Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-1995 PC Minuteseasoo,G.~.3 MINUTES Planning Commission April 3, 1995CityofOrangeMonday - 7:00p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smdh ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vein Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;StanSoo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MIN TE FOR FEBRUARY 22 19 5 AND MAR H 20 1995 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes ofFebruary22, 1995 and March 20, 1995 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, SmithNOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2097-95, VARIANCE 1987-95 - I & B CORPORATION A proposal to remodel and expand an existing service station structure to add a food market, whichwillsellbeerandwine, and an office. Also requested is a waiver of development standards regardingfrontandstreetsidelandscapinarea, drive aisle widths, and parking lot landscaping area, as required bytheOrangeMunicipalCode. The site is located at the northeast corner of Orange-Olive RoadandMeatsAvenue (2101 North Orange-Olive Road).N TE: Negative Declaration 1467-95 has been prepared toaddresstheenvironmental impacts of the proposal.This item was continued from the March 6, 1995 public hearing.)The full reading of the revised staff report was waived as no one was in oppositiontothisitem. The public hearing was opened.ADOlicant Robert Colin, 3810 East Palm Avenue, commented on his revisionstotheirproposalregardinglandscapingandcirculation. He eliminated auxiliary parking and loading areas. He explained how he arrived at his figures, coming up with anet area of 12,060 square feet. This included the pedestrian walkways around the building and curbs adjacent to the building. They wereconsideredpartofthevehiclecirculationinhiscalculations. He added quite a bit of landscaping to come up withagrossareaofover1500squarefeet (12 1/2%). This did not include the planter boxes bythepumps. He then received the Minutes of the previous hearingHand reviewed the comments regarding the handicap stall,revisionseo thetsite p an.e His parking aeea came ou tto 121 72 square feet wh chgatvehimkarequiedlandscapeareaof1,217 square feet or approximately 11 3/4% for parking, circulation and landscaping. It does not include approximately 25 square feet for the three planter boxes by thegaspumpsnordoesitincludeapotentiallandscapeareabythetrashenclosure. He felt this would eliminatetheneedforavarianceontheparking, circulation and landscaping. There was concern about Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 1995 propane tanks. He thought it could be resolved by painting the curbs red and posting the area with no parking signs. Regarding the variance for drive aisles, on the north side of the building under the revised plan there is a 25 Toot wide drive. He increased the width by minimizing the curb adjacent to the building y two feet. The drive aisle to the west of the building could be considered through a variance or administrative adjustment in that it falls within 10% of the required width. The 23 feet in plan view is deceiving -- it is actually 25 feet to the building and the curb acts as a fire stop. It is not the building line,but actually the fire stop so cars will not hit the building. On the south end of the building there is a similar situation, but he believed it would be logical to say there is an existing drive approach, which restrains the width. Parking can only be towards the back. His main concern for maintaining the circulation around the building is that it has always been his experience with the Public Works Department to provide on-site parking circulation rather than to enter a site, go around the building, exit and go around again to get back on the properly. He believed the only other way to eliminate this would be to relocate driveways and cut the project in half, which would kill it, or move the driveway over, keep the size of the project and eliminate on-site parking circulation. He was limited as to what he could do there. He requests an adjustment for the drive aisle width at that location. Regarding street landscaping on Orange-Olive, landscaping has been eliminated by the gas island pumps. At that particular location there is diesel fuel. The canopy does not extend over that area. By putting a planter there, it would be damaged by trucks running the planter over. The major concern would be a safety issue by avoiding a hazardous spill. The other location would be the Meats driveway approach. He has seen 30 and 45 degree angles cut directly off the drive approach. Their drive aisle approach is mainly due to the parking limitations. They are not asking for any special circumstance. To compensate for the 30 degree cutoff an offset of landscaping could be approved to meet the code requirements. It would be similar to the