2003 - May 19
APPROVED
C.2,Jtn. &//~
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
(1)
May 19,2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Brandman, Romero, Smith
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
Chris Carnes, Senior Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
ORDINANCE NO. 4-03 - INTERNET CAFE'S
A proposed Ordinance of the City Council amending Sections 17.04, 17.10, and
17.18 of the Orange Municipal Code in order to provide definitions and
procedures for the establishment of amusement arcades or similar commercial
gathering places where electronic games are played, including, but not limited to,
video, computer, or Internet related games. This item was continued from the
February 3,2003, March 3, 2003, and April 7, 2003 meetings.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue this item to the June 2, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting per
staff request.
MOTION
Moved by Vice Chair Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this agenda
item to the June 2, 2003 meeting.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
(2)
Commissioners Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
CONSENT CALENDAR:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
APRIL 21, 2003.
MOTION
Moved by Vice Chair Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this agenda
item to the June 2, 2003 meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
Commissioners Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
May 19,2003
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS:
(3)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2417-03, AND ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT 2003-4 - THE ELI HOME, INC.
A request to expand an existing shelter for abused women and their children.
The proposal includes the construction of two new 3-bedroom units and an
addition to the existing residence. The administrative adjustment request is to
allow the encroachment of porch columns into the code required front yard
setback along Glassell Street. The property has a General Plan Land Use
Designation of Medium Density Residential (15 to 24 dwelling units per acre), is
zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential), and is located within the Old Towne
Historic District. The site is located at 655 South Glassell Street.
The project was previously denied by the Planning Commission, appealed by the
applicant to the City Council, and referred back to the Planning Commission in
order to resolve various development concerns.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 (In-Fill Development).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 22-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2417-
03 and Administrative Adjustment 2003-4.
Vice Chair Smith addressed the agenda item and asked if there was anyone present in opposition
to the project. Since there were, a full reading ofthe staff report was required.
Ms. Alice Angus addressed the letter that was dated May 19, 2003 and received late today from
Deborah M. Rosenthal, attorney for Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA), in opposition
to the project based on environmental reasons. Ms. Angus went over details of the letter and
staff s response to each issue that was raised.
Vice Chair Smith stated that one of the conditions would limit this project to twenty-eight
residents. She inquired if a survey had been done to see how many units can be built if an
apartment complex was built in that location instead. Ms. Angus replied that six to ten apartment
units can be built and the Uniform Housing Code, which, is based on the number of bedrooms,
controls the occupancy of each unit. With six dwelling units, each with two bedrooms, and two
people per bedroom, you're at twenty-four people. If you go to the possible ten units, you would
be at forty people. Of course, with more bedrooms, you would have more people.
Vice Chair Smith expressed support for the comment in the letter addressing the fact that this
house is historically significant not only because of the architecture, but also because of who
lived there, as evident in many properties in Old Towne. Ms. Angus replied that staff is not
2
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 19, 2003
saying that is not a feasible criterion, but it is not the main criteria that staff uses to qualify
historical value.
Vice Chair Smith asked concerning cumulative impact, when are too many apartment units too
many and whether the city has plans to establish a base line to give a quantitative threshold? Ms.
Angus replied that it would be reviewed as part of the general plan update.
Commissioner Brandman with regards to judging whether this house is contributing or
noncontributing, staff stated that this structure is noncontributing, however, it is located within
the National Register District. Has anyone raised the issue to the people who categorized this as
contributing or noncontributing? Ms. Angus replied that no one has looked at that until this
application came forward.
Mr. Chavez-Marquez reviewed the issues with the project that the City Council directed the
Planning Commission to consider:
1) Flip the covered and open parking location, which will place the garage immediately
adjacent to the middle of the building. The applicant has complied with this. This is
condition number ten.
2) Reduced the five-car garage to a two-car garage with a three-car carport. This is
condition number eighteen.
3) Eliminating the caretaker's unit. The revised plan has not eliminated the caretaker unit,
but it has been incorporated into the existing single-family structure.
