||APRIL 27, 2005
|CALL TO ORDER:
||The meeting was called to order by Chairman Griffin at 7:01 p.m. |
||Chairman Griffin, Commissioners Bailey, Cowen, Francis, Hart, Savage, Stopper |
||Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Assistant Planner Kusch, Assistant Planner Sowers and Recording Secretary Baker|
MOTION by Commissioner Stopper, seconded by Commissioner Savage that the minutes of April 13, 2005, 4:00 p.m. be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
Chairman Griffin asked that on the 13th paragraph of page 71, the words was concerned be replaced by acknowledged and the end of that sentence read item needed more time and work to perfect it.
Commissioner Stopper asked to remove the word it and this request without more information be added at the end of the 7th paragraph on page 71.
MOTION by Commissioner Stopper, seconded by Commissioner Bailey that the Minutes of April 13, 2005, 7:00 p.m. be APPROVED AS AMENDED.
ITEM NO. 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-887A. APPLICANT: MEDIA GIANT; PROPERTY OWNER: GING L. GIN.
Staff report dated April 20, 2005, was presented pertaining to a request to amend a Conditional Use Permit (CUP-887) to change an existing Type 41 to a Type 47 alcoholic beverage license for an existing restaurant on property located at 3159 Yorba Linda Boulevard (north side of Yorba Linda Boulevard at the intersection of Sapphire Road) (C-2 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines).
Assistant Planner Sowers stated that the new owners of the business were requesting a Type 47 license, which authorized the sale of distilled spirits. Condition #3 of CUP-887 stated that any major change to the tenants operation, including the addition of liquor, would require another public hearing before the Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Sowers displayed an aerial photo of the site and described the location.
- There were only two recent calls for a police response; since the new owners took over both were in December
- The last code enforcement complaint was from 2001, before there was new ownership;
- Applicant was not complying with Condition #2 of CUP 887, which required a permit from the Police Department if there were more than four pool tables or video games.
- A shared parking agreement was required by Condition #5 of CUP-887. Staff found no such agreement, but renewed the lease. Staff believes the current uses would not require a shared parking agreement and there were no restrictions or limitations on the parking;
Staff believed the use was consistent with the General Plan and zoning and, as conditioned, it would be reasonably compatible and not detrimental to the surrounding properties. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution approving the CUP, as modified, subject to the conditions. Notification was sent to adjacent property and business owners, with no support or opposition stated in writing, or by phone.
Staff recommended a condition that the applicant be required to obtain a permit for the games and pool tables (which are at a number greater than four) within 30 days. Another condition was added so that the applicant would obtain Planning and Fire Department approval prior to barbecuing on the patio. Since the prior owner did not obtain permits for interior modifications, staff was adding a condition that the current owner would get the appropriate permits within a three-month period. Additionally, staff recommended a condition to require appropriate ABC training in the responsible serving of alcoholic beverages, and verification of such training must be provided.
Assistant Planner Sowers also recommended a six-month review and noted that the CUP was subject to revocation. She provided the Planning Commission with a copy of the draft conditions from ABC for this license, which limited the hours of operations and placed more restrictive hours for patio usage.
Commissioner Hart asked if the applicant was currently serving beer and wine on the patio area. Assistant Planner Sowers asked the applicant and he responded affirmatively, and that the hours were currently not restricted.
Commissioner Stopper asked if the current owner could take action against the prior owner for not obtaining appropriate permits for modifications to the business. Chief Planner Rosen answered that the property owner was the responsible party, and he asked Assistant Planner Sowers to clarify what modifications were made.
Assistant Planner Sowers reported that according to the original plans, the kitchen and dining area were moved closer to the front, some walls were moved, and the patio was added.
Commissioner Stopper talked about the shared parking issue. Assistant Planner Sowers explained that parking spaces were not specifically assigned and the condition could be dropped, unless additional square footage was added.
Commissioner Francis was concerned that staff was requiring the applicant to train staff in serving alcohol. He felt it was in excess because ABC conditions do not require it.
Chairman Griffin asked staff if this condition was required of all restaurants that sell alcohol. Chief Planner Rosen reported that it began a few years ago after researching other cities policies, and was done in conjunction with the Police Department. Now it was a standard condition. Staff specifically was recommending this condition, because a previous bar application at this location received objection from surrounding residents.
Commissioner Savage asked what the length of the training course was.
Public hearing opened.
Michael Winters, applicant and owner of Mikeys, stated that he would acquire the necessary permits for modifications done by the previous owner and also acquire a permit from the Police Department for the video games and pool tables. He discussed his background and history of the restaurant. He had called the police because of a fight, and had removed the clientele involved. He noted that the second call to police was regarding graffiti. He added that the length of the ABC training course was one day.
