Loading...
2006 - July 17 ~~'50o.G'd.3 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 17 July 2006 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, and Steiner Commissioner Enderby STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Chair Bonina welcomed the newest member of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Scott Steiner. IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) THERE WERE NO MINUTES FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. (2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-312 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0445-06 - BATAVIA BUSINESS PARK A request to subdivide one parcel into five, within an industrial zone, where two of the five lots will not have direct access to a public street, and where one parcel has an access obstruction restricting entry to required parking areas. The site is located at 1402-1424 North Batavia Street and 1130 West Trenton Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 27-06 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-312 and Minor Site Plan Review No. 0445- 06. Chair Bonina posed two questions to Staff: (I) In Condition #7 of the Staff Report it speaks to the establishment ofCC&R's for the development; however, there doesn't seem to be any reference to establishment of an Association to address any future maintenance costs. Is it just implicit in the development of the CC&R's that there would be an Association as well? Planner Fox responded that Staff has received a draft copy of the CC&R's and it is the Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 applicant's intent to create a voting organization amongst the five members where they would share responsibility for maintenance costs. (2) Is the gate/fence located in a common area or is it located in one of the parcels being developed? Planner Fox responded there are no specific common areas. All of the area in the maps is devoted to a specific property. They share reciprocal access, easements, utilities, etc. Parcel 5 has the access obstruction where it has gated access in both areas from the public street at Trenton Avenue and access obstruction where it connects with Parcel 3. Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities), Chair Bonina made a motion to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-312 and Minor Site Plan Review No. 0445-06. Brvon Ward. the owner's representative. address on file took exception to Item #6 in the Staff Report, "The existing chain link fence/gate with plastic slat inserts shall be replaced with a wrought-iron style, or equivalent type of material. The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to the Building Division for plan check review, and permit issuance." Mr. Ward asked the Commission to reconsider and modify this condition. He stated the reasons for requesting immediate modification are that the perimeter fencing for Building #5 is a shared condition with the neighbor to the west. The yard area is used to store service vehicles and equipment of value belonging to that neighbor and the style fencing in place provides partial screening for security purposes. The applicant cannot go in and unilaterally replace it. Further, chain link fencing with slats is commonly used in the area and absorbs the trauma of truck traffic and is much more practical for a number of reasons. Photographs of surrounding buildings where this style fencing is used were provided. Planner Fox clarified that the condition is specifically related to the access obstruction. They are not being asked to replace the perimeter fencing, only the controlled access to the parking lot-the gate and the fence adjacent to the gate. The applicant replied with this clarification they are okay with it. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None. INRE: NEW BUSINESS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2575-06 - GARDEN GROVE QWIK KORNER DELI A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license for a new liquor and deli establishment, and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. The site is located at 4045 Garden Grove Boulevard. 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). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 29-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2575-06. Commissioner Imboden recused himself. A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during which she advised: . The applicant is proposing to demolish his existing 3,291 sq. ft. liquor store, deli/pizza delicatessen and mini-mart establishment. . The applicant will rebuild a 5,650 sq. ft. establishment. . the property owner does not presently have a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of alcohol and they are required to request a Conditional Use Permit approval to sell alcoholic beverages at the new establishment. . The Planning Commission is also required to make a finding of public convenience and necessity. . The Orange Police Department has been consulted and they have recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry to confirm the application was for a deli/liquor store combination and if there was an area where a customer who purchased a sandwich could consume it on-site and potentially purchase an alcoholic beverage to be consumed with it. Ms. Roseberry confirmed the application was for a deli/liquor store combination; deferred to the applicant for clarification about sandwich consumption on-site and indicated there is a condition that prohibits consumption on the property. Chair Bonina indicated there is one driveway that has been taken off the pin corner and asked if the existing drive off Lewis Street would be moved away from the corner. Ms. Roseberry responded that there have been numerous conversations with Public Works and the Traffic Engineers that resulted in a few changes; however they were fine with the location of the driveway in regards to the radius of the corner. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 Chair Bonina asked if there was a bus stop in front of the property. Ms. Roseberry responded she didn't think so. The applicant's representative, Bob Mickelson stated the Barash family has owned this business since 1990. Mr. Mickelson provided statements of support from the Catholic Church across the street from the project and a statement signed by nineteen of the tenants from the adjacent Senior Tower. Mr. Mickelson stated the new requirement for trash enclosures with a roof on top presented some issues; however they have now arrived at a workable solution. Further Mr. Mickelson stated the conditions recommended by Staff are acceptable; however, he wanted to discuss Condition # II: "There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition." Mr. Mickelson indicated that since 1990 they have operated under an ABC license and the ABC license permitted two window signs. Other than this requested change everything else was acceptable. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that the signs requested have been in place since the applicant originally purchased the business. Mr. Mickelson responded affirmatively and indicated they do not wish to add any additional signs; they would just like to retain the existing two. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry if there are other businesses with Conditional Use Permits that have ABC licenses that allow for window signage. Ms. Roseberry responded she has not been able to find any and that Condition #11 is a standard condition being put on stores as well as restaurants. Ms. Roseberry also clarified that window advertising is allowed; however, it cannot cover more than 25% of the window space and cannot relate to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Chair Bonina asked if approval to have signage relative to alcoholic beverages would set precedence. Ms. Roseberry responded affirmatively and added that if approval were to be given, the Commission could specify the percentage of window space that could be covered with signage of that nature and also that illumination would not be permitted. Chair Bonina asked the applicant what limitation in terms of size would they be comfortable with. Mr. Barash replied "whatever the Commission would be happy with would work, we would like to keep it clean and don't want it to be cluttered in any way." Chair Bonina asked Mr. Mickelson if the adjacent property is a parking lot for the Senior Tower and if it was secured. Mr. Mickelson deferred the response to Mr. Barash who indicated it was a parking lot that is secured by an electronic gate that the residents access via keyless entry. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 Chair Bonina asked Mr. Mickelson ifhe could describe the lighting plan. Mr. Mickelson responded there is a condition that a certain level of lighting must be installed but the plan hasn't been developed yet. Mr. Mickelson also responded to the question asked earlier regarding consumption of an alcoholic beverage with a sandwich---he indicated there is a huge sign that states no alcohol is to be opened or consumed on the premises. Further, if someone purchases a beer and walks towards the deli, the ownership and staffwill remind the customer that the beer cannot be consumed on premises. Chair Bonina asked how Condition #8, "No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee" would be controlled. Mr. Barash responded that each day when he leaves the business he reminds his staff to check identification and constantly check the parking lots. Mr. Mickelson added that Mr. Barash and his wife have agreed to an alcohol management plan that was completed with the Orange Police Department. Commissioner Steiner asked if there was any conflicting regulatory or statutory authority with respect to advertising the sale of alcoholic beverages. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz quoted a provision in the Code (Chapter 17 under Special Use Regulations) that prohibits the signage and deferred to Ms. Alice Angus, Community Development Director to comment on how it has been applied in the past. Ms. Angus stated they have consistently applied the Code universally to any new Conditional Use Permit and modified Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales across all the various zones and not allowed signage to be directed out. Approval of this request would therefore be a departure from this standard practice. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the driveway apron on Lewis Street exists currently. Mr. Mickelson responded affirmatively and added that he personally reviewed the driveway locations with Public Works as they had thought about moving them; however, it was not a requirement. Sgt. Miller, Orange Police Department stated he had reviewed this application and the concern the police department would have is if the signage were allowed it would be breaking from the norm and would result in additional applications in the future all wanting similar consideration. Chair Bonina asked if the on-ramp being developed not too far from this business along Garden Grove Blvd was cause for concern. Sgt. Miller responded that the fact that this business is freeway close is a concern as most criminals look for easy freeway access to allow for quick escape. Commissioner Steiner asked Sgt. Miller if he was voicing an objection to continued signage at this location and if part of his fear would be that there would be an avalanche of new signage requests similar to the one being made by this applicant. Also, Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 Commissioner Steiner wanted to know what it is about the signage that is concerning? Sgt. Miller confirmed his objection to the signage and stated that this business is real close to a high-density complex where there is a lot of crime and the last thing that is needed is advertising for inexpensive alcoholic beverages. Chair Bonina stated he didn't have a problem with this Conditional Use Permit and that he's looking forward to the redevelopment of the site; however, he did not see a reason to depart from the conditions of approval. Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction), Chair Bonina made a motion to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2575-06. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Steiner None Commissioner Imboden (recused) Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3583-06 - CHARO CHICKEN A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine) license for a new eating establishment. The site is located at 970 North Tustin Street, C. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-06. A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during which she advised: . The applicant is requesting an on-sale beer and wine license for their newest eating establishment. . Staff is recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on the high crime rate in the reporting district as well as the over concentration of licenses in the census tract. . Another reason for the recommendation at the Stafflevel is unlike a sit down restaurant a fast food restaurant has a little less oversight of the distribution of the alcohol. . Staff could not make a finding of convenience and necessity for this establishment. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 The applicant Wes Metcalf, asked to have the Commission reconsider this application, stating: . They are a casual fast food restaurant and they do bring the food to the table. . They have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the design of the store. . They have fourteen (14) cameras installed in the store --- one that is audio so they hear and see everything including out on the patio. . Both applicants have taken the alcohol management class. . They have three other managers and there are generally two managers present at all times. . They have even more control than at a pizza establishment in that they only sell one beverage at a time. . The alcohol absorption rate would be slower due to the type of food. . There seems to be an increasing call from the patronage expressing how nice it would be to have a Mexican meal with a beer. Commissioner Steiner asked if they were to have the alcohol permit how would they handle it's distribution and if they would ever envision selling alcohol without food. Mr. Metcalf responded they would distribute the alcohol in the same fashion as they do food, they would bring it to the table and they would not envision selling alcohol without food. Commissioner Imboden asked if there are other Charo locations that sell alcohol. Mr. Metcalf responded there is one in PIano, Texas that not only sells beer and wine, they also have a margarita machine. He has consulted with them and they have had no issues at all, it usually only includes a single beverage sale with the meal. He has also done some research with Baja Fresh in the Anaheim Hills area and they have not had any issues either. Mr. Metcalf stated the radical issue with the Police Department seems to be the location in a high crime area; however, in the eight months they've been in the location, they haven't seen any. Commissioner Imboden asked ifthere are any Southern California Charo Chicken locations serving alcohol. Mr. Metcalf responded there are two being built now that are applying for their licenses. Chair Bonina asked if the property surrounding the store is primarily made up of apartments. Mr. Metcalf responded it is a pretty good mixture of commercial and residential and they are literally within fifty (50) yards of the Tulsa Rib Company. Sgt. Miller indicated he processed the application and gave the recommendation to oppose it due to the over concentration/high crime rate. Specifically, the over concentration is twice what is recommended by ABC guidelines. In the area of crime this reporting district is ranked #5 for the amount of crimenthere are 88 reporting districts. Sgt. Miller stated he did not see the necessity; however, some of his concerns have been alleviated in terms of controL Further, he stated there is a high density residential complex just to the northwest (within 50 yards) of the restaurant where they have had some crime and gang problems. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 Commissioner Steiner asked for confirmation of the number of licenses in the area. Sgt. Miller indicated that his report was completed in February and at that time ten (10) existed and only five (5) were allowed. Ms. Roseberry interjected that in the Staff Report it states there are two (2) requests in house at this time and this one for Charo Chicken would bring the count to thirteen (13). Commissioner Steiner asked of the ten (10) that currently exist what type of facilities are theymare they similar to the applicant's business or are they bars? Ms. Roseberry reviewed the list of businesses and the types of establishments. Mr. Metcalf reiterated his commitment to do whatever is necessary to gain approval including he would make any changes (temporary or otherwise). Mr. Metcalf stated it was important for him to have clarity or understanding if the City of Orange would approve a Conditional Use Permit perhaps in another location or if the City is shut down on the number of permits they would approve in the future. Chair Bonina assured Mr. Metcalfthat each location stands on its own merits-there is no blanket determination. Chair Bonina stated he has had the pleasure of eating at this location and it does appear they have a good, clean operation; unfortunately he believes this is a great facility in the wrong spot as it relates to the request for the ABC license. He reiterated the concerns expressed by Sgt. Miller and underwrote the recommendation of Staff for the denial of this particular license. Commissioner Steiner stated he was impressed with the facility and how responsibly the business is run; however, the fact that this Conditional Use Permit (if issued) would go with the land is a concern. Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities), Chair Bonina made a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 26-06, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3583-06. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Bilodeau stated this was a close one for him as obviously this is a great establishment with good, responsible owners but in looking at the map it tells the story in terms of the proliferation of alcohol permits along Tustin A venue and the crime statistics speak for themselves. For these reasons Commissioner Bilodeau indicated he would be following the Police Department recommendation and supporting the motion made by Chair Bonina. Commissioner Imboden stated he would love to grant the Conditional Use Permit for this establishment, as he believes it would be a good fit with the business and he was impressed with the ownership as they presented themselves; unfortunately, the crime rate presented an overwhelming concern. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 2006 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Roseberry provided details of the appeal process to the applicant. Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn the meeting until the next scheduled meeting on Monday, August 7, 2006. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None Commissioner Enderby MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:07 p.m. Page 9