4) The asphalt patch located adjacent to the subject site at that Park be used to create a
parking pocket so as not to disrupt the traffic flow along Glassell, and for van use to pick
up residents and make deliveries, will stop on Glassell Street and not Orange Street. The
applicant cannot use this space because it is a handicap parking space intended for public
uses associated with the park. Properties are not allowed to use joint property for access
to their lot or to meet their onsite parking requirements; therefore this scenario will not
work for the Eli Home. Removing the available handicap parking space, intended for use
in conjunction with the park, is not possible either.
The applicant has stated they will use the front area along Glassell Street for their van
services and Orange Street will not be a part of the pick up service. Staff is
recommending the inclusion of condition number forty-six to clarify this requirement,
which will require the applicant to apply to the Traffic Commission to stripe the area in
front of Glassell Street for loading and unloading of passengers only.
5) Screening the fencing on the east property line to somehow create a screening wall
similar to what was done at the Palmyra Senior Housing project. Walls along the south,
east, and west areas of the property have been proposed to provide adequate screening
from public view. The wall construction will complement the existing river rock along
Hart Park.
6) Orange Street would be treated as the front setback because it should be thought of in
relation to the other homes on the street, and with landscaping to complement the
neighborhood. Also moving the covered parking area further away from Orange along
with a combination of fences and landscaping to create a more complimenting streetscape
pattern. Staff recommends inclusion of condition number twenty-three which will
require the applicant to submit a landscape plan to the Planning Division for review and
3
APPROVED'
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19,2003
approval prior to applying for building permit. The applicant proposes to have a fifteen-
foot set back along Orange Street and the intention is to landscape the area.
7) To provide access the whole length of the development, from one end to the other, from
Glassell all the way across. And to look at the possible shared access from the front to
back of property, with access of Glassell as well. There is a fifteen-foot width on the side
ofthe building to the wall, and fifteen-foot width along the existing structure as well.
The applicant is proposing a twelve-foot wide driveway along the north side from the
parking area to Orange Street. In meeting with the applicant and reviewing various
alternatives with the Public Works Traffic Division, providing through access along the
north or south side of the property raises concerns with site layout, removal of existing
mature landscaping, utility relocation, and too much asphalt.
In summary, the City Council wanted the project redesigned to be compatible with neighboring
residential and park structures.
Commissioner Romero asked staff and the applicant the following:
1) In regards to the caretaker unit, how does that affect the size and floor plan of the project?
Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that the caretaker unit has been incorporated into the residence
unit, which has eliminated one additional building. It was originally above the five-car
garage, but now is incorporated into the single-family residence floor plan, which helps
reduce the mass of the easterly structure.
2) What is a pick up service?
3) What is height of the wall on the fencing along Orange?
4) Is the river rock fencing real or faux?
5) How will the wall be constructed?
6) Trash enclosure item discussion in the staff report is there just in case it gets turned into an
apartment complex at some point time. Is the only way it can be converted into an apartment
complex is it gets demolished and gets rebuilt? But if this application is approved, and the
facility is built, then it couldn't be converted into an apartment complex, is that true or false?
Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that is true, but they are looking at if at one point in time, the
use goes away and they sell the property, and the owner wants to convert it back into an
apartment complex, then they would be required to have a trash enclosure at that time.
Commissioner Romero expressed he does not understand this because he cannot see this
property being converted into an apartment complex because it does not meet all of the code
requirements. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that he is speaking towards the land use, not this
actual structure. Commissioner Romero stated he did not see any trash enclosures, has
anything been identified. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that there are trash receptacles on the
site plans and they are being distributed on the north of the property. Commissioner Romero
asked ifthere would be pick up on both Glassell and Orange Street. Mr. Chavez-Marquez
replied that is correct and it is in the effort to reduce traffic on each side of the streets.
Commissioner Brandman asked to have her next comment recorded for the record. She feels that
she keeps on seeing in the instructions from City Council to be very careful about certain things
because whatever we approve goes along with the property. Is she to understand, for the record,
that if the owner of this property chose to attempt to turn this into an apartment complex at some
point in time, they could do it if they meet the criteria? Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that this is
correct. She continued to state that if she were to vote on this, she would be very concerned
4
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May ]9, 2003
about the trash issue. She would not want to see trash enclosures, and to make sure there are
enough trash receptacles.
Mr. Sheatz wanted to clarify that if Eli Home goes away and someone else decides to buy the
property to use as an apartment complex in the future, they would not have to come before the
Planning Commission to get the CUP approved.