Chairman Griffin asked if he was in agreement with staffs recommended conditions, and Mr. Winters answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Hart asked about the ABC requirements that customers were not allowed to carry alcoholic drinks from the patio to the restaurant. Mr. Winters clarified that the patio area was not a waiting area, but a dining area. Mr. Winters stated the hours of operation were Sunday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Friday and Saturday 10 a.m. to midnight.
Commissioner Stopper discussed the ABC condition of not being able to have amplified music or live entertainment.
Commissioner Francis asked if there was a problem with the previous owner regarding serving alcohol. Staff responded that they did not know of any problems. Mr. Winters stated that there were some noise complaints made to the ABC before he took over.
Tom Alex, lived in Fullerton for over 20 years and spoke about Mr. Winters donation of time and money to local sports.
Josh England, General Manager at Gem Meats, felt that Mr. Winters was conscientious and had done a good job of changing the business and the type of patronage.
Dr. Josh Luke, coached youth soccer and baseball and knew the previous owner. He liked the family focus of the restaurant.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Francis stated that this was a great neighborhood restaurant and very convenient. He supported the project and wished them success.
Chief Planner Rosen told the Planning Commission that the conditions in the resolution for the modification to the CUP would supersede the previous conditions.
Title of Resolution PC-05-13 AMENDING Conditional Use Permit (CUP-887) to change an existing Type 41 to a Type 47 Alcoholic Beverage License for an existing restaurant located at 3159 Yorba Linda Boulevard was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Stopper, seconded by Commissioner Savage, and CARRIED by a vote of 7 0, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.
ITEM NO. 2
PRJ04-00387 ZON04-00047. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: ABRAHAM TABAJA.
Staff report dated April 14, 2005, was presented pertaining to a review of compliance with conditions of approval for a Conditional Use Permit for automobile sales and repair on property located at 801-811 West Commonwealth Avenue (north side of Commonwealth Avenue between the northwest corner of Commonwealth Avenue and Jefferson Avenue, and approximately 135 feet west of the northwest corner of Commonwealth Avenue and Jefferson Avenue) (C-H zone). An aerial photo was displayed.
Assistant Planner Kusch reported that the Commission had approved the CUP for auto sales and repair, but denied the site plan for a building for auto repair use. In September, the applicant appealed certain conditions of approval, due to economic hardship, and subsequently the City Council approved the appeal and amended the conditions. Assistant Planner Kusch reviewed the conditions of approval and discussed the following:
- Unpaved area being used for parking
- Improved parking surface needed
- Fence posts remain after the removal of fence
- Debris from fence removed near Jefferson
- Groundcover and general planting in the newly installed planter along Commonwealth does not meet requirements
- Landscape plan has been submitted and is pending review
- Photos of landscaping and site conditions in August compared to today
- Required six-foot block wall has been constructed
- Window signage exceeding size and display time allowed
- Three-month review and public hearing to modify conditions of approval
- No longer parking high profile vehicles adjacent to neighboring residences
Commissioner Francis asked if the applicant had complied with most of the conditions and if the applicant could use gravel in the rear parking area. Assistant Planner Kusch stated that he believed that code required paving so that fluids from automobiles would not percolate into the groundwater. Chief Planner Rosen added that improved parking surfaces are allowed in rural areas, however, commercial and industrial areas must be paved or use asphalt. He also stated that staff would like to see control of overgrown weeds.
Abraham Tabaja, applicant, stated that the original landscaping was planned because of the proposed building. Since the building was denied, he felt the landscaping was not necessary in the parking area previously indicated on the approved site plan. He also felt there should not be any landscaping required behind the cars parked toward the rear of the property. He has had signage in the window since 1992, and could not understand why it needed to be removed now; and the owner of the truck with advertising moves it daily. He stated that the heavy rains were detrimental to the landscaping improvements. He also stated that some of the fence posts have lights, but he would remove the fence posts that do not have lights.
Chairman Griffin was concerned about the gravel parking and NPDES requirements. He also felt there was a safety issue with parked vehicles protruding into the drive aisle.
Mr. Tabaja discussed:
- Ingress and egress from Jefferson
- Gravel is located at the previously proposed building footprint
- He cannot afford paving the area
- Costly to pave and then remove when future building is approved
- Environmental testing showed no contamination on the site
Chairman Griffin talked with Mr. Tabaja about not meeting the conditions approved by City Council.
