Loading...
2006 - June 5 ~a5CD.G.,~.5 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 5 June 2006 Monday~ 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Mari Burke, Recording Secretary A moment of silence was taken in memory of the late Councilman Steve Ambriz. A belated birthday recognition was given to the OTPA with an expression of gratitude for all they do for the City. IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1 ) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF MARCH 20, 2006; APRIL 3, 2006 AND MAY 1, 2006. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to approve the consent calendar with approval abstentions as listed below due to absenteeism. March 20,2006: Enderby April 3, 2006: Imboden May 1, 2006: Bonina SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4048-05, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 99-05 - MARTELLI RESIDENCE A proposal to add a 446 square foot addition to an existing one-story, 440 square foot 1916 Bungalow. The site is located at 495 N. Olive Street, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: The proposed 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: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4048-05 and Administrative Adjustment No. 99-05 Ms. Roseberry provided a brief project overview during which she advised this DRC application is before the Planning Commission for the primary reason that the Old Towne Design Standards specify that any addition over 20% of the existing floor area of a home in Old Towne must come before the Planning Commission. In addition, the applicant is asking for a couple of administrative adjustments: a 10% reduction in building separation between the addition and the existing garage (from 6'0" to 5'-6") and a 20% reduction in the required side-yard setback (from 5'0" to 4'0"). The DRC reviewed the project and has forwarded a recommendation of approval. The applicant added there are two houses on the lot---the bungalow addition would provide for another b.edroom and a bathroom in the rear of the house. The other house would have cosmetic work done which would be equivalent to the front house, without any addition. One house faces Walnut and the other house faces Olive. The house facing Olive will have the room addition. Commissioner Pruett questioned the setback from the garage of approximately 10' and expressed concern with cars parking in front of the garage and extending over the sidewalk. The applicant stated the garage is really only about a car and half in length, so really all that can be done is to express to the tenants that they need to either park in the garage or on the street. There is nothing in the rental agreement for the existing tenants that would preclude them from parking in the driveway, across the sidewalk; however, he will have new tenants within thirty days. He will include a disclosure in the new agreement that it is a City violation and they will be subject to ticketing if they park in the driveway. Jeff Frankel. OTPA stated they support this project as proposed with the DRC conditions and recommendations. They believe the project will enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Imboden stated it appears the current garage is sub-standard and asked Staff what is the required on-site parking and recreational space requirement? Planning Manager Roseberry responded they are not required to bring the parking up to code due Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 to the size of the addition and the amount of square footage already on the lot. The amount of open space is 350 square feet per unit. Commissioner Imboden stated the project has turned out very nice; however, he is concerned if this is a non-conforming situation would approval increase the non-conformity? Ms. Roseberry responded the project does not meet the requirements which would mandate bringing it up to Code. The discussion continued about parking issues with Staff and the Commissioners exploring alternative methods to eliminate compounding a situation where the applicant's ability to make any revisions to enhance the garage and maintain parking in the future wouldn't be compromised. Commissioner Pruett stated that approval of the project as it is presented would mean the Commission is approving a project that does not require any parking. Commissioner Imboden added that he would second this opinion. Commissioner Bilodeau pointed out that the existing garage is an old carriage house which perhaps could not be expanded or demolished. Commissioner Pruett asked for Staff to work with the applicant to address the issue and provide additional information as to the feasibility of providing parking on-site at some future date. Ms. Roseberry stated the historic survey of Old Towne does not include accessory structures. This would have to be done on an individual basis as it was not done previously since the garage was not part of the project. She further clarified both houses are contributing structures on the historic survey and she will confirm the disposition of the garage. The applicant stated: · they started this project over one year ago with the intent of doing additions on both houses and attaching a garage to each. · based on initial feedback from Planning it was deemed there was nothing that could be done to the garage due to the setbacks and the historical value. · the garage was built the same time as the main house so they were to maintain its integrity. · you cannot expand the width of the garage. · he has worked with architects on the DRC to explore options. · he has tenants out of the property now. · if he does nothing to the property in terms of expansion, the issue with parking remains and the property is run down. He is trying to enhance the property. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to continue the project for the express purpose of having Staff work with the applicant to obtain and share a good understanding of how the parking will be maintained on this property. Chair Bonina clarified they may come back with a finding it is not correctable and asked that the continuance would be to the next earliest opportunity. Ms. Roseberry stated it would need to be on the agenda for the June 5th meeting. Commissioner Imboden added to the motion a requirement to have some calculations of the required open spaces demonstrated on the plans. SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Enderby, Imboden, Pruett Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None None MOTION CARRIED. (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4085-06 - GABBI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT A proposal for a complete fayade remodel of an existing retail tenant space as part of the development of a new restaurant. The site is located at 141 S. Glassell, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the prOVlSlons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4085-06. Planning Manager Roseberry introduced Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur who provided the project overview. Ms. Thakur informed the Commission they had already approved the applicant's request for the ABC license and this item is being brought forward due to the fact four of five Design Review Committee members have offices within 500 feet of the subject site thus disqualifying them from reviewing and making a determination on the project. The applicant is requesting approval to: remove the existing metal canopy, modify the existing storefront which includes installing new doors, construct a new wrought iron fence and gate, install a new awning, remove the plaster on the front fayade, renovate and restore the rear fayade. Commissioner Pruett asked about the window in the rear structure and noted it was not included on the plans. Ms. Thakur responded the applicant will be removing the window as it was deteriorated and they will install wood shutters or wood windows that match the period to create a faux window look. The applicant advised they have not submitted plans for the rear of the building yet. They want to expedite the inside of the building and the front fayade so they can open and operate. Ms. Roseberry indicated she was under the impression the rear portion was also part of the review at this meeting and suggested options for moving forward if the Commission deemed it appropriate. Commissioner Imboden noted what appears to be the existence of a transom-like glazing below the fayade and asked the applicant to provide additional detail as the text was eradicated on the plans. The applicant advised he had done a visual inspection of that area and he did not believe it was a transom. He pointed out where the trusses start and stated they plan to return it to its original form. The brick fayade would end at the top of Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 the canopy. The new canopy would come down to approximately 9 feet over the sidewalk and the trusses would not be visible from the street. Commissioner Pruett asked what was in the transom area historically and the applicant responded it was a soffit built with new wood, not reminiscent of the original wood. Commissioner Pruett requested the applicant work with Staff to preserve or restore the historical features for the period in the transom area (behind the awning) and he also recommended the plans for the rear area be brought back on a later date. Commissioner Bilodeau echoed Commissioner Pruett's suggestions. Commissioner Imboden agreed and added his greatest concern with the fayade is that ultimately anything historic be retained and if everything has been removed up to an I-beam that is supporting the brick fayade that it should not be enlarged. Chair Bonina clarified that if during the process of demolition work it is discovered there is not a transom, the applicant will not be required to procure one. Chair Bonina asked for clarification of the distance the wrought iron reaches from the front of the building. The applicant responded it goes to the sidewalk. Commissioner Imboden asked if there were any issues with the gate swinging into the right of way. Ms. Roseberry advised they would follow up on this. Jeff Frankel. OTPA expressed appreciation for the return of this location to a historic storefront and echoed the Commissioner's requirements that the remodel meet the Old Towne Design Standards in all areas. He stated that the wrought iron presented concern and he thought aluminum frames proposed around the doors would be too contemporary. Mr. Frankel asked if the City plans to address and resolve the issue of the DRC member's eligibility to review Plaza projects. It is his understanding that a study needs to be conducted to verify if indeed there is a conflict. They believe it would be beneficial if every one of these projects would go to the DRC. Ms. Roseberry stated the DRC members are appointed through the Mayor and there has been no discussion of wanting to change any of the members at this time in order to resolve the conflict. Maps that illustrate where their presumed conflicts exist (within 500 feet of any property they own or they work in) have been done for the Commissioners and the Members. There are four members of the DRC that have offices in the downtown area and 141 Glassell did fall within the area where there is a presumed conflict. Chair Bonina suggested Mr. Frankel address this directly with the City Council. Mr. Sheatz stated the study has to be done on a site-by-site basis. There is not a general study that could be done that would grant absolution to the DRC members that says "no, this conflict doesn't exist." It is required by State law so anytime this arises you must run through an analysis which typically requires retaining someone to make a determination based on economic impact, property values or something of that nature. Commissioner Pruett stated when the doors are constructed at the 15' setback, the doors will be hung from a new 12'xI2' wood beam within the recessed storefront. A detailed drawing is not available; however, they should be supported internally versus having an affect on the brick wall. Ms. Roseberry advised they will take a look at this. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 Commissioner Imboden added that the support for the 12'xI2' requirement needs to be addressed as well. He also asked for clarification of the materials to be used for the doorframe as it was pointed out they are aluminum and they should be wood (appropriate to the period). The applicant stated the frame is very small, aluminum is more cost effective and is powder coated in a bronze tone which will look rustic, reminiscent of the time period. They are not a shiny aluminum. Commissioner Imboden stated he is really not comfortable with a metal storefront and asked Staff if metal storefronts are specifically addressed in the Design Standards for the Plaza. Ms. Roseberry stated "on Page 5 of the Staff Report the guidelines are quoted indicating aluminum storefronts shall not be permitted." Chair Bonina asked about the lighting treatment in the awning over the sidewalk. The applicant responded that there is no illumination planned in the awning. The lighting in the patio area is sufficient although the fixtures have not been identified on the plans. Commissioner Imboden expressed concern that potentially the design of the doors could change by changing the structure to wood versus aluminum. He stated he could approve the existing design if it were simply exchanged for wood; however if the design changes because of the use of wood then he wouldn't know what he was approving. Secondly, he thought the lighting fixtures inside the open patio and the wrought iron fence (design and finish) should be approved at Staff level. The rear facade should come back to the PC for review and approval. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve DRC 4085-06 providing it is consistent with the Old Towne Plaza Design Standards as well as the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The motion is subject to the following conditions: (1) All masonry repairs, pointing and infill shall use matching materials (no sand blasting of brick) per the Staff Report. (2) Provide wood framed, glazed front fayade doors to be approved by Staff. (3) Provide lighting that is equivalent to one-foot candle (of constant light) in the front patio area overnight, so as to provide safety and visibility to the area overnight, when the premises are closed for business (per the Staff Report). Cut sheets for the specific lighting fixtures shall be provided to Staff for approval. (4) Prior to the installation of the awning, the applicant shall obtain the necessary encroachment permits (for the awning projecting over the sidewalk) from the Public Works Division per the Staff Report. (5) The applicant shall obtain approval from the Planning Division and obtain the necessary permits, prior to installing any signage (on the awning or elsewhere) per the Staff Report. (6) The proposal for the wrought iron fence shall be submitted for both design and finish to Staff for final approval. (7) Any modifications to the rear of the structure shall come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 (8) Any historical features discovered through the remodel or restoration process shall be retained. Once the demolition or partial demolition has taken place, staff shall be permitted to inspect and assess the condition. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED. (4) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4099-06 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 114-06 - MCMULLEN RESIDENCE A proposal to add a 552 and a 45 sq. ft. addition to an existing one-story, 1,365 sq. ft., 1917 Bungalow. The site is located at 327 E. Maple Avenue, within the Old Towne Historic District. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the prOVlSlons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4099-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 114-06. A brief project overview was provided by Ms. Roseberry during which she indicated this proposal is before the Planning Commission for the reason the applicant is proposing to add more than 20% of the existing floor area to the home. Due to the size of the addition they are required to bring the parking up to code. Inasmuch as they are not able to bring it completely up to code they are asking for administrative relief for the parking dimensions. Approval of the administrative adjustment would allow it to meet code. This project went before the DRC. The DRC recommended approval subject to a handful of conditions. Ms. Roseberry was asked by Chair Bonina to elaborate on the proposal for the garage area. She replied "The city standards for a 2-car garage is a 20'x20' interior. Many of the garages that were built prior to the zoning ordinance are smaller (sometimes by as much as 1 to 1+1/2 '). Though it is small, it is still possible to fit two cars in this space. If the approval of the administrative adjustment is granted it technically meets code as it has gone through the appropriate approval process. The applicant has explored other options including meeting with Traffic and perhaps modifying the sliding door." Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 The applicant, Mr. Pat McMullen, noted the square footage on the existing building is 1,365 (vs. 1635) square feet. He has lived on the property for approximately two years and is working on restoring the house. The living room and bedrooms will be increased slightly; a bathroom will be added and the laundry facilities will be brought inside. They are working to keep everything as original as possible. The garage is basically broken up into three sections: a parking area for a single car, a small work area and laundry facilities on one end. There are sliding doors on both ends. Their preference is to leave these doors in place. If these are kept in place they will park one car inside and one car behind it on the outside. Chair Bonina asked if the plumbing fixtures in the garage would be removed once the laundry facility is moved indoors. The applicant responded they are not sure what will be done with them. Janet Crenshaw. OTPA stated they liked the entire plan. They seem to be keeping with all the rules and regulations of the City. They advocate keeping the garage as a single car with the original doors as it is a really unique, historic garage. Commissioner Pruett made a motion for approvals of DRC 4099-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 114-06. Commissioner Pruett clarified the optional item offered as a suggestion by the Design Review Committee: "Construct the project as provided on the approved plans, excluding the addition of a second garage door, provided one additional open parking space is provided at the rear of the property" is what is being approved. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED. INRE: NEW BUSINESS: (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2587-06 - MERIDIAN LIQUOR & MARKET A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license for a new liquor and market establishment. The site is located at 655 South Main Street. 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). Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 2587-06. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview during which she advised this project is for a Type 21 Alcoholic Beverage Control license. She indicated the Planning Staff is concerned with this item for a number of reasons: the location of the establishment is within a census tract that is already concentrated with crime and has an over-concentration of both on-sale and off-sale liquor licenses. The subject site is within less than 200' from the Meridian at Orange Towne & Country Apartments, which have direct access to the establishment. According to the statistics provided by the Orange Police Department, liquor stores require additional calls for service and can increase the number of crime incidents such as robberies and burglaries; the addition of another liquor store could potentially increase the crime rate in an area that already has a high concentration. In effect, this would result in depleting police resources with a high number of calls for police service. Staff is concerned with the proximity of this location to the Main Place Mall and the potential crime that could spill over from this area bordering Santa Ana. Staff is required to make four separate findings in order to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit and they are unable to make a finding for all four of these. Given the concerns cited and the inability to make any of the required findings, Staff is recommending denial of Conditional Use Permit 2587-06. Commissioner Imboden asked for confirmation that Staff has not been able to make a finding on any of the four criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit. Confirmation was provided. Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification of "direct access" by the Meridian at Orange Towne & Country Apartments. Ms. Thakur responded that this property is adjacent to the liquor store and there are stairs that have an open path into the business complex where the liquor store is located. Commissioner Bilodeau expressed concern about the center as a whole indicating that it is very difficult to find parking there currently. It was unclear to him if the center as a whole had enough parking to comply with the City Zoning Code. He stated he would have a problem with approving any uses of the site that would attract additional vehicular traffic. The applicant's representative clarified that the goal of the business is not to create a liquor store; it is to be a market (a combination of a convenience and grocery store), primarily for the tenants of Meridian at Orange Towne & Country Apartments. He believes the name "Meridian Liquor & Market" might be misleading. The business plan projects only approximately 23% of the sales will come from liquor, the balance from food. The goal is to create a convenience/grocery store (that can be compared to Trader Joe's but on a smaller scale) for the tenants and neighbors in the community. They have spoken to a lot of tenants in the area and he thought they were all very supportive. In about a one-hour time span they were able to obtain approximately twenty signatures of Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 tenants in the apartment complex who supported the store as a convenient way to shop. He stated currently no other stores of this nature exist in the area. The goal is not be a liquor store; they plan to have healthier foods (like health foods) and beverages along with imported beers and wine for an up and coming area. They believe the higher prices and higher quality foods combined with the beverages will lead to a different clientele than a liquor store. He reiterated it would not be a typical liquor store. The applicant's representative cited the crime statistics used in the Staff Report for the period May 2005 through April 2006 amount to only 2-1/2% of the calls received being related to the seven (7) existing off-sale license locations. Of the seven (7) existing locations, only two (2) are within 1/2, mile of the applicants business. There are no specifics provided as to how many are related to a crime; however, the applicant believes it is generally said only 