Commissioner Brandman expressed that she cannot see how this property can be an apartment
complex.
Commissioner Romero interjected that he does not see this property as an apartment complex
right now either because it does not have individual access, with separate kitchen and bedroom.
Ms. Angus responded to this issue. This is a R3 zone, which could allow six to ten units. In
terms of design, it is possible to utilize these as multiple bedroom apartments as of now. Staff is
trying to ensure that they are anticipating the use at hand, but it could by right change into an
apartment use and to make sure the conditions address this situation.
Vice Chair Smith wanted to clarify the statements in the staff report concerning the following: I)
condition number twenty-three states that any changes from the project description as presented
in Eli House operations plan section shall require the conditional use permit to be modified
according to procedures established by the Orange Municipal Codes; 2) condition twenty-six says
future additions or modifications to the approved floor plan shall require review by the city's
community development department at the city's discretion, future additions or changes in floor
plan shall require an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the
procedures established by the Orange housing code. Was that meant to address possible changes
in the future and/or changes that the Eli House may want to make in the future. Mr. Chavez-
Marquez replied that this pertains only to the Eli House and does not cover the future use as an
apartment home.
Mr. Sheatz added that was the whole point that this CUP is for a use that goes with the property.
Vice Chair Smith expressed she can't see this is possible because there isn't enough parking ifit
gets turned into an apartment complex. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that per code, the parking is
enough for future apartment use.
Vice Chair Smith addressed certain issues:
1) She asked why did Council send it back to the Planning Commission instead of the
Design Review Committee and whether the Planning Commission can now choose to
send it to the Design Review Committee. Ms. Angus replied that for whatever reason
that Council has chosen to do so, it is their prerogative. Mr. Sheatz added that in his
opinion, it is not in the Planning Commission's purview to send it to the Design Review
Committee, but he could double check if the commission wishes.
2) She stated that she sees the proposal is a craftsman style with river rock elements. She
expressed that it is hard to say yes or no to a project when you can't see what it'll look
like. Ms. Angus replied that the commission could ask the applicant to address this issue.
Vice Chair Smith also stated that the landscape plans do not have a legend.
3) She asked whether crime prevention has looked at the lighting in the parking lot, and
whether condition number fourteen is in context of the history of the property-There
5
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 19,2003
isn't any reference to show onsite lighting fixtures are compatible with the historic
neighborhood.
4) In reference to the twenty-foot setback on Orange Street, she asked if the setback
includes the parking and what is the distance of the green area? Mr. Chavez-Marquez
replied that the green area is fifteen feet. Vice Chair Smith asked why they're going from
an eighty foot setback to eighteen and why the porch has to encroach on the twenty foot
set back, whether the applicant or staff has looked at cutting the building back by two feet
to accommodate the twenty foot set back.
5) She expressed that she would like to see real river rock and not faux or veneer.
6) She asked if the van pick up is currently allowed. Mr. Hohnbaum confirmed that it is.
Mr. Sheatz interjected that since this action tonight is to recommend to council, the commission
could recommend or condition to Council that the project needs to go to the Design Review
Committee.
Commissioner Romero asked:
1) The current unit has three bedrooms with one kitchen, if it were to become an apartment,
would they have to come back to get approval for additions of kitchen. Ms. Angus
replied that the units have two kitchens in the three-bedroom area, but the caretaker's has
its own kitchen. Based on how it's currently proposed, it's possible to have four separate
apartment units, each with differing number of bedrooms.
2) Concerning Council's comments, are we to change our way of doing things? Ms. Angus
replied that the Design Review Committee looks at the design, not at the land use. But
the Planning Commission has to look at the broader issue, both design and use. Her
interpretation is that Council is saying that they've looked at the project, have these
issues, and have trust in the Planning Commission to look at the design and use issues
again and give the final opinion.
Vice Chair Smith invited the applicant to speak on the project.
Mr. Bob Sorenson, assistant director of Eli Home stated that they are trying to meet the needs of
their clients and of the community. He stated that there were six main areas that the Council
wanted them to address, and they have:
1) Design of parking lot;
2) Reducing bulk;
3) Traffic situation;
4) The landscape;
5) Trash situation;
6) The alleyway.
