Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-1997 PC Minutesl.. e:'f'-"'--;;'<J-<-'l:-,C_Q5DC) .6,.;]. 3 MINUTES P1anni~ Commission City of Orange April 21, 1997 Monday - 7:00 p. m.PRESENT:ABSENT:STAFF PRESENT:Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo. Assistant City Attomey, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary Chairman Bosch stated there was a request from staff to take an Aaenda item out of order, and move Item 6 under Miscellaneous to the beginning of the Agenda (after the Consent Calendar).Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to take Item 6 out of order and move it to the beginning of the Agenda (after the Consent Calendar).AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith. Romero NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 3/17/97.2. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 36-97 - BOSTON MARKET The proposed construction of a new 5,320 square foot restaurant, after demolition of Broadway/Just Tires auto service center. The site is located in a vacant portion of a parking facility for the Mall of Orange,south of the existing Olive Garden restaurant.RECOMMENDATION:Approve Major Site Plan Review 36-97 with findings and conditions as submitted by staff; and Certify Negative Declaration 1518- 97 as satisfying the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 6. CIP GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION FOR FY 1997-98 A review of the Proposed Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Year 1997-98 to determine conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by State Law.Scott Morgan, Assistant City Manager, presented the CIP Plan for the Commission's review and approval. It was previously presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in a joint study 1 r - - ------ ro--- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 session. Staff's recommendation was for the Commission to make a finding of conforming to the General Plan. There is one potential project that will require an amendment to the General Plan. Project No. 2619 proposes the reconstruction of Are Station No.3, at Shaffer Park. It's poSSible this proJect, which is planned for the year 2001-2002, will be relocated to a better service area. If that is the case, the General Plan would have to be amended to show where the location of the re-Iocated fire station would be.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, that the Planning Commission finds that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 1997-98 is in conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by State Law. Project No. 2619 may, in the future, require a General Plan Amendment, if the site changes.A YES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2171-97; VARIANCE 2029-97 - CHARLES GREGORY A request to allow the establishment of a used car dealership and a variance to waivetheCity's parking and landscaping requirement. The site is located on the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Lester Street, addressed 1133, 1135 and 1137 West Chapman Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1519-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as therewasoppositiontothisproject.The applicant was requesting a conditional use permit and a variance to allowaconversionofaformerlyusedofficebuildingtoausedcarlot. He would use 800 square feet of a2400squarefootofficebuildingforhisoffice, and use the parking lot to the rear of the site as a display and show area for cars and storage. The applicant's proposal does not include anyon-site auto service or repair. It would strictly be for storage and display. All cars requiring service will be sent to otherfacilitiesinthearea. The zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit for this type of use because it is a more unique use than a restaurant or other uses permitted in the C-1 zone. The impacts of this type of use that are considered are noises created by loud speakers, additional night lighting, or the increase in traffic associated with car dealerships. The proposal includes a variance because the conversion of the parking lot to a display area increases the intensity of utilization of the site. Therefore, even though it is non-conforming to today's standards in regards to landscaping in the rear parking lot, to increase the intensity of the use of the site,requires that it be brought up to code. The specifics of a variance request is to waive all requirements for on-site parking. And, to occasionally use the perpendicular parking spaces directly off of Lester Street.Also, the variance request is not to provide 10 feet of setback area along Lester Street, and not to provide 10% of the paved area in landscaping. A letter of protest was sent in last week, and a hot line mayor's letter that was called in back in January, which are included in the staff report. It the request is approved, there are nine (9) conditions of approval to reduce the impacts on the surrounding areas.The public hearing was opened.ADDlicant Charles Gregory, 1135 West Chapman Avenue, has had acardealershipinOrangeforthepast25years.He was at the adjacent property next door at 1209 West Chapman, for the last 16 years. Those two properties have been CO-Joined and he actually rented a portion of the building that he is trying to get the variance on. The property at 1209 did not have the facilitieS to suit his needs -- no restroom, no water, no sewer -- he had to rent that from the property next door. The 1209 address was made into a new car dealership in the 1950's when the