1 in 5 result in a crime. There are no specifics as to how many of the calls received involve alcohol. The applicant stated the landlord spoke to the manager of the apartment building and she was supportive of the idea (as referenced in an email the applicant possessed) so the tenants have somewhere within walking distance where they can do one-stop shopping. Further, the applicant stated that the Property Manager of the shopping center was not able to attend the meeting; however he advised the applicants there were no reported incidents, to his knowledge. Direct access to the shopping area by the apartment complex pedestrian traffic is through a heavy metal door and only the tenants have keys. Regarding the parking problem in the center, the applicant's representative stated they have spoken to the landlord of the center who is very much aware of it and is working it with the City. Chair Bonina asked what existed previously in the space the applicant is planning to occupy. The applicant responded it was a Franklin Covey store. Chair Bonina stated there is a perceived frequency in turnover for parking associated with a convenience store operation and with a shift in business to a market as the applicant stated, one would believe the parking would now be more prolonged thereby possibly aggravating the parking situation. He asked the applicant if he had comments on this. The applicant responded the store is only about 1200 sq. feet, the clients know what they are looking for and will have a quick checkout. Commissioner Pruett asked what type of products would be carried. The response was they would have some deli with sandwiches, salads, beverages and a concentration of healthier foods (maybe some organic) and obviously some liquor. The liquor will not be the primary product sold but it is vital to the business as far as survival. The applicant provided pictures to Staff of the inside of the store disclaiming it is not yet finished. Chair Bonina asked how many cooler doors they have. The applicant responded "16". They will have 3 aisles. Sergeant Miller. Orange Countv Police Department indicated he reviewed the Meridian application, created the report in question and responded to the specifics related to by the applicant's representative. He agreed with the applicant's reference to a low percentage Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 of calls; however this percentage relates to only seven establishments. There are hundreds of businesses that create absolutely no problems for the Police Department. They are concerned about an increase in problems citing Business and Professions Code 23958 states that ABC is required to deny an application if the issuance would cause law enforcement problems or if the issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration. In this particular situation there is both undue concentration and high crime. The law does not require gathering of statistics that relate alcohol to crime. He would have to look at numerous reports to determine if alcohol was involved. Based on his experience, a lot of crimes can be attributable to both alcohol and narcotics. In going over the incidents that have occurred at the seven establishments Sgt. Miller thought that 246 incidents is high even though it represents a small percentage. He compared this to Starbucks, Jamba Juice, etc. where they have absolutely no incidents. He informed everyone that presently the Police Department is being tasked to initiate measures to reduce crime. Right now the trend is down and they want to keep it down. With both high crime and concentration it is difficult for the Police Department to support an application when evidence shows it will increase crime in an area. Chair Bonina asked Sgt. Miller if the proximity to the freeway and major arterial streets contributes to the concern relative to placing an off-site ABC license in an area. The response was "It certainly does. In my experience, liquor stores or markets that are freeway close and that are on the fringes of a jurisdiction as in this case, generally tend to be more victimized than those in the inner city (if you will). In this situation they border Santa Ana and are close to two freeways (the 5 and 22) and from a crime perspective a would-be suspect would like to target a place where it would make the get-away easier, if you will." Chair Bonina asked ifhe would have a different opinion of this ifit were positioned as a market with a relatively low percentage of the sales in liquor or is it just the presence of liquor, irrespective of it's percentage of overall sales that is a concern? Sgt. Miller responded he would be concerned regardless. In going over the numbers and based on his experience they are going to have problems related to the presence of another alcohol establishment. It is hard to quantify the problems associated with an off-sale establishment as the alcohol is bought and taken off-site for consumption. Most definitely he is concerned because due to his experience as a Police Officer he is constantly responding to liquor stores and markets (where liquor is sold) for both serious crime, like robbery and burglary and crime that is not so serious, like loitering and minors trying to purchase alcohol. Chair Bonina asked ifhe has witnessed the parking challenges as cited. Sgt. Miller stated he has been in the center and trying to find a parking space is very, very difficult. He expects a market would create more problems in this regard in the area. Sgt. Miller referred back to the Business and Professions Code stating there are some exceptions to the requirement that it would cause a law enforcement problem or would Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 add to undue concentration. The exception is a matter of public convenience. He created a map and thus agreed with the applicant that there are