Montessori School, down the street on Orange-Olive.Commissioner Cathcart said there was a difference of opinion regarding the calculation of landscape area between the applicant and staff. He asked for an explanation for the difference in calculations.Mr. Jones explained the differences of Mr. Colin's inclusion of curbing and other paved hardscape if they were in the landscaped area. Whereas, staff excluded the hardscape portion including curbs and paved areas from the calculations of landscaping requirements. Examples: the phone booth location, which was in the front planter area and propane tanks --these would be excluded from landscape.Mr. Colin responded the only thing he didn't take out was the curbing as it was considered hardscape.He did take out for the propane tank pad and also for the telephone pad. He did not include any sidewalks around the building nor the trash enclosure.Mr. Jones said staff does not include curbing and hardscape in their calculations and that is where the difference is.Mr. Colin thought there was a concern regarding condition 5 about the landscaping adjacent to the propane tanks, the first driveway approach on Orange-Olive. If they eliminated that, there would be an adjustment, but he didn't know how much it would be.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Cathcart was a little uncomfortable there wasnY a consensus from the staff and applicant as to what percentage of landscape area on the site existed. In viewing the plan, the top right hand angle of the site, he suggested an additional planting space that would be moved to the west and take into consideration the triangular spot of landscape m that corner to expand it to the north property line. It would appear if the applicant did that, it would cease to become a variance item. It would not be a hardship to make that percentage of landscape coverage.Commissioner Pruett did not understand the difference between the revised plan and original plan in that location. In that location, the landscaping is extended out (old plan).Commissioner Cathcart said ii the applicant goes back to the original plan, the percentage of landscape coverage (regardless of how they calculated it) falls within the landscape ordinance and a variance would not have to be dealt with.Chairman Bosch concurred on that point. It still provides a 25 foot straight back up space for parking space #1. It seems to be an Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 1995 Commissioner Cathcart didnY have a problem with re-evaluating the fixed diesel pump out in front that creates a real hardship. He didn't believe it would constitute a grant of special privilege to grant a variance for the front landscaping area (to be taken out). In looking at the drive aisle width and back up width, he concurred the requirement is 25 feet and what the applicant is asking for is 23 feet -- it falls within 10% for an administrative adjustment. It should be handled that way -- not as a variance.Commissioner Smith said Mr. Colin made the comment that in the back drive aisle it is 25 feet from the building, or it would overlap. What is the rule?Chairman Bosch answered it was from the back of parking space to face of curb is how the aisles are measured, but Mr. Colin was looking at the two feet as being overhang space.Commissioner Pruett thought the parking aisle could be improved from the standpoint of angling parking.As you drive in, angle the parking to the northeast. That could be done and they wouldn't lose any parking spaces and it would widen the drive aisle and take care of the problem of backing up.Chairman Bosch responded in addition to that, by angling the parking, the depth of the spaces are about the same. You're allowed to narrow the aisle down and pick up 6 or 7 feet of landscaping along the property line. Then, you have a one way aisle across the back of the station. Can that really be enforced? The applicant could have more landscaping than was needed on the site plus have safer parking for the spaces and no back up problem at all. But then they must be concerned about one-way only signs and keep people from short cutting back through there. He's almost willing to look at the two feet. There is nothing that says the applicant couldn't have the drive right up to the building, but everyone knows what would happen. He wondered what they could do to address the two way traffic --are they ok with the 23 feet vs. the 25 feet? The other thought he had with landscaping was in addition to the triangle between spaces #t and #13 at the northeast corner of the site, at the southwest corner the large landscape island at the intersection with the propane tank, by narrowing the drive aisle between the propane tank and the curb at the market sidewalk 25 feet, you could actually widen that landscape area out to the northeast by almost 5 feet, picking