initial Datsun of Orange was started. There is a mechanic's bench in the garage because it was used by Datsun as a service garage. Hesellsnewermodelcars -- 1993 to 1997.He does 50% retail and 50% wholesale. It is a very low key, mom and pop type business. He agrees to all the conditions in the staff report. There would be limited sales; therefore, there will not be an impact on traffic. He is only openfor business during the week and 1/ 2 day on Saturday. He is Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Commissioner Smith was not clear on why Mr. Gregory moved? The way it sounded. he was having a feud with the landlord. Mr. Gregory replied in the affirmative. The landlord did not want to make any improvements to the property or to even maintain it. When the landlord sold the property next door. he was without water and a restroom; he was without utilities. He made numerous complaints to the landlord and City to make the needed repairs. The Building Department inspected the building and found it to be unsafe in its present condition. The City did not follow up on his complaints. Commissioner Carlton asked if Mr. Gregory had considered any other sites for his business other than this one? Mr. Gregory said there were very few suitable auto sites available. He wished to remain in the general area because he has been in that two block area for the past 25 years. There's not much available for car lots at this time. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know how long a lease he had on the property? Mr. Gregory responded he had one year with a five year option. That's up November 15. Commissioner Pruett looked at Exhibit C in the staff report. The driveway area at the north end of the property -- is the intent to have patrons park there? What is the scratched area on the exhibit?Mr. Gregory did not draw the exhibit. It was drawn by staff. It appeared staff was requiring one handicap parking place and the diagonal lines would be a turnin~ radius to enter the property. Staff did not want cars backing out onto Lester. Plan B showed more parkIng places. but staff chose Plan C.Commissioner Romero heard Mr. Gregory say there were not too many lots available that would handle used cars. He didn't think this property was able to either because it was primarily an office building with space for parking in the back. If Mr. Gregory did more wholesale, wouldn't an industrial site be better in terms of rent and fewer complaints?Mr. Gregory did not anticipate any complaints since he has been next door, in the same block, for 16 years. There were never any complaints before. He hasn'tbeen able to find any commercial building that he could rent for $1,500 a month. It would be cost prohibitive to him.Commissioner Romero asked if those were Mr. Gregory's cars at the facility he vacated? (No.) Wouldn'tit be more advantageous to have frontage on Chapman? (True, but he could live without it. About 80%of his business is repeat.) CommissionerRomero thought of an industrial site because Mr. Gregory did not need 8.000 square feet of office space.Commissioner Pruett thought the size of office space was interesting. Did Mr. Gregory have plans for renting out the office space?Mr. Gregory thought if this request were approved. he would come back to the Commission and request to make a show room out of that space. He only needed 200 square feet for an office space. He did not plan on renting out the space.Chairman Bosch explained the City ordinance required the Commission to make certain findings with regard to both the CUP and variance. They were required to see demonstrated and find that the use that is different than the under lying zoning and hasn'tbeen on the site previously. doesn'tnegatively impact the land or the neighboring properties. Without regard to the fact Mr. Gregory has been on an adjacent piece of p,roperty, this is a different situation. The property has not been a car sales lot. It has been an office bUIlding with a parkin~ lot, used for a variety of retail and office purposes over the years. He wanted Mr. Gregory to identIfy why he believed he wouldn't cause deterioration of bordering land uses.The second part of the request is the variance, which is required because he was applying a new use to the site and asking for a waiver of on-site parking, landscaping, setbacks. access and circulation to the street, to avoid impacting adjacent properties. The Planning Commission must make findings on this request. Findings in favor of a variance can only be made where there is a special circumstance that would apply not to the applicant's use and desires, but to the property itself. The other used car sales lots adjacent or nearby on the street, including the applicant's former site, are legal. non-conforming uses. He 3 r .------- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 asked the applicant why he believed the ordinance should be waived and why it would not have a negative impact on the immediate surrounding neighborhood? The Commission must look at the property and use; not the applicant. It's not a short term function as is Mr. Gregory's lease. Mr. Gregory explained the two properties were joined years ago as a car lot. in one form or another. It was finally' taken over by the janitorial supply business. He realized the issues were traffic and parking and how it would affect the neighbors on Lester. But, he truly believed there would be no impact on the area. Those soeakina in favor Larry Slate, Property Manager of the property in question, said this site has never been utilized as an office space. It was a retail janitorial supply place since 1965. The property was vacated when the owner passed away and it was put up for rent. By renting the property. there would be more of an impact to the neighbors. Allan Quintero, resided at the property just north of Mr. Gregory's business. He sUPRorted the proposed project. Mr. Gregory has been in operation for a few months and it looks like he Will continue In the same lines. He hasn't seen a negative impact yet. The traffic pattern is not a detriment to the neighboring properties. Two of his living room windows look directly out onto Mr. Gregory's lot and it hasn't bothered him as a resident. Commissioner Pruett stressed the point the Planning Commission was not approving a business activity on the property from the standpoint of a particular business, but a use. While it has been indicated this type of use by this operator is not a problem, the question he raised was that if another operator came in. which could under an approved use, who may operate a business differently. Is that a condition Mr. Quintero would be willing to accept? They were talking about the property use -- not the ownership or operation by any particular business or business activity. There could be another person come in and operate the same type of business with the approval that may be granted on this property.Mr. Quintero relied on and hoped that Mr. Gregory will remain on the property for a long time. He has a past history of a long-term commitment to that area. It would be In his best interest to stay at that location and he didn't think Mr. Gregory would vacate it. The property does not front Chapman directly and it would not be a desirable location for another car dealership. Any other type of business, other than what Mr. Gregory is operating right now, might have more traffiC in the parking lot. Chairman Bosch was interested in the changes that occur as businesses change and Mr. Slate indicated he was worried about other uses that may be allowed within that zone without any CUP that might have more traffic problems. There was a janitorial supply service there previously for many years. How long had Mr. Quintero owned the property to the north and what did he see in the operations of that? Mr. Quintero has owned the property since December, 1995. During the time Mr. Bishop was there, it was the same level (or a little less) of activity as now. Bishop's seemed to be a wholesale type of business where there wasn't a lot of retail traffic coming in during the day. He was concerned about the building being vacant. Del Kirk spoke for his wife, who owned the property. He helped Mr. Bishop start the janitorial supply business. They were concerned about renting out the building and about the neighborhood. He would like to see a high rise building built there. He didn't have a problem with Mr. Gregory; they have been neighbors for years. Those soeakina in ODDOsition Perry Aiello. 140 North Lester, spoke as a potential long-term resident. He was concerned about a car business at this location twenty years from now. He wrote the letter to the Commission and supplied the photographs. They have seen a big change in the neighborhood since the car lot moved in. There is more traffic on the street; there are cars backing up into the residents driveways from Chapman and going back down Lester, south, to take a look at the car lot. There has also been an increase in crime.The neighbors have n:> control over that. He has seen cars being serviced or repaired at the car lot just recently. He considered an oil change as being a repair. Regarding the plans prepared by staff, if even the best scenario is approved, there are not enough parking spaces for all the cars. They are parking 4 r---,-- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 them on Lester right now; it's occurring on the weekends as well as during the week. He p'ointed out there are two businesses at this particular site. He was concerned about the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Commissioner Pruett asked about the other business at this site? Mr. Aiello said there were two signs -- .Chuck's. and another sign for an auto dealership. The site that Chuck' s was formerly at - the car dealership in question - now has another car dealership sitting on it. It's not just Chuck' s they are dealinQ with. They are also dealing with the car dealership on Lester and Jewell.There are now two car dealerships with 20 to 30 cars for sale on the weekend. He clarified, there is a car dealership at Jewell and Chapman, which would be an adjoinin9 property. At the property in question at this heanng there are two signs. One is .Chuck's. and there IS another sign next to it that says · ABC Discount Auto..Bill Gallagher, 182 North Lester, had plans to grow old in his house. Lester is one block long. There are six families on the street that have kids under the age of 6. He's also concerned about the neighborhood in 10 years. He asked the Commission to deny this request on beha" of the residents on Lester.Lorraine Gallagher, 182 North Lester, spoke about people test driving cars down Lester. and it has been occurring frequently. The people who test drive cars are not concerned with the neighborhood or what is happening on the street. If the City changes the zoning requirements for this business use. it will not help the residents or their neighborhood.Jefferey Freedman. 