Loading...
2001 - December 3 C,?J'!7' & .';..3 . (IC':-:2_~ MINUTES APPROVED Planning Commission City of Orange December 3, 2001 Monday. 7:00 p.IJhc' = c.~ ~ ~ ',. Commissioners Bonina, Romero, Smith Commissioner Pruett '- ".,.. :.;.;e -; PRESENT: ABSENT: ~-: , " .-:J -11 w . ~ STAFF PRESENT: Karen Sully, Planning Manager, Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, Jerry Bailey, Design Manager - Public Works Elaine Steinhardt, Recording Secretary ;> ::: = C' W ;.., :;0 :::v> :::r.: ;rt": . L, I-q INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION- A written comment was submitted by Roy Shahbazian, 3808 East Palm A venue, concerning Agenda Item number 4, which is a request to build a new restaurant at 1333 Glassell Street. He asked that arrangements be considered that will allow pedestrians to enter the proposed restaurant without crossing drive-thru traffic. He said that ideally, there should be defined pedestrian walkway that is a direct route with as little contact with the parking lot as possible. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN - None INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2001. 2. FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES - WINE EXCHANGE The Planning Commission shall make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of on-site and off-site consumption at the Wine Exchange. Conditional Use Permit 2383-01 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 15,2001 to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages. The site is located at 2356 N. Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the proVISIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Find that the Public Convenience or Necessity is served by the sale of alcoholic beverages for the Wine Exchange. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Consent Calendar consisting of the Minutes of November 5, 2001 meeting, and also finding that the Public Convenience of Necessity is served by the sale of alcoholic beverages for the Wine Exchange. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2001 AYES: ABSENT: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Romero, Smith Commissioner Pruett None APPROVED MOTION CARRIED INRE: NEW HEARINGS 3. CONDmONAL USE PERMIT 2369-01 SONIA AND DAVID JOHNSON A request to allow an existing accessory second housing unit (577 sq. ft.) at a single- family residence (1,862 sq. ft.). The zoning of the property is Single Family Residential (R-1-20). The site is located at 5028 East Glen Arran Lane. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1- Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC-38-01 recommending to the City Council the approval of Conditional Use Permit 2369-01. Since no one was present in opposition to the application, Chair Smith waived full reading of the report. Ms. Karen Sullv. Planning Manager. provided a brief overview of the proposal. She noted that project planner Mario Chavez-Marquez was available to give additional detail and answer questions. if necessary. Chair Smith called on Mr. Chavez-Marquez who further elaborated on the request. Chair Smith then called on the applicant for his testimony. The applicant, David Johnson, 5028 East Glen Arran Lane, explained the property was in good condition and he wished to legalize the second unit that already exists. Responding to Chair Smith's request that she point out significant conditions of approval, Ms Sully reviewed Condition of Approval Number 2 that requires a recorded agreement on the property; Condition of Approval Number 7 requiring the provision of an additional unenclosed parking space for use by the inhabitants of the accessory structure; and Condition of Approval Number 8 dealing with the private sewage disposal system and the need for health officer approval. Chair Smith wished to be certain that the applicant understood the requirements and asked ifMr. Johnson had an opportunity to review the staff report and Conditions of Approval. He responded that he thought he did. Chair Smith then asked that Mr. Johnson be supplied with a copy of the staff report before the recommendation is sent to the City Council. Shirely Grindle, 5021 East Glen Arran, a neighbor living across the street from the subject property, stated there had been many owners of the subject property and Mr. Johnson was putting in a lot of time and money improving his property. She also explained that the street was a private, substandard street and asked if it were possible to impose a "no parking on the street" restriction. She said the lots were all large with big garages and she was interested in finding out if the City can force people to park in their garages. Nathan Silva - 5 I 08 Glen Arran Lane said the applicant was doing a good job improving the property and he had no reason to oppose the request. He asked for clarification concerning parking, to which Ms. Sully 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 3,2001 explained that the parking provided for the accessory unit can be uncovered and unpaved as proposed; she noted that Mr. Johnson proposed a gravel area for the additional parking space. Responding to Chair Smith's request that the no parking on the street request be addressed, Ms Sully explained that the City could not regulate on-street or driveway parking. Chair Smith noted that parking on the street was a problem throughout the City. She said that although the City doesn't regulate parking, some neighborhoods make agreements concerning parking, some being successful and others