The Council has also asked them to make certain changes, as outlined by Mr. Chavez-Marquez
earlier, and they have done so, except for one thing, which is providing the through access along
the whole property.
Commissioner Romero addressed the poor landscaping maintenance in the past. Mr. Sorenson
replied that it may have been an isolated incident and they now have to budget for proper
maintenance.
6
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19,2003
Commissioner Brandman asked if the twenty-year budget starts with approval or is it retroactive?
Mr. Sorenson replied that it starts with approval.
Commissioner Brandman and Vice Chair Smith then discussed the issue of the two-foot
encroachment of the porch onto the twenty-foot set back. Vice Chair Smith stated she usually
sees a flowerbed placed there, in front of the porch, which shortens the yard. She doesn't want to
set a precedent established for reductions in front setback.
Mr. Sorenson noted that other apartments adjacent to this property have less of a setback. Vice
Chair Smith stated that they're terrible examples.
Vice Chair Smith stated that she would like to see real river rock used in the fencing instead of
the proposed veneer. Mr. Mike Galloway replied that he would not be opposed to using real river
rock on the front of the house and along the shorter wall, but not the longer wall because of extra
cost.
Vice Chair Smith opened the floor for public hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED (In Alphabetica] Order):
In Favor:
Richard Chavez (30] Grove)
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. The applicant has talked to neighbors, surveyed neighbors, and has seventeen letters in
support of this project, but the people have chosen not to come forward because of possible
conflict with neighbors. They also have people who could come in support, but we have
requested they do not come for time's sake.
In Opposition:
Norman Baker (621 So. Orange St.);
Jeff Banner (604 S. Orange St.);
Julie Banner (604 S. Orange St.);
Janet Crenshaw (464 N. Shaffer);
Jeff Frankel (384 S. Orange St.);
Robert Imboden (226 W. Palmyra);
Laree Lopez (629 S. Orange St.);
Lorrie Stastnv (649 S. Orange St.);
Michae] Stastnv (649 S. Orange St.);
Anne Subert (340 S. Olive).
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. Neighbors do not have opposition to the Eli project, just not agreeable with design.
. Traffic coming out of Orange St. is a concern.
. Density still the same--the question of enforcement of the number of people and parking is a
problem.
. Signed petition of neighbors opposed to project.
. Landscape is still not kept up well.
. Until March of this year, not one neighbor was approached.
. Still same issues as before.
. Concerned for access by fire department.
. Concern for additional number of children in school.
. Design and character of design is the same, still bulky and massive.
. Noncontributing status of building should be changed to contributing.
7
APPROVED
Planning Conunission Minutes
May 19, 2003
. Concerned for long-term financial viability and land use issues.
. Eli Home can lose financial stability and lose home and get turned into an apartment.
. Eli Home in other areas is operating on revoked CUP.
. City Council mandates what Planning Commission do. Council said to eliminate caretaker
unit, applicant hasn't eliminated caretaker unit, but moved it to the other side of the parking
lot.
. Parking on the street is a concern.
. Plans do not give timing for caretakers. Residence can be for a caretaker.
. Opposed project because it does not meet CEQA.
. No explanation why staff did not give report as to why this is exempt from CEQA. Land use
is not being used correctly.
. Concern for additional trash problems.
. There are a total of ten bedrooms, not nine, one is hidden.
. Concern for conditional number forty-six- provision for loading zone pick up.
. No place for kids to play.
. Low wall around parking lot, have a verbal for forty-two inches, but not in writing.
. Dust and debris during construction is a concern.
. OTPA disagrees with city's interpretation ofCEQA.
. Twelve-car parking lot will create unsafe conditions.
. Opposed to losing Watson home as historical home.
Vice Chair Smith then asked the applicant to respond to the concerns expressed by the public
speakers.
Mr. Sorenson replied:
1) Shelters are not supported throughout the country. But we need to accommodate
somewhere.
2) The design is not something we're completely happy with, but based on DRC and
Council, we've made changes to accommodate those recommendations.
3) The Eli home has a twenty-year commitment to the project.
4) Concerning the parking lot - there will not be separate lighting fixtures.