several on-sale establishments i.e. in Main Place there are five or six establishments where one could go for an alcoholic beverage. The map plots all the off-sale and on-sale establishments within a six-block area and they are all within walking distance of the Meridian complex. For this reason he didn't believe it was a matter of convenience as the Meridian complex tenants could walk to one of the other locations. Chair Bonina asked Sgt. Miller if he had information on the census tract for the surrounding area in the Santa Ana jurisdiction. The response was this information was not available at this time. The applicant's representative stated all the other businesses in the area that have a liquor license are mostly restaurants as cited in the Staff Report. This business is going to provide more upscale liquor products i.e. imported beers and fine wines which will be consumed at home versus a 40-oz. beer which can be consumed in the parking lot. The applicant's representative stated they have already gone ahead with the market. Further, they will work with the landlord to resolve the parking situation because it is known that during certain times of day it is a problem. It is not a question of whether to have a market or not, it is whether they will have the ability to be a one-stop shop for the convenience of their customers. Alcohol will not be their primary product to sell but it will be vital for the survival as a business because they won't be able to survive on the food and everything else sold in the market. The profit from the alcohol will be a great benefit to the business. They are very much open to working with the City with any suggestions or comments regarding the business. Commissioner Pruett pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit goes with the land, it doesn't necessarily go with the use. This means that if this particular applicant were to choose to move on, vacating this space, another person would be granted the right outright to operate (after going through certain procedures) so there is always concern related to granting a Conditional Use Permit for the off-sale and/or on-sale of liquor, beer and wine i.e. where it's appropriate and how it fits into the overall scheme as it relates to the area. In looking at the Staff recommendation and the four legal finding requirements he could not find anything that would allow him to disagree with Staffs recommendations or their lack of findings and allow him to support the application. There is also a fifth finding that needs to be made on convenience or necessity. Due to the proximity of other facilities offering both off-sale and on-sale there isn't a convenience and location issue finding that he could make. Although it is unfortunate for the applicant he stated there is nothing (from his point of view) that supports the Conditional Use Permit application as laid out. Chair Bonina stated he agrees with Commissioner Pruett on the four findings; however, on the issue of convenience and necessity, the fact that there are some fairly significant barriers (a major street) between the Sav-On and other establishments that sell liquor and Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 the apartment complex, an argument could be made for convenience. Having said this he believes there are four other findings they are unable to obtain, so for those reasons he will also be supporting denial of the application. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to adopt PC resolution 20-06 which denies Conditional Use Permit No. 2587-06. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED. Chair Bonina announced that the application for the Conditional Use Permit has been denied. He advised the applicant there is an appeal process and they are welcome to contact the Planning Department who would be happy to review the details with them. Ms. Roseberry added that the appeal information could be found on the back page of the agenda. Commissioner Pruett followed up with Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz on questions posed in the meeting of May 1 st relative to the authority to appeal when there is a project that has received approval through the Staff Review Committee and specifically what is the appeal process? Mr. Sheatz stated the procedure for this falls under OMC 17.08.050 under "Rights of Appeals" which includes actions by the Community Development Director, the Zoning Administrator or the Design Review Committee. The specific action taken was a Staff Review Committee action, which was a recommendation to the Community Development Director who is authorized to approve or deny the item. Administration or enforcement of the provisions of the chapter may be appealed by any person aggrieved or by an Officer, Commission or Department of the City. This means the Planning Commission does have the ability to appeal; however, it has been somewhat discouraged over the years. What is encouraged is to have a meeting with the Planning Staff, Planning Manager or the Community Development Director if there is a question. Anyone of these resources would be happy to provide additional detail on the item. The time period for the filing is fifteen (15) calendar days after the hearing of the action for which the appeal is made. There is also a fee associated with the process. Commissioner Bilodeau moved to adjourn the meeting in memory of Councilman Steve Ambriz. Steven was a great friend of Commissioner Bilodeau's and appointed Commissioner Bilodeau to the Planning Commission. Steve was a great husband, father and friend to the Bilodeau family. Commissioner Bilodeau extended condolences to the family. The meeting was adjourned to the next regular scheduled meeting for Monday, June 19,2006. Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2006 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:38 p.m. Page 14