up a lot of landscape area in the general amount and probably about 20 square feet into the front setback landscaping. That's a long way from the minimum there, but it' s getting closer. He agrees with the concern about trucks driving over a small planter along Meats Avenue, although technically the applicant could have a planter there and grow plants as it helps solve the problem to some extent. He didn'tknow if that would get them within the administrative adjustment waiver. Commissioner Cathcart didnR see that it does Chairman Bosch thought what Commissioner Cathcart was suggesting was given the length of time diesel service has been available and the need for it in the community, this would be a compelling special circumstance to maintain safe and reasonable access to that pump.Commissioner Cathcart said if they were to conclude that Variance 1987-95 would include only the front and street side landscaping areas and the drive aisle width and back up space could be handled as an administrative adjustment; and the addition of the triangle landscaping area to the north was added; and it would be nice to have the southwest corner widened by 5 feet, that the issue would then be one variance based on the fixed diesel pumps because they have been there as a necessity for the community and trying to put a landscaped area there would create a real hardship and does not constitute a grant of special privilege, he would be inclined to make a motion. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Negative Declaration 1467-95, Conditional Use Permit 2097-95 and Variance 1987-95,which includes the front and side landscape areas only. The drive aisle widths and back up space are to be handled as an administrative adjustment. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege and there is a strong, economic hardship and one relevant to location and surroundings given the longevity of the application at the site. All improvements and aesthetics are good, but the minor improvement that would be represented by some additional landscaping adjacent to the diesel pump island with the loss of safety is an unreasonable trade off for what is needed with that service as it cunently exists.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smdh NOES: Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2103-95 - SUEDE April 3, 1995 Proposed live entertainment and dancing in an existing restaurant/billiard facility located at 1988NorthTustin Street.N TE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.Chuck Lau, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition to thisitem.SuedeRestaurant/Billiards requests to add dancing and live entertainment (bands) to their facility. The Planning Commission reviewed a similar application by Suede last year and it was approved at thattime.The application is back again because it was appealed to the City Council because there weresomeconditionsplacedonthepreviousapplication. The applicant felt it was a bit strict; therefore, they tookittotheCityCouncil, who denied their application. The applicants propose to move a couple ofbilliardtablesinordertoprovideforadditionalseatinganddiningspacewhichwillbedisplacedbythedancingarea. There are no changes to the square footage of the building; they are not expanding thebuilding.Suede is open from 5:00 p.m. to2:00a.m., Monday through Wednesday and from 12 noon to2:00 a.m.on Thursday through Sunday. With this new application, they propose to provide valet parkingonlyduringscheduledeventsforliveentertainment. This proposal modifies the original conditional usepermitC. U. P. 2012-93). There were two condftions in the originalC.U.P. that specifically prohibiteddancingandliveentertainment. There was also a condition added at the end (#16) requiring valet parkingbemadeavailabletopatronsofthefacilityatalltimes. There was a concern there was a lack of parkinganditwouldconflictwithotherbusinessesinthecenter. Suede is asking for reconsideration oftheirapplication.There was some miscommunication between the applicant and the Police Chief regardingtheproposal.Since then, they have had several meetings and both agree if certain conditions are maintetned inthenewapplication, the Police Department would not protest it. The Police Department has raisedconcernwithhowmanydaystheactivitieswillbeconducted. It has been recommended by the PoliceDepartmentthedancingandliveentertainmentinitiallyberestrictedtoFridayandSaturdaynights, from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., ratherthan 2:00 a.m. The applicant, however, is asking the Planning Commission insteadofaoneyearreviewperiod, modify it to a 6-month review period. After the 6-monthreviewperiod, if there were no problems with parking, police calls, etc., perhaps at that timethePlanningCommissioncouldconsidermodifyingtheconditiontoallowSuedetohaveliveentertainmentanddancingonweekdaysandhavealaterclosingtimeaswell. There