Vice Chair Smith wanted to reiterate a couple of questions asked by the public:
I) What is the plan for the caretaker? Ms. Kim Toleners replied that the live in caretaker
will manage the facility; and there will also be a house manager who does not live onsite
responsible for other duties.
2) When will the caretaker come onsite? Ms. Toleners replied that as soon as they have
clients living in the home.
3) Do you have one onsite right now? Ms. Toleners replied in the affirmative.
4) Where will the caretaker live? Mr. Todd replied that the caretaker's unit is on the second
floor, which has it's separate access
5) Do the children have a play area? Ms. Toleners replied that they do have a play area, and
they also have the public park.
6) She expressed concern for the upkeep of the property. Mr. Sorenson replied that they
now have the budget for that operating cost.
7) Vice Chair Smith asked how many homes does Eli Home operating right now. Mr.
Sorenson replied there are two (2)--Anaheim Hills and Orange.
8) She asked who planted the shrubs along the south property edge. Mr. Sorensen replied
that the city did.
9) Asked the applicant to clarify concerning the comment that they are not willing to put an
additional access on Orange Street as the City Council had asked. Mr. Sorenson replied
that he and staff decided together that it was not a good idea.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
4PPROVE[1i
May 19, 2003
Vice Chair Smith took the discussion to commissioners.
Vice Chair Smith asked staff concerning the Council's recommendation to mitigate the traffic on
Orange Street, how is that done? Mr. Hohnbaum replied that it could be mitigated in many ways:
1) On street parking~limiting only 50% of residents have cars; and guests not supported;
2) Redistribute traffic flow on Glassell; looked at different possibilities, concluded that it's
best to have only one access onto Orange Street. Analysis of trips concluded that the
number of trips is minimal.
3) Trashcans - redistribute the trashcans on Glassell and Orange.
4) Drop offvan--prohibit van on Orange. It is legal today to be used, although not
guaranteed to have space available during traffic hours. To guarantee, need to ask Traffic
Commission to zone/stripe.
Commissioner Brandman asked if she could ask the applicant to speak concerning the van use.
Vice Chair Smith stated that she has already closed the public hearing, but perhaps a staff
member can respond to that issue. Ms. Angus stated that at the Council meeting, the applicant
had the contractor who operated the van testify that they are being contracted for that use by the
shelter. Ms. Angus suggested that the commission could condition that the shelter contract that
van service and that it can only pick up and drop off on Glassell. She noted that the van is an
outside service, so the van does not belong to the Eli Home and will not be parked anywhere
onsite.
Vice Chair Smith asked if staff had any proposals concerning the trash. Ms. Angus replied that
based on site plan, they are showing some walls around the area where trash cans will be stored.
Condition number thirty-two refers to the containers, but does not specifically designate a trash
enclosure.
Commissioner Brandman showed a picture presented to the commissioners by a public speaker
and asked how do the non-viable trashcans shown in the picture get picked up. Ms. Angus
replied that the trashcans in the picture are not of Eli Home.
Vice Chair Smith asked if staff concur with the applicant in not having an access through the
parking lot. Ms. Angus replied in the affirmative and the details are explained in the staff report.
Vice Chair Smith asked for comments from the commissioners.
Commissioner Brandman commented:
I) The Commission has in the past approved other projects in Old Towne with similar
building bulk and mass. She doesn't see how someone in the public could say that the
applicant is proposing "all building".
2) Concerning lights, she lives in an area with no streetlights, but would rather have safety.
3) Parking issue, she wondered how many homes are not using the garage for parking,
which is contributing to the lack of parking. The vanpool also addresses the parking
Issue.
4) The only thing she can see that applicant has not done what Council has asked is the
alleyway, but staff has concurred this is not the best solution.
Commissioner Romero's comments included:
1) This is a frustrating situation. He would prefer to see this building remain as it is,
especially since it is one year away from being a historic building. But on the other side,
what could this property be developed into if not this--it could be a six to ten unit
apartment complex. He doesn't care for what's being proposed before because of the
9
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 19, 2003
number residents and parking. But with the applicant limiting it to twenty-eight
residents, and the parking mitigation effort, it has helped the project.
2) Concerning the buildings bulk and mass, the redesign has helped alleviate any concerns.
3) The wall height is not detailed on the plan.