not so successful. Mr. Johnson said he appreciated the support of his neighbors. He said he is encouraging the tenant in his accessory unit to use the on-site parking space provided. No one else wished to speak and Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Staff was unable to answer Commissioner Bonina's question regarding the width of the street, but Ms. Grindle stated the street had 16 feet of flat surface in the width. She explained there was a 10-foot easement and then each property owner owned the street in front of his home to the middle of the street. Mr. Jerry Bailev. Design Manager - Public Works. stated since it was a private street, the width was agreed upon between the neighbors. Commissioner Romero commented that parking inside a garage was ideal and he wished there was something the Planning Commission could do about it, but unfortunately they do not have that power. Chair Smith said she appreciated that Mr. Johnson chose to legalize the accessory unit. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bonina for adoption ofresolution PC 38- 01 recommending approval to the City Council of Conditional Use Permit 2369-01, based on the findings in Section I of the resolution and subject to conditions of approval I through 9 in Section 3 of the resolution. AYES: ABSENT: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Romero, Smith Commissioner Pruett None MOTION CARRIED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2384-01 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT A request to allow the demolition of an existing restaurant and construction of a new 3,318 square foot Fazoli's restaurant with an outdoor dining area and a drive-thru window. The zoning of the property is C-I (Limited Business). The site is located at 1333 N. Glassell Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the proVIsIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2- Replacement or Reconstruction). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 39-01 approving Conditional Use Permit 2384-01. Ms. Karen Sully presented a synopsis of the staff report, noting it was a class 2 exemption from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. She said staff was recommending approval. 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 3, 2001 Because there was no one present opposing the request, Chair Smith waived reading the full report, but she asked Ms Sully to further elaborate on the contents of the staff report in the absence of the project planner. During her presentation, Ms. Sully said the project was in compliance with the zoning and noted the project was reviewed several times by the Staff Review Committee where corrections to a number of facets of the plan were discussed and instituted. She explained that the Design Review Committee also reviewed the project and recommended approval, subject to conditions. She said the project met all development standards and the plan proposed 3 more parking spaces than required. She pointed out that the drive-thru stack area would accommodate 7-8 vehicles, and a condition has been included to abate drive-thru speaker noise. Ms Sully said that after the project was reviewed by the DRC, staff re-looked at the Code that requires additional trees from what is proposed. Staff is recommending that the landscaping be enhanced and additional trees shall be required [through a condition]. She also discussed the existing recordation of the reciprocal parking agreement. She said staff recommended approval, subject to conditions because the surrounding area will benefit from the improved appearance of the shopping center. She passed a color board to the Planning Commissioners for their review, noting that the cornice will match that of the existing shopping center. Ms Sully also displayed photos to allow the Planning Commission an idea of the proposed project. Commissioner Bonina inquired as to whether the parking depicted along the easterly side of the project was part of the project's parking count. The applicant, Fred Cook of Fred Cook Architects, described the project as being 3,300 square feet with a Floor Area Ratio of about 9% and an outdoor seating area of 402 square feet. He answered Commissioner Bonina's question by explaining the easterly parking area was not included in their parking space count. He explained the proposed restaurant would be the second Fazoli's on the west coast and would be consistent with the neighborhood. He described the architecture as having good character and promised the restaurant is a new concept. He also explained that they had incorporated the DRC's suggestions, although he disputed the existing tree count explaining there were 38 existing trees as opposed to 34 described in the staff report. He expressed his opinion that the request for 64 trees was a little excessive, but they will work with the Landscape Coordinator and will provide 64 trees if required. He inquired about the fire sprinkler requirement relative to the square footage, to which Chair Smith replied staff would research the requirement. He referred to the California Building Code as not requiring sprinklers for the proposed square footage and was interested in whether the requirement was a local code. The applicant repeated that he counted 38 trees existing on the property when asked by Commissioner Romero how many trees were on the site now. The applicant noted that only 25% of the additional trees were required to be 24" box size and the remaining could be 15 gallon trees. He suggested that they group trees for appearance sake, not based necessarily on a specific number. Chair Smith injected that she was inclined to agree with the requirement for 64 trees, especially for that area because it needs the improvement of trees, although it is up to the DRC to support landscape requirements. . Chair Smith discussed the fact that she had intended to request only the larger trees be included in the condition, but she conceded that she would agree to the condition as written and she indicated she expected the code to be complied with. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 3,2001 Commissioner Bonina prefaced his comments with noting he was pleased that the property was being improved, but he did express concern with where the trees would be placed. He suggested they be planted near the planter between the two parking areas because Pep Boys has an unsightly trash collection in that area and Commissioner Bonina said he is in favor of screening it. The trees would then be functional in providing screening. The applicant was amenable to Commissioner Bonina's suggestion, although he pointed out it was not on his property. He stated that would be acceptable as long as he received credit toward the condition requiring 64 trees. He did note that he was unsure as to whether there were sprinklers available in that area to maintain the landscaping. Ms. Sully returned to read the code provision on page 4-12 of the staff report dealing with installation of approved fire sprinklers, which she emphasized was not a condition of approval but a code provision that must be complied with in any event. She also read the pertinent code as written in the California Fire Code. She explained that although the Fire Code calls for the Fire Chief to designate the type of fire sprinklers to be installed in businesses over 3,600 square feet and the proposed business is a little smaller than the square footage designated in the code, the Chief made the decision in favor of the requirement probably because the proposed business is a restaurant. She said it is a decision properly made by the Fire Chief. There was no one present from the public who wished to speak and there were no closing remarks from the applicant. The Chair closed the public hearing, stating that the number of trees and the fire sprinklers were issues to be addressed. Commissioner Romero stated that concerning the fire sprinkler system, City code must prevail and concerning the number of trees, he noted he was in favor of Commissioner Bonina suggestions concerning the easterly side of the site but understands that the easterly property owner may limit what work is done there. He deferred to the DRC concerning the number of trees required because he said he appreciates their work and effort in design. Commissioner Bonina suggested the applicant explore the tree situation with the shopping center owner who may be open to the improvements suggested. He repeated his view of the easterly boundary and stated the trees would provide a nice buffer and result in a better visual presentation. Chair Smith asked, due to safety concerns, that a stop sign be installed at the drive-thru lane. She pointed out that unrelated traffic will be crossing the drive-thru exit and people driving those cars may not be aware of the drive-thru traffic, the same as pedestrians may not be aware of traffic. She suggested that since the mall is small and crowded, a stop sign be conditioned. Ms. Sully asked if Chair Smith thought the size of directional signs was the size she envisioned for the stop sign. She also suggested consideration of either speed bumps or enhanced paving (proposed) to slow traffic. Commissioner Bonina suggested perhaps a stop sign painted on the ground may be sufficient, but Chair Smith feared a painted stop sign may not stop people. Chair Smith reopened the public hearing for the applicant to address the stop sign issue. The applicant offered the possibility that the enhanced paving may slow traffic. He added they have installed stop signs at other sites and they would be happy to install one at this site. Chair Smith thanked him and asked that the maker of the motion to include a condition requiring a stop SIgn. MOTION 5 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2001 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bonina for adoption of resolution PC 39- 01 approving Conditional Use Permit 2384-01, based on the findings in Section I of the resolution and subject to conditions of approval I through 18 in Section 2 of the resolution, including the following modifications to the conditions of approval: 13. .. .or designee prior to the issuance of building permits.' A stop sign shall be placed at the drive- thru lane exit. 18 ...approval by the City's Landscape Coordinator prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant is encouraged to cooperate with the adiacent property owner to provide enhanced landscaping on the eastern portion of the property for increased screening. Trees used in this configuration mav be used to satisfy the restaurant site reauirement. AYES: ABSENT: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Romero, Smith Commissioner Pruett None MOTION CARRIED There was no new business. INRE: ADJOURMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, December 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. AYES: ABSENT: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Romero, Smith Commissioner Pruett None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 6