2006 - September 18
~ """pv~ r.. 'I'l: nr,,; If'"
J'-~._ 1t-',... '~'\~, \i, ,~~_, :ii l w '11
J t., ,'~~' .~....\ _' ,.-",. v ;;,__~ i.",j"
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
September 18, 2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
IN RE:
INRE:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden
Commissioner Steiner
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
MAY 16,2005, AUGUST 21, 2006 AND SEPTEMBER 6, 2006.
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2593-06 - TROPI JUGOS, INC.
Adoption of Resolution No. PC 38-06 confirming denial of Conditional Use Permit No.
2593-06.
Chair Bonina made a motion to approve the consent calendar.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden
None
None
Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2591-06 - FROGS BREATH CHEESE
STORE (PRISCILLA MADRID)
A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 42 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for
Public Premises) License so as to allow a wine and beer tasting room at an existing
cheese and wine shop. The site is located at 143 N. Glassell Street. This item was
continued from September 6, 2006.
Planning Commission Minutes
18 September 2006
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 -
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 36-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2591-06.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry provided a project overview.
The applicant stated she believed Condition #10 is still confusing because technically
wine tastings are scheduled for a certain time when anyone can walk in and taste, space
permitting. Her concern was with respect to the suggestion that someone cannot come in
when a tasting is not scheduled and taste. She felt there are a lot of good business
reasons why that may be necessary. One of those reasons was set forth in her written
response. She provided assurances the necessary controls are in place and she believed
Condition #10 should be deleted.
The applicant stated Condition #24 conflicts with Condition # 1 0 as it is currently written
because Condition #10 permits in store signage advertising the wine tastings. Condition
#24 states the only advertising that will occur are the two chalkboard signs in the
window. She suggested deleting Condition #10 and taking the provision in Condition
#10 that deals with the in store signage and inserting it into Condition #24 so there is no
conflict.
Chair Bonina read some suggested verbiage, "The advertising of beer and wine on-site
shall be restricted to two chalkboard signs (restricted in size to 3 feet by 3 feet) placed in
the window display area and in store signage." The applicant acknowledged this was
correct.
Chair Bonina concurred with both Staff and the applicant that Condition # 10 is somewhat
unclear and is not an appropriate condition. For that reason he was an advocate to delete
Condition #10 altogether. Furthermore Chair Bonina stated he felt the revised language
for Condition #24 was appropriate; however, he was open to any other suggestions from
the other Commissioners. Commissioner Imboden asked if he was advocating
maintaining Condition #24 as it stands, restricting the size of the signs to 3 feet by 3 feet,
chalkboard and quantity two, allowing no other interior advertising. Chair Bonina replied
affirmatively.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he was trying to see the conflict in Condition #24 that the
applicant brought to the Commission's attention. He asked for Staff to enlighten him.
Mr. Knight responded that Conditions 10 and 24 stood on their own individually.
Condition #10 was dictating appropriate signage granted in accordance very specifically
to wine tasting whereas Condition #24 was specifically geared to the display of alcoholic
beverages and exterior advertising. He added that with the deletion of Condition # 1 0 it
appears that Condition #24 can stand as it is proposed because any of the in store signage
will have been eliminated.
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 September 2006
The applicant stated with respect to Condition #10, originally in store signage was
allowed and she would still like to be able to do that. She would like the in store signage
advertising when the tastings would take place and the outdoor signs would have the
wine and cheese pairings. Chair Bonina stated that by eliminating Condition #10 they
were not intending to prevent her from doing exactly that, but what they were doing was
limiting the size of the signs to 3 feet by 3 feet to provide for the opportunity to advertise
wine tasting. Given the fact confusion still seemed to exist, Mr. Knight offered it may be
in the best interest of the Commission to consider the applicant's proposed verbiage;
"The advertising of beer and wine on-site shall be restricted to two chalkboard signs
(restricted in size to 3 feet by 3 feet) placed in the window display area and in store
signage." Chair Bonina responded that he believed that was what was currently on the
table and the applicant apologized for the misunderstanding.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz asked for the maker of the motion to be very clear as
to which Condition #24 they would like to see, the Staff proposal or the applicant
proposal.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Chair
Bonina made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2591-06 with:
(1) the conditions as outlined
(2) the added edit of removing Condition # 1 0 in its entirety
(3) Condition #24 modified to read, "The advertising of beer and wine on-site shall be
restricted to two chalkboard signs (restricted in size to 3 feet by 3 feet) placed in the
window display area and in store signage."
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bilodeau
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden
None
None
Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS:
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2600-06 - ROYAL STREET
COMMUNICATIONS/STORAGE WEST
A proposal to allow the co-location of six (6) antennas to an existing non-stealth
monopole wireless communications structure and new ground equipment on the property
of an existing mini-storage warehouse. The site is located at 681 S. Tustin Street.
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 September 2006
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 39-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2600-06
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry provided a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Commissioner Imboden asked Staff to confirm this pole was put in place prior to the
adoption of the new standards and asked what the primary differences are should a
proposal of the very same structure come before the Commission today. Ms. Roseberry
responded the ordinance, which was adopted in May 2005, permits the location of a non-
stealth facility; however, it is subject to Design Review Committee review as well as a
Conditional Use Permit. The ordinance also provides for a process for co-located stealth
and non-stealth installations to come forward.