4) He would recommend to Council to go back to DRC for wall height and material of wall.
Comments from Vice Chair Smith:
1) She asked if the Commission had any purview on where the electrical vaults go. Ms.
Angus added that the city is working with Edison in these cases, especially on historical
projects.
2) This Watson home could be demolished and an apartment be built in its place. In her
opinion, the home has already been demolished, visual demolition, with this design. She
doesn't see anything can be done because of the R3 zoning allows for the expansion.
3) She is not in favor of this project and will vote against it like the first time. Even though
she's going to vote against it, she will work with the conditions as the council has
addressed:
a. Parking situation;
b. Caretaker management;
c. Asphalt area for loading and unloading, especially with the van, being on
Glassell only;
d. Fencing height and river rock design;
e. Orange Street treated as a front setback;
f. More landscape on the property, not just asphalt;
g. Access the property on Glassell and Orange;
h. Pull project together, eliminate one (I) building--<:aretaker's and garage;
I. Screening along Orange should be river rock;
J. Traffic-reduce through suggestions from Mr. Hohnbaum;
k. Limiting the number of residents plus the number of vehicles they may have
(only 50% of adult residents may have a car.)
4) Regarding the fence, she feels strongly that the porch and any architectural element be
real river rock. The long fence may be of faux river rock, but high quality and matching
the Nutwood tract.
5) Condition number thirty-two deals with the trash cans;
6) Condition number forty-one deals with Iighting~need to ask the historical planner to
review for compatibility.
7) Condition number forty-six deals with the traffic location of the electric vaults.
Commissioner Brandman and Vice Chair Smith discussed the front yard, in respect to the
location of the wall, the landscaping, and the yard. The conclusion was that they could not agree
so they would defer to the Design Review Committee for review.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt resolution
No. PC 22-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2417-03 and Administrative Adjustment 2003-4
as presented in the Draft Resolution and the addition of the following:
1) To provide a landscape legend.
2) The porch on Glassell and the fence on Orange are real river rock; the fence on the south
side could be faux rock with color, texture and shape, compatible with Hart Park and to
be approved by the Design Review Committee or staff.
3) The lighting to be reviewed by the historical planner.
4) The design of the streetscape on Orange Street to have landscape first--a lawn, then the
wall on the edge of the parking area.
AYES:
Commissioners Brandman, Romero
10
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 19, 2003
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
Commissioner Smith
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Brandman wanted it noted in the record that she commented that in a perfect
world, there would be enough parking and have trash taken care of, but in this case, the applicant
has made great effort to follow the Council's long list of conditions and she commends them for
it.
Vice Chair Smith also wanted the record to note that she is not against the use, a shelter for
women and children, as proposed, but she is against this land use at the proposed intensity of use
on this property, because of building massing, population density and traffic concerns.
(4)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2436-03 - THE FILLING STATION CAFE
A request to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 License (On-Sale
Beer and Wine - Eating Place) and making a finding of Public Convenience or
Necessity, and to provide Live Entertainment for an existing restaurant. The site
is located at 201 North Glassell Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 19-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2436-
03 and make a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity.
Vice Chair Smith addressed item. There were people in opposition to the project, so a full
reading of the staff report was required.
Mr. Carnes explained the project as outlined in the staff report. He added that the applicant has
amended the application, removing the request to have live entertainment. Both police and staff
have looked at the project and are agreeable with the project. Staff has recommended that the
project be approved, based on the revised project not including live entertainment. Mr. Carnes
then eXplained that the applicant that he had to operate within certain hours and apply for the
ABC license ifhe receives the approval from the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared a
revised Draft Planning Commission Resolution to reflect the applicant requesting a CUP to sell
alcoholic beverages only, in conjunction with the operation of a restaurant.
The commissioners did not have any questions for staff.
Vice Chair Smith invited the applicant, John Hughes, to speak on behalf of his project.
Mr. Hughes explained that he is looking to sell beer and wine in addition to his current business
because the customers have requested it. It will not be advertise except for one place.
Vice Chair Smith asked ifhe has read the conditions in staff report and ifhe is in agreement with
them. Mr. Hughes replied in the affirmative. She also added that the police had a condition
concerning the bar and he stated that the does not have bar in the restaurant.
