he had a chance to speak at the
podium during the Public Comment portion of the meeting and he was unable to take
further comment from him. He stated if he wished to speak to the applicant or Staff, he
was free to do so after the hearing closed. There was a limit to Public Comment at the
podium for 3 minutes during that session of the meeting. The Planning Commission and
Staff had made an effort to answer his concerns.
Page 10 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission July 6,2009
Minutes 11 of 12
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion.
Commissioner Merino stated based on the discussion with the applicant and Staff and
their reliance on the documents presented, it was reasonable to assume that the parking
issue would be mitigated by the applicant's purchase of the adjacent property to
accommodate the overflow concern. With that, the remainder of the issues were
conditioned adequately to enable him to support the proposed project.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he still had a concern regarding the number of parking
spaces, but he had not received sufficient evidence from the public that the lack of the
four spaces would be detrimental. The City's Standard on Administrative Adjustments
was a lower standard and he had not received sufficient evidence to not allow him to
make the findings, and although he had concerns, he would be able to support the project.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 25-09, to allow modification to an
existing ABC Type 47 License for the expansion of an existing restaurant/banquet facility
and reduction to the required parking, noting the project was categorically exempt from
CEQA.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he would second the motion with modifications to
Condition No. 45 to change the language: the door located on the outside patio to read
from the outside patio area to the parking lot shall remain closed and used as an
emergency exit only. On Condition No. 46 to add: " ... shal 1 not be used for the staging
of live music."
Commissioner Imboden stated there had been an initial Issue with the back door
remaining in a propped open state.
Commissioner Merino stated he would withdraw his motion to allow additional changes.
Commissioner Whitaker stated that was a good point, the interior door to the patio. He
stated on Condition No. 42 to add language: " ... in particular the door from the interior of
the establishment to the exterior patio, including but not limited to."
Commissioner Imboden stated that would take care of the issue.
Chair Steiner asked Commissioner Merino based on those changes would he be willing to
make the motion again?
Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to be certain that Staff understood those changes
that had been crafted from the dais.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Garcia if he had heard the proposed changes and were they clear
to him.
Mr. Garcia stated he had heard the proposed changes and he would gain clarification from
the meeting minutes.
Page 11 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes July 6,2009
12 of 12
Commissioner Merino stated he would re-motion with those changes to Condition No.
42, Condition No. 45 and Condition No. 46 to adopt PC 25-09, to allow modification to
an existing ABC Type 47 License for the expansion of an existing restaurant banquet
facility and reduction to the required parking, noting the project was categorically exempt
from CEQA.
Chair Steiner asked if he had read the recommended action from the Staff Report.
Commissioner Merino stated it was read from the Meeting Agenda.
Chair Steiner asked if he would re-motion and read from the Staff Report.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 25-09, approving CUP No. 2751-09,
MSPR No. 599-09, DRC No. 4419-09, and AA No. 173-09, to allow the modification to
an existing Alcoholic Beverage Type 47 License, CUP 2450-03 for the expansion of an
existing restaurant/banquet facility and reduction in required parking at 510 E. Katella
Avenue.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker as amended to Conditions 42, 45 & 46.
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham
MOTION CARRIED
(5) ADJOURNMENT
Chair Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on Monday, July 20, 2009.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:42 P.M.
Page 12 of 12 Pages