1249 Chapman Avenue, owned the other car dealership. He read a letter for the public record opposing the CUP request. It was not in the best interest of the City to allow a used car sales type of business to be placed behind a retail-type office property. This would set a precedent whereby used car lots could be established in parking lots of any retail or office space. They were protecting their tenant as they were the recent new buyers of the property. Mr. Gregory was the tenant of the previous owner. Mr. Gregory was also offered their property and he declined the offer.Commissioner Smith asked if Mr. Freedman was the guy who would not allow Mr. Gregory to use the restroom facilities? Mr. Freedman responded there were no restroom facilities in his building or on his property.Commissioner Smith asked if he was aware this was a rode violation and a legality issue for a business to operate without restroom facilities?Mr. Freedman explained when they purchased the business. they bought it for the use of a car dealership. It did not have restroom facilities.Chairman Bosch stated that was a public health and safety issue -- not a land use issue. That's not the Planning Commission's purview, but staff was present and has heard the concern.Kristen Aiello, 140 North Lester, represented the mothers on the street. There were ten children who lived on the street under the age of 10 and the kids are outside all the time. There is a sign on the east side of the building, which prompts drivers of cars, as they come west on Chapman, to turn right onto Lester, to see the used cars which are facing Lester. From a safety standpoint, that was her concern.Jolene Miller. 168 North Lester. was a new mother and was home every day. She sees cars all the time,even on the weekends. Who says Mr. Gregory will renew his lease in five years? The property values will decrease in their neighborhood because of the used car lots on their corner.Mike Romero, 149 North Lester, also thought the traffic has increased. Not only does Mr. Gregory wholesale. but he also advertises in the Auto Trader and other advertisements, which he believes a lot of sales are addressed to the public. He wondered if the buildin9 would meet ADA requirements? Mr.Gregory should have pursued an avenue with his other rental being illegal with no toilets on the site and checked those issues out prior to making a move. He thought he heard Mr. Gregory say he was looking for three parking spaces on the street. Those three cars would further impact Lester and he had a problem with that. 5 r ~--,--- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Gary Green spoke as a spectator. He was concemed about the safety of the children. Just last week he pulled into Mr. Gregory's lot to pick up some paperwork for a boat he bought. While there, he saw a person urinating on the fence at the other side of the property (at the pumpkin-colored building). That was outrageousl Hedidn't want to see that in a civilized world.Jolene Miller added another point. There were no restrooms at either property. This is a major concern to the residents; it is very unhealthy.Chairman Bosch said it was the Commission's understanding the building on the property in question does have toilet facilities in it. Whether or not they meet current code, is a different issue. Rebuttal Mr. Gregory has done minor repairs on the vehicles because no one had restricted him from doing so.But, there is a condition with this CUP request limiting the repairs and he will agree to it. His complaints to the City for the last four years didn't get anywhere on the substandard building; they went unanswered. He did turn down Mr. Freedman's offer to rent the property because their terms were to take the property "as is" and they wouldn't fix anything. He moved to the property next door because of the availability. Before they moved, they called the City to find out what the zoning was. They were told it was C-2 zoning and they were not aware they needed a conditional use permit. It was an oversight on somebody' s part.Commissioner Pruett wanted to know the difference between ABC Discount and Chuck's?Mr. Gregory didn't know who ABC Discount was. He thought the people at 1209 West Chapman were C&R Brokers. There is ABC Appliance Repair across the street.Commissioner Smith asked if there were two businesses on that property?Mr. Gregory said at the present time there were two businesses -- his and Harper Auto, his partner.They've been together for 17 years. Harper Auto is a wholesale auto sales business, doing repairs at this time.Commissioner Carlton was confused. There are two businesses at the same site. Who owns Harper Auto?Mr. Gregory said Harper Auto was owned by Harper Auto. He owned "Chuck's". Mr. Harper was also present at the hearing, but has not spoken. He felt he was being discriminated against by the City. Mr.Harper has never been cited or called.Commissioner Pruett asked if Harper were under a separate lease or was the lease shared?Mr. Gregory responded the lease was in both of their names.Chairman Bosch commented it appeared Mr. Gregory was carrying the burden of the application before the Plannin~ Commission, but the application was for the use of the piece of property. What is the legal basis for thiS? There was one applicant for a piece of property. The use is requested to apply to the piece of property. Does it matter or not there are more than one business entities that share a lease and share the use of the property?Mr. Soo-Hoo stated the Planning Commission was acting on a land use issue. There could be a dozen partial owners of the business, and the Commission needs to focus on the land use activity.The public hearing was dosed.Commissioner Pruett wanted to know about