Vice Chair Smith opened the public forum for comments.
11
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 19,2003
PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED (In Alphabetical Order):
In Favor:
Norman Baker (639 Vanbibber);
Barbara DeBoon (439 E. Chapman);
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. The restaurant is a good neighborhood restaurant.
. John Hughes has been a good neighbor.
In Opposition:
Veronica Aniard (207 N. Glassell St. #5);
Anita Clavton (638 E. Almond Ave.);
Martin Clavton (638 E. Almond Ave.);
Terry Clavton (208-207 N. Glassell);
Jennifer Obrien (207 N. Glassell #8);
Adam Smith (207 N. Glassell #3);
Walter Zadroznv (205 B N. Glassell).
. All those who came to speak in opposition to the project were no longer opposed to it after
they found out the applicant had dropped his request for live entertainment.
Vice Chair Smith asked what time he will be closing. Mr. Hughes replied that all nights (Sunday
through Thursday) will be at 9 pm, except for Friday nights where it will be IOpm; and he will
stop the sale of alcohol one hour before closing.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt resolution
No. PC 19-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2436-03 and make a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
(5)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2443-03 - NATIONAL BARTENDERS
SCHOOL (JEFFREY GOODMAN)
A proposal to convert a 1,500 sq. ft. tenant space into a bartender's school. To
implement the proposal the applicant has applied for Conditional Use Permit
2443-03 to allow a school on property zoned C-1 (Limited Business). The site is
located at 1819 Chapman Avenue.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 21-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2443-
03.
12
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 19,2003
Vice Chair Smith addressed the agenda item, and since there wasn't anyone present who was
opposed to the project, a full reading of the staff report was waived.
Mr. Carnes summarized the project and noted that there will be no alcohol used on-site.
Mr. Jeff Goodman (62 Sea Island Dr.) explained the history of his school and how the students
learn to make drinks with colored water.
Vice Chair Smith asked ifhe was aware of all conditions and willing to comply with them. Mr.
Goodman replied in the affirmative.
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Smith closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt resolution
No. PC 21-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2443-03 with the resolutions and findings in the
staff report.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
(6)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2447-03 - LUCKY STRIKE BOWL
(STEVE FOSTER)
A proposal to convert a vacant tenant space (formerly occupied by Mars Music)
at The Block at Orange to a 24-lane bowling alley with a restaurant, lounge, and
billiard tables. The proposal includes the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine,
and hard liquors). To implement the proposal, the applicant has applied for
Conditional Use Permit 2447-03 to allow the establishment of a bowling alley,
the use of six billiard tables, and the sale of alcoholic beverages. The site is
located at 20 City Boulevard West, Building G, Suite 2.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 (In-Fill Development Projects).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 20-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2447-
03.
Vice Chair Smith addressed the agenda item, and since there wasn't anyone present who was
opposed to the project, a full reading ofthe staff report was waived.
Mr. Carnes summarized the project.
13
APPROVEff
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 2003
The applicant, Mr. Dill Shiredhower said he was present to answer any questions the
commissioner may have. The concept of the project is to put bowling in an upscale setting. His
audience will be families, groups, and corporate parties.
Vice Chair Smith asked ifhe is in agreement with Orange's policy to stop serving alcohol one (I)
hour before closing. He replied in the affirmative. Vice Chair Smith also asked if he has done
this before. He replied that he and his business partner have built a chain of similar bowling
alleys across the country.
Commissioner Brandman commented that the menu looked wonderful.
PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED (In Alphabetical Order):
In Favor:
Bud Penshaw (on record)
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. Wanted to ask the applicant if bowling leagues will be allowed. Mr. Shiredhower replied that
their intention is not to have a league bowling for adults, but will allow morning leagues for
kids.
Vice Chair Smith closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Smith added that she was hesitant ofthis project at first because of the alcohol, but is
now in favor of the project because of what she has heard.
Commissioner Brandman commented that she regretted that Regal Bowling closed down, but
hopes this will replace the fun that was lost.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to adopt resolution No.
PC 20-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2447-03 with the resolutions and findings in the
staffs report.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn to a study
session/meeting Monday, June 2, 2003 at 5:30 pm
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 pm May 19, 2003.
14