was an additional condition placedon the C.U.P. by the recommendation of the Police Department to have on-going monitoring ofthebusinessbyboththePoliceDepartmentandplanningstafftomakesuretherewerenoexcessiveorunnecessaryactivitiesthatwouldresultinahighuseofpoliceservices. Ii such were tooccur, then the C.U.P. would be brought back for review of a revocation process. Regarding the parking issue, the applicant stated to provide valet parking at all times would be impractical. Their peak business hours are from 10:30p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Most of the surrounding businesses are closed and parkingproblemsarenonexistent. The applicant also states valet companies providing this service only provide the parkingifthereisademandforit. A petition was submitted by theapplicant (included in the Commission's packet) that was signed by all the other businesses to verify this proposal would not cause themanyparkingproblems. With the previous request, the Planning Commission noted the property was 500 to600feetdeep. Offices and additional buildings are located in back of Suede that helps tobuffertheresidenceslocatedimmediatelywestoftheproperty. Most of the cars are parked either in the front parking lotorinthemiddlecourtyardparkinglot. The parking bt to the rear (adjacent to the residences) arenotusedmainlybecausetheyarelocatedtoofaraway. With the adoption of the conditionsrecommendedbythePoliceDepartmentandtheconditionsrecommendedundertheentertainmentestablishment, itisfekthesepotentialimpactscanbemitigatedandminimizedtoalevelofinsignificance. He called attentiontocondition2 -- 6-month review period; and condition 3 -- monitoring of the business by the Police Department.There was discussion regarding valet parking. It was not an ordinance or coderequirement, but a specific requirement. During the first hearing in 1993 the condition was addedbecausetheapplicantvolunteeredduringthehearingtoprovidevaletparking. This originated with the ownership ofthepropertyatthetimeandvaletparkingwasaddedtotheleaseagreement. Part of the applicant'srequestistomodifythevaletparkingfromallthetimeto only during special events.Detective Sgt. Barry Weinstein, Orange Police Department, reported the PoliceChiefhasbeenincontactwiththemanagementofSuede. They have come to an agreement if the conditions Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 1995 met, the Police Department would not protest the revision of the conditional use permit. They would likevaletparkingtobeprovidedwhentherewerespecialevents/entertainment; and will hold fast to theconditionsofapproval. Commissioner Pruett stressed there needed to be a fee charged to the applicant for any additionaladministrativeservicesplacedontheCity, such as the 6-month review period and monitoring ofthe business.Sgt. Weinstein explained the PoliceDepartment's response procedure. They have had veryminimalproblemsatthatparticularlocationtospeak of.The public hearing was opened.A~ olicant Mehdi Rafaty, 1010 La Mirada, Laguna Beach, has been in business almost two years. Theircustomersarewantingliveentertainmentanddancing; therefore, they have submitted a petition to the City ofabout900signatures. They also got signatures of business owners in the center and submitted that petitiontotheCommission. They would like a couple of more nights than was previously approved and that'swhytheyappealedtotheCityCouncil. Valet parking is provided at Suede, although there is hardlyanytakers. They have had no police calls to their location, other than for their alarm system. They wanttheirbusinesstogrowandbesuccessful. One of the owners is always present on the site. By havingliveentertainmentanddancingitwillnotbeaproblem; they would like to prove this to the City. They objected to condition 4 -- a licensed, uniformed security guard. They requested that they providesecurity, but for employees to wear a Suede uniform. They welcomed the chance to come back in sixmonthsforafollowupreport. Commissioner Cathcart would like to see added to condition 2 that valet parking shall be provided onnightswhenentertainmentoccurred. Is there a problem with that? Mr. Rafaty said not at all. Commissioner Smith was intrigued with the petition from the business owners. She asked him if he everhadalicensetopresentliveentertainment? Mr. Rafaty said there was some misunderstanding about having a license from the Planning Commission.When the Planning Commission approved their C.U.P., they thought they had a license. They had anumberofbandscomeinontheweekendsandplaypriortotheappeal. It is his understanding now thattheywerewrong. Commissioner Smith saw the petition as being somewhat misleading in that it says to reinstate theirlicense, which to her understanding, they didn't have. The petition is not dated. When were thesignaturesgathered? Mr. Rafaty