Commissioner Imboden asked what distinguishes whether the installation receives
Design Review Committee review or comes directly to the Planning Commission. Ms.
Roseberry responded it is really the way the ordinance is set up i.e. for co-located, non-
stealth it does not go to the Design Review Committee, it goes straight to the Planning
Commission with a Conditional Use Permit. The stealth structures usually have a
realistic value to them insofar as they are trying to replicate a tree (or something) so the
Design Review Committee reviews them to ascertain if the installation is appropriate.
The co-locations on any existing facilities are not looked at for aesthetic problems, as that
is an issue with the existing facility (the large pole versus the additional antennas) so they
just come forward with the Conditional Use Permit. The Code also talks about screening
and equipment buildings.
Chair Bonina asked if the equipment will be within the storage building. Ms. Roseberry
replied she did not think so but the applicant could provide clarification.
Chair Bonina asked if there is anything in the Code that addresses issues with the top of
the building and the height of the lowest antenna. Ms. Roseberry responded she was not
aware of anything in the Code regarding this.
Jason Hadley, the applicant's representative stated:
. They are in fact going to rent one of the storage units at the facility and the equipment
will be going inside the unit so it will never be seen.
. He wanted to discuss Condition #7 (Page 4 of the Resolution) that states, "All wires
from the equipment facility to the antenna shall be underground and there shall be no
exposed conduit(s) or raceway(s) to and from the equipment enclosure or the antenna."
. They will definitely be putting the coax cable inside the pole but the Condition as it is
written requires the coax from the equipment to the antenna to be underground.
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 September 2006
. They are proposing to take the coax up on top of the roof (only a foot or so off the roof
so it would never be seen) and bring it across and down the building to the bottom of the
pole where it would go up inside the pole.
· It would be painted so it would look like a rain gutter.
. The space between the wall and the equipment is essentially only 3' and if they are
required to dig, it would be extremely difficult so they were hoping to get some relief.
Chair Bonina clarified that the equipment is located in the leased building and asked the
applicant to restate what they are proposing to do with the cable.
Chair Bonina asked if the proposed solution was more cost effective and if that was the
reason for the request. The applicant responded it was more cost effective, more of a
direct route and more practical as the way the equipment is situated now there is
essentially only a 3' space between the building and the equipment and there is no where
to run the coax in front of the existing equipment that is owned by Sprint. For those
reasons they were hoping to be able to install as proposed versus having to dig a trench
for the short distance.
Commissioner Imboden asked if the space they are leasing inside the building was
directly adjacent to the site. The applicant responded it is directly adjacent to the site; the
pole is to the east slightly and they are in the west unit. Right outside the unit they will
be occupying is where the existing Sprint equipment is located.
Commissioner Imboden asked if the trench they are seeking relief on would be less then
20'. The applicant responded, "Yes, about that. The issue would be having to coordinate
with Sprint as they have grounding rods in the area that they would have to work around
and it would be extremely tough from a construction standpoint to dig that trench."
Instead the applicant offered to put it in a raceway, if Spring permitted it and the
Commission preferred as essentially they are trying to avoid the hassle of digging the
trench. Chair Bonina asked if the raceway would be above ground. The applicant
responded affirmatively.
Chair Bonina asked Staff if there are Building Code, Safety or Fire requirements that
precipitated this requirement. Mr. Knight replied it was purely an aesthetic issue.
Commissioner Imboden asked if the ordinance requires this condition or if it was a
standard condition that is typically applied. Mr. Knight replied it was a standard
condition and more often then not this type of condition comes from Public Works in an
attempt to keep items underground that normally would be placed in the public right of
way.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he didn't have a problem with this specific request as it is
contained in the Self Storage Facility, not seen from the street. Chair Bonina asked
Commissioner Bilodeau if he was referring to the request for relief of Condition #7 and
Commissioner Bilodeau responded affirmatively.
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 September 2006
Chair Bonina stated that on the surface Condition #7 doesn't seem to be a problem but he
was hesitant because he didn't know the mindset of Public Works or the Building
Department to go counter to a condition they would apply.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the prOVIsiOns of CEQA,
Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2600-06
with a modification to Condition of Approval #7 adding a sentence "except for those
shown on Exhibit A (Page lA) in the package of plans submitted to the Commission."
Chair Bonina asked for confirmation that what the applicant is requesting and what is
shown on the plan is one of the same if that was Commissioner Bilodeau's goal.
Commissioner Bilodeau confirmed that was his goal. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry
to confirm the plans showed the cable exposed as he expressed surpise that there was a
contradiction. Ms. Roseberry confirmed that it was shown on the roof; however, it was
not called out. Chair Bonina stated it appeared to be slightly different than what the
applicant described as he thought the intent was to go along the edge of the building and
run it along the top of the building.
Commissioner Bilodeau modified Condition of Approval #7 to add to the sentence
"except for the conduit connection which will run in a raceway along the edge of the
building, down the building and into the base of the pole. All conduits shall be located
inside the pole."
No second was offered to this motion.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Chair
Bonina made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2600-06 with all the
conditions as written and if Condition #7 is in contradiction to the plans submitted, then
the language of Condition #7 prevails so there are no exposed conduit or raceways.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden
None
None
Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
18 September 2006
Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting on
Monday, October 2,2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden
None
None
Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:48 p.m.
Page 7 of 7 Pages