Commissioner Francis asked the applicant how much money had been spent on improvements, and asked staff who would be cited for tenant violations. Mr. Tabaja stated that he had spent $40,000. Chief Planner Rosen stated that the property owner was ultimately responsible, but the tenant could also be cited.
Commissioner Savage referred the applicant to the staff report, specifically paragraph two, and asked him if he understood the conditions listed or if he wanted to alter the conditions. Commissioner Savage stated that there was a mechanism to deal with any conditions that he was not in agreement with. Mr. Tabaja answered that he had misunderstood and he did not want to alter the conditions, he was willing to comply with the conditions. He stated that he had misunderstood the landscaping requirements since the proposed building was not approved.
Commissioner Francis asked if it was necessary to plant shrubs against the six-foot wall at the rear of the property.
Assistant Planner Kusch explained that this was a zoning code issue. Even if the location was not appropriate for landscaping, the code was specific that based on the parking spaces; a certain amount of landscape was needed in the parking area.
Commissioner Hart said when this was improved; there was an issue with the height of the wall and whether trees would be planted there. Chief Planner Rosen stated that the conditions were specific and clearly written. The Planning Commission could modify the condition; however, it would require notification of a public hearing.
Mr. Tabaja asked the Planning Commission whether he could move the location of the landscaping.
Commissioner Bailey asked if it was appropriate to discuss the details of the landscaping, since the Planning Commission was not reevaluating the CUP, just receiving an update
Chairman Griffin stated that the Commission needed to either approve this and the applicant would continue to work with staff, and have a three-month review or set a public hearing and review the conditions again.
Commissioner Francis reiterated that he felt staff and the applicant were working together.
Commissioner Stopper had concerns regarding:
- The property being over-parked, creating a safety problem with too much equipment on the site; and
- Parking on the dirt lot in the rear
Commissioner Bailey felt the applicant had shown good faith and he would like to review the project in three months.
Commissioner Hart also felt that the applicant had made progress. She felt it was important to move the truck with signage parked in front of the building. She also wanted another review in three months.
Chairman Griffin also recommended that staff review this matter in three months. Chief Planner Rosen stated that staff would report back to the Commission by memo, or through verbal communications.
MOTION by Commissioner Francis that staff conduct another review in three months, seconded by Commissioner Hart and CARRIED unanimously by a vote of 7 0.
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION.
PRJ05-00293 LRP05-00005. APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON
A request to clarify and amend Sections 15.30 (Commercial Zone Classifications) and 15.40 (Industrial Zone Classifications) of the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with the previously adopted comprehensive code update.
Chief Planner Rosen stated that staff did a major modification to the zoning code and there were items that needed to be revised because of language or the implementation was unclear to the community. The resolution of intention begins this process.
MOTION by Commissioner Francis, seconded by Member Coffman and CARRIED unanimously by a vote of 7 0, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.
Commissioner Francis mentioned that he had not seen anything removed yet from Mr. Browns residence and the Commission discussed the timeline and the letter received from Marshal Dual and Kirke Warrens response regarding Mr. Browns property and the Commissions action.
Commissioner Savage was concerned that some residents are living in garages.
Chairman Griffin stated that this situation was not unique to Fullerton, it was a pervasive problem.
Commissioner Savage asked if Code Enforcement could allocate additional funds to enforce any misuse of parking garages/spaces.
Commissioner Stopper discussed the progress he has seen on recent developments:
- Walgreens on Chapman
- Commonwealth and Lawrence is being graded.
- Chief Planner Rosen stated that the owners are trying to sell. The buildings were torn down and another developer will be submitting a proposal for a revised mixed use project.
- Carhart subdivision is being graded to build six homes.
- Farmer Boys Chief Planner Rosen stated that it is in plan check
- CVS Pharmacy
- Chief Planner Rosen stated that they are proposing to enlarge the previous application and resubmitting a new application to modify the building and they have a two-year period before the application would expire.
Chairman Griffin asked about the final outcome of the right-of-way dedication along north side of Bastanchury Road. Chief Planner Rosen stated that the City received funds to acquire a portion of the right-of-way and were in negotiations with the property owners to acquire it and are hopeful they would not have to go through condemnation. The acquisition would not delay the development of the corner, whether Bastanchury was widened or not.
Commissioner Savage discussed a lot on the west side of Harbor near the driving range. Chief Planner Rosen stated that he had not seen any plans.
Commissioner Bailey asked when Rent for Less would return to the Commission. Senior Planner Mullis answered that it was scheduled for May.
REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief update on recent City Council meetings.
There was no one from the public who wished to speak on any matter within the Commissions jurisdiction.
The next regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be May 11, 2005, at 7 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.