said the signatures were obtained the second month after their appeal process -- maybe November, 1994.Commissioner Smith asked if their establishment was open to lease or rent for private parties?Mr. Rafaty said they have not closed the business off to anybody as tar as completely, but there are a lotofbirthdaypartiesordifferenttypesofparties. They have not closed their doors to the general publicforprvateparties.Those soesiking in oooosition Ron Martin„ 1895 North Shattuck, submitted a petition for the Commission to read. He was protesting thisusebasedoncitycodesasitwillcauseproblemsfortheneighborhood. Traffic and noise are two issuesthatmustbedealtwithfromthecrowdscongregatingatSuede. They feel it would change the charactero4thewholearea, as seen in other parts of town once live entertainment was allowed. Young peoplewillnotpayforvaletparking; they would rather park and walk several blocks. There are too many unansweredquestionstogivetheprojectagreenlight. As neighbors, they have many concerns. Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 1995 R ttal Mr. Rafaty clarified a couple of points. Their establishment is in the middle of a very deep shoppingcenter. They're about 250 feet away from the wall that borders the residents. The doors are closed whenthebandsareplayingandyoucouldnothearthemusic50feetpastthebuildingThereisacoffeeshopafewdoorsdownfromthemwhohasliveentertainment. The bands play outside in the walk way area.The police have confirmed there is no noise problem. They would like a chance to prove themselves inthecommunity. The Police Department requested they provide more lighting and visibility through thefront, which they have done. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Rafaty if he were willing to include a condition that they would have theirdoorsclosedwhenloudmusicwasplaying? (Yes, no problem.) How many doors were there on thebacksideofthebuilding? (2 doors on the back side.) Commissioner Cathcart asked it he would consider the door (not the kitchen door, but the other door)being an alarmed panic hardware door, only allowed to be used during emergency exits only? (Sure.) Commissioner Smith looked through the application and paperwork for Suede. She saw there has beenafewtimeswhenitlookedlikeSuededidnYunderstandwhattheruleswere. There was a violation of theBusinessandProfessionsCode -- that Suede had started playing live music without a formal license.SuedealsohadtroublewithaviolationofABC. Then, after the Planning Commission meeting there was amisunderstanding -- Suede thought they had a license. Could Mr. Rafaty give her some indication that he knewwhattheruleswere, or if he didnR know what they were, how he could find out what the rules were beforebuildinganentertainmentstageorviolatetheABClicenseoradvertisethelivebandsandfindoutthereisnopermit? Please tell the Commission what has been learned through the process?Mr. Rafaty responded they have met with the ABC and have met with an attorney, Mr. Rick Blake, who is advising themonwhattheycanandcannotdo.Commissioner Smith asked ii he realized the seriousness of those conditions? (Yes.) And, what would happen ifhedidnRcomply? (Yes.) She hesitated to give the C.U.P. approvaland then have Suede ignore whattherulesare. She personally needed some assurance that before Suede goes ahead and does anything, they are going to check and find out if indeed it is included; even if they think they understand it, they run it by the Proper authorities to make sure everything is in place this time. If the C.U.P. isapproved by the Commission, she was sure it would be the last time they would get a chance.Mr. Rafaty said they have hired an attorney to advise them on things they can and cannot do. The attorney dealswithrestaurantsandbars. They understand if the C.U.P. isapproved, then the next step is togetapprovalfromtheABC.Commissioner Pruett asked if there was another hearing in six months, would they object to the cost of the hearing?Mr. Rafaty thought they had paid the fees a number of times. If that needed To be done, within reason,he guessedtherewouldnotbeaproblem.Mr. Soo- Hoo thought ii the C.U.P. comes back in six months it would have to be scheduled for a public hearingonceagain. He didn't think it would be unreasonable to require the appropriate fees be posted.The public hearing was dosed.Commissioner Cathcart acknowledged Mr. Martin'sattendance. The Planning Commission has received theMinutesthattranspiredattheCityCouncilMeetingwherethisitemwasheard. The Commission was sensitivetotheresidentialissuesandhebelievedtheCommissionwasalsotryingtobalanceresidentialissueswithcommercialissues. It gives him a little more comfort knowing the Police Department has watchedoverthisandhavedevelopedapresence, which he thought Mr. Rafaty appreciates. He offeredacoupleofadditionstotheconditionsofapprovalfftheCommissionweretoapprovetheC.U.P. One