Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2006 > June 1, 2006
Shortcuts
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Public Notices
Site Plan Review Committee June 1, 2006 Minutes

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
STAFF SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE

COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM FULLERTON CITY HALL
THURSDAY, 9:00 A.M., JUNE 1, 2006

CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Eastman called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: C. Allen, Eastman, Lopez, Rebert (for Petropolous), St. Paul and Villagracia (for Voronel)

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Petropolous, Tabatabaee, Voronel and Thompson

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Leopold

OTHERS PRESENT: Bill and Mary Deisenvoth

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Committee Member St. Paul requested that the May 4 date be changed to May 18 and Chairman Rosen be changed to Chairman Eastman in the Call to Order.MOTION made by Committee Member Allen, SECONDED by Committee Member St. Paul and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to APPROVE May 18, 2006 minutes with changes.

INTRODUCTIONS - COMMITTEE AND STAFF MEMBERS:

ACTION ITEMS:

Item No. 1

PRJ03-00082 – ZON06-00034.APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER:RUBEN T. MELAMED.

Chairman Eastman provided a staff report for a request to modify an existing minor site plan application to change an approved six-tenant building (9,795 square feet) to a single-tenant restaurant and pool hall, and associated modifications to the rear parking lot, on property located at 1001 S. Brookhurst Road (west side of Brookhurst Road between approximately 425 and 560 feet north of Orangethorpe Avenue) (C-1 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15303 of CEQA Guidelines)(JEA).

Chairman Eastman stated the project had been previously submitted and reviewed the conditions from the previous approval.He said the applicant does not have adequate parking based on the previous plan that was submitted, so parking expansion is required.He reviewed concerns related to activities in the back parking lot behind the shopping center from residents who attended the previous meetings.

The applicant was not present.

Chairman Eastman reviewed the conditions previously placed including:

  • Deliveries restricted to the hours of 8 a.m. - 6 p.m.
  • Landscape and lighting requirements for the ATM
  • ATM would remain a drive-through
  • Knox pad lock on fencing area between building and property to the North
  • Addressing and fire hydrant requirements
  • Sidewalk replacements

Chairman Eastman reviewed Water Engineering’s requirements including the prohibition of allowing a water line go over a property line.

Committee Member Lopez asked if there was a security gate on the south side of the building.Chairman Eastman stated there are no gates on the south side.There is a small gate located on the north side between the residential property and the building.He stated the security gates were primarily put in to keep vagrants from sleeping there and to stop any vandalism.Committee Member Lopez said the Fire Department would have a concern with the fire access and required exiting on the north side of the building.Chairman Eastman explained where the exit doors would be located.

Public hearing opened.

Residents Bill and Mary Deisenvoth expressed their concern with having a billiard parlor bring in the wrong elements and questioned if the parlor will have alcohol sales.Chairman Eastman stated his understanding that at this time the applicant will not be selling alcohol on the premises, but it could change in the future.He explained the process if the applicant decides to sell alcohol.Staff and residents discussed the hours of operation.Chairman Eastman asked Mr. and Mrs. Deisenvoth what hours of operation would be appropriate for them based on noise and other issues.They indicated they would like staff to look into limiting the hours of operation.

Public hearing closed.

Chairman Eastman stated that a few years ago when the applicant first submitted plans there were many issues that needed to be resolved in order to meet code.The applicant has now met the code requirements, but Chairman Eastman stated concern in trying to regulate a land use when it is a permitted use by code.Staff had regulated the delivery hours of operation because of the orientation of the deliveries to the back of the property and therefore the regulation was related to site design.When this project was approved it was never anticipated that the facility would stay open until 2:00 a.m. or later.Chairman Eastman stated he would not be in objection to limiting hours of operation to midnight or a reasonable hour, due to the adjacent properties.Since the applicant was not present, it was difficult for staff to find out what conditions the applicant would be comfortable with and what they could implement based on their use.Chairman Eastman recommended eliminating the sale of alcohol as part of the proposal due to the proximity of the residential neighborhood and allowing the applicant to modify their site plan should they decide to sell alcohol on the premises at a later date.

Committee Member St. Paul questioned the height of the fence and wall adjacent to residents.Chairman Eastman answered it is currently 5 or 6 ft. in height and there’s a combination of fences and walls along the property line.Staff and Mrs. Deisenvoth discussed possible maintenance or raise of the fences.

Chairman Eastman proposed limiting the hours of operation to 12:00 a.m. maximum due to the configuration of the site development as it relates to adjacent residences and the hidden nature of the parking lot.He stated that this site design was not originally approved for a restaurant/billiard use, and the design might have been different.Acting Chief Planner Eastman clarified that the applicant can have employees cleaning up after 12:00 a.m. without violating this condition.

Chairman Eastman recommended a condition that the windows not be covered, obscured or modified from what the staff previously approved.The windows must stay clear for visibility by police.

Chairman Eastman recommended that any approval granted by staff be conditioned that alcohol sales be prohibited without further review and notification to the public of the Staff Review Committee hearing.He explained the alcohol sales process and the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) licensing.He stated that staff would not prohibit alcohol sales at this location, but believes the site design may need to be considered to better accommodate an alcohol use, and that is not being considered at this time because the applicant did not attend the hearing.

Chairman Eastman recommended that all lighting be shielded, so it does not create a direct glare onto adjacent properties, yet be adequately illuminated to cover all parking areas.

Chairman Eastman stated that Water Engineering will need to have all water irrigation contained within the site, so it does not cross the property boundaries/lines without some easement or agreement in place.

Staff discussed adding a condition that the property’s use does not change.Chairman Eastman was in opposition of making that a condition because the minor site plan application has limited ability to consider uses.He expressed that staff does have concern with the project becoming a full bar and would have an objection to that due to the residential neighborhood and the parking configuration.However, a full bar license would require a Conditional Use Permit.

Public hearing opened.

Mrs. Deisenvoth asked if there are generally any problems with alcohol and pool halls.Officer Brent Rebert stated that although police is concerned, it is permitted.Should it become a concern later, there are laws through ABC that would cover the misuse of the permit.

Chairman Eastman recommended a condition that no stages be constructed in the facility for performances or entertainment.He stated that all of the conditions in the previous approval will be in effect.

Chairman Eastman stated he would base those conditions on a finding that the modification from a multi-tenant building to a single-tenant building and an increase in parking has a potential negative impact on adjacent properties unless mitigated such that the regulation on hours of operation plus liquor use is dictated by the hidden location of the parking lot from the public street and the ability to adequately police it based on the site configuration.

MOTION made by Committee Member St. Paul, SECONDED by Hazardous Materials Specialist Corrie Allen (for Committee Member Thompson) and CARRIED unanimously to APPROVE the project subject to those conditions as discussed.

Chairman Eastman explained to Mr. and Mrs. Deisenvoth regarding alcohol sales that if they receive a notice from the ABC within the next couple of years to let the contact at the ABC know that the City restricted alcohol sales, and they should contact the Planning Division.Chairman Eastman stated that the City cannot prohibit the use of alcohol sales in a restaurant, but staff is concerned with the use of the building as it relates to adjacent residential properties.He explained what staff might require from the applicant if they chose to sell alcohol.

MOTION made by Chairman Eastman, SECONDED by Hazardous Materials Specialist Corrie Allen to ADJOURN meeting at 9:45 a.m.

BY:_____________________________________
Ruth Leopold, Clerical Support

FacebookTwitterYouTube
RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2014 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547