would be an add on to condition 2, which would say: Valet parking shall be provided on nightswhenentertainmentoccursandthatthevaletparkingbelimitedtotherearofthepropertyandberestrictedtovaletparkingonly. It would be up to the applicant to rope off any area that you can get behindthelastcommercalbuildingandupagainsttheresidentialareas. That puts the onus on g r. Rafatyregardingthenoisethatoccursfromtherearparkingarea. Also, condition 4 not be changed -- that 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 1995 it be left exactly the way it is written by staff. Then, add condition 10 -- The rear door to the north of the kitchendoorbeequippedwithanalarmed, panic hardware to be used in emergencies only.Commissioner Smith liked the idea of the valet parking being restricted to the back of the property;however, she has seen valets also drive other people'scars; sometimes to get a better tip they screech outofthoseparkingplaces. That'sone of the noise factors she would like to cite as a possibility back there. That should be monitored by the valet company.Commissioner Pruett's concern would be whether the tenant would have the authority under his lease to controltheparkinglotfromastandpointofropingitoff. What kind of authority would the City have in termsofimposingthatuponthepropertyowner?Commissioner Cathcart responded the first time Suede came to the City, it was the owner of the propertythatsaidhewouldrequirethetenanttoprovidevaletparkinganywheretheCitywanted. This wouldonlybeonthenightsofentertainment.Chairman Bosch said they could include in the condition that the applicant demonstrate through a documentsignedandattestedtobythelandownerthatthelandowneragreestothisaspartoftheleaseconditions. Otherwise, it this were approved, it would be null and void.Whether or not the motion is framed and approved here, Chairman Bosch believed it was important to includeconditionsthatinformtheCityCouncilofthefeelingsofthePlanningCommissiontoassurethatiftheCityCouncilweretoupholdanyapproval, they understand the basis of how the Commission felt the concernswouldbemitigated. He felt condition 2 should also in its amendment include that appropriate feeswillbechargedforsubsequentreviewpublichearingsbeforethePlanningCommissionorCityCouncil. He was against any expansion of the days or hours of operation at any time in the future. He wastiredofsequentialapprovals. He wanted to know going in what the final thing is and they keep havingindividualscomingbacktonegotiateforadditionalthings.He would like the framer of the motion to consider modifying condition 2 to delete "For an initial period of 6months" and begin the sentence with "All dancing and live music...." Delete "At that time, if it is found thatallconditions....." But leave in the last sentence, "Additionally, the Police Chief..." Add to the last sentence, "Violations of any of the conditions of approval during that period will cause revocation of the conditionalusepermit."Adding the valet parking at all times live entertainment is present, he agreed with that wholeheartedly.Andalsoaddingtothatappropriatefeesbechargedforsubsequentreviewpublichearings.He concurred with maintaining the uniformed security guard. With live entertainment, it is a whole different picturethanwhentheyweretalkingaboutanupscalebilliardpallorwithsomeincidentalfoodservice. IPs atransitionfrombeingSuedeRestaurant/Billiardswhen ft started out being incidental food services.Again, there is an incremental adjustment upward of the scale of the activity.It strikes him if live entertainment were to be approved anywhere in the establishment, the existing separationwallsshallberemovedandnonewseparationwallsconstructedbetweenthemainpoolareaandtheoriginalV.I.P. pool area at the west end of the premises. There needs to be circulation in the building. From a public safety point of view, he was very concerned. He didnR think there could be safetywithoutremovinganotherpooltableatthefrontoftheestablishment.As more evidence is gathered, the more that is seen, this business is not in control of the applicant, no matterhowmuchhewishestomaintainhishighlevelofstandardsandkeepanenterprisethathasgreatclientelecomingtoit. It is not appropriate to expand the hours of live entertainment to every night of theweek.Commissioner Cathcart was not thrilled about the application. How could the Commission establish a conditionthattheapplicanthastoacquireapprovalfromthelandlordforrestrictingrearparkingpriortogettingtheC.U.P.?Mr. Soo-Hoo responded if the applicant knew now if he had that kind of flexibility to provide theCommissionwiththoseassurances, it would appear the issue would not exist. Without that kind ofconsent, the answer would be left in the air. However, if the Commission were to pose such a condition,essentially if the applicant were not able to abide by those conditions, the C.U.P. would not survive. 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 1995 Commissioner Pruett thought the fees (brought up as part of condition 2) should be deposited with the City. By approving the condition, the City is scheduling a hearing. The tees ought to be deposited for that hearing to take place six months from now. The issue of public safety is a serious one and it concerned him. He didn't see any mention of occupancy for the building in the staff report. Is there a report from the Flre Department or Building that basically talks about occupancy under its current design? Staff was not aware of any report.) Condition 2 should also include an inspection by the Fire Department prior to the 6-month review.Commissioner Pruett was not convinced the building itself is designed for sound attenuation in terms of retaining the sound within the walls of the building.It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2103-95 with the following conditions: Condition 2 be reworded -- "All dancing and live music entertainment activities shall be restricted only to Friday and Saturday evenings from8:00 p.m. to1: 00a.m. After the initial 6 months period, the application shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. Additionally, the Police Chief shall have the option of requiring an additional review six ( 6)months after that time. Appropriate fees shall be deposited to pay for all public hearings that are warranted either by the Planning Commission or Police Chief." A separate condition shall be included -- Valet parking on the property be restricted to the back of the property and that valet parking be included for live entertainment regardless of the number of people." Add condition 10 -- "The doors shall be closed during hours of operation when there is live entertainment and at least one of the doors accessible to the public be equipped with a panic alarm system." Add condition 11 -- "An inspection by the FireDepartmentshallbemadetoassurethatalloperationsonthepropertcomplywiththeFireDepartmentstandards." Also, the applicant shall acquire approval from the landlord for restricting rear parking as a condition of this permit, as well as removing the interior walls to the rear of the interior and remove one additional pool table in front in addition to the applicant's plan.Discussion Commissioner Smith tried to include the concerns brought forward by the Commission. It puts several restrictions on the C.U.P. ontop of those that already accompany the practice of good business that complies with Police, Fire and safety codes in the City. She did not want to see the hours of operation or daysofoperationexpanded; it should only be a weekend-only proposal. She made the motion with the intent of having a review period and would expect if all things were not in order in six months, the public would come forward and inform the City so that appropriate action could be taken.Commissioner Cathcart stated his feelings about the application were not strong, but he believed businesses and residents needed to try and get along. Suede's business operations have been suspect for some time and he didnY know if this was entirely due to miscommunication. He was adamant if Mr. Rafaty and the conditions (that have been established) do not fit in with the community; if one person comes back in six months and has a problem with the business, he will see to it the C.U.P. is revoked. Commissioner Smith said that was exactly how she put this forward. This is the last chance she is wing thisapplicanttomoveforwardwithhisbusinessproposal. It has to be letter perfect and be in compliance to pass the six month review.Chairman Bosch thanked Sgt. Weinstein for being present. It really helped the Commission to have the input from those responsible for the public safety of Orange who see things from a view that the Commissioners donY see. The Commission looks for more of that in the future on items of critical public safety. He appreciated many of his thoughts being included in the conditions. He personally would not vote m favor of the C.U.P. because he thought the establishment as it stands, meets a community need and it should be able to survive with appropriate marketing and management the way it is. He was willing to look to a minor scale of entertainment, but he'safraid they'relooking at the tip of the ice berg.Commissioner Pruett was not going to support the motion or project because he didnR think they addressedtheissuestheCityCouncildealtwithintermsofdenyingt~erequest. One of the them is the issue of parking. Even though valet parking is being required, the applicant himself has indicated valet parking is not something that people will make use of. They tend to move away from that and there is no oft- site parking available on Tustin. When that front parking lot fills up, customers will be moving into 8