parking on Chapman. He thought there was no parking on Chapman. (That's correct.) Staff recommended Exhibit C. He wanted the parking diagram explained to him a little bit better in terms of what that represents. How many spaces are being created in Exhibit C for clients to Planning Commission Minutes April 21 , 1997 Mr. Carnes clarified two things. One, as a recommendation, the Exhibit was proposed if the Commission acts to approve the variance, waiving all on-site parking. The Commission does not have th-e power to waive the requirement for one on-site handicap parking space per State law. The description shown on Exhibit C -- the area with the widely spaced hash marks would have to be kept clear of any parked or stored vehicles so that the handicap space is accessible. The area that has the closely spaced hash marks is the loading and unloading zone. That is the extra width required for a handicap parking space.Commissioner Pruett said the lot is 113 feet deep. There is a 30 foot driveway and the City is ~ oing to require that 30 foot of curb be painted red from Chapman on Lester north. A little over 60 feet IS being taken up for parking area along that 113 foot lot. Essentially, more than half of the property is being taken up. There is no parking on Chapman or Lester. Where will the people park?Mr. Carnes said there was probably less space on Lester than what Commissioner Pruett calculated because of the curve at the radius. There may be one space on Lester for a car, after the curb is painted.Chairman Bosch appreciated and felt for the business Mr. Gregory has had. But, the Commission must look at the piece of property; that's the whole issue before them. The proposal leaves a building on the site. It is difficult to police, which requires 10 parking spaces presuming there are no auto sales but retail or office use. With the proposal of Mr. Gregory to only use 800 square feet of the building, 8 parking spaces are still required -- not for the display and storage of cars that are for sale, but for customer and employee parking, including the two partners in the business on site. None of which can be utilized to back off of the property onto Lester because of the traffic hazard. They are talking about a proposed change in land use, which is allowed only through a conditional use permit, with the demonstration through findin~s that there is no negative impact on the surrounding property and that there is no setting of a negative precedent that would apply to other properties and cause deterioration of use in other areas.As far as looking at this piece of land, although he cared very much about the health and safety of the occupants and people on the adjacent lot that Mr. Gregory once occupied. that's a separate issue for Code Enforcement to look at. The Commission's focus was directed towards the proposal before them.By putting this use on the property without causing any improvements to be made that would mitigate the negative impacts of it, hecouldn't support it. He appreciated Mr. Quintero was in support of the business; it gets rid of an attractive nuisance if nothing is sitting there and the property owner certainly needs to have income from the property, as does the property manager. But, to put in a use that puts the current leaseholder in the position of needing to void virtually all the ordinances required for the healthy and safe occupancy of the property with regard to the neighbors, is a further degradation of West Chapman Avenue in an area the City is trying to support. The City is trying to improve conditions as they work through time. There is no hardship caused by the property. The hardship is caused by the proposed use of putting a car dealership onto the property. As the property is configured, it doesn' t support it. If the parking were entirely on site and held clear always of vehicles for display for sale, in order to provide the legal requirement for customer and staff parking, there are still problems of circulation with the major address of the property being moved by signage and use to the residential street, rather than an incidental use for parking. And, also with regard to the loss of landscaping that mitigates the impacts of a car lot. He simply could not support waiving the City ordinance to this incredible extent In all aspects as a matter of convenience.Commissioner Pruett thought it was disappointing that Mr. Gregory was in this situation. When there is this type of impact with no mitigating measures to deal with that, it makes it difficult for the Commission to support the project and especially the precedence the proposal would create for the City.Chairman Bosch wanted staff to look into how Business Ucenses grants the business licenses without checking the proper zoning. It was unfair to Mr. Gregory. With all due respect, he thought there was a property manager who should be representing the property for the owners with regard to full knowledge and disclosure of what is legally allowed on the property, and what permits need to be granted before occupancy can occur. 7 IT"!----'- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to deny Conditional Use Permit 2171-97 and Variance 2029-97, finding that approval of the conditional use permit would not be in response to sound principles of land use, it would cause deterioration of the bordering land uses, create special problems for the area in which it is located, and in considering the relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch explained the applicant had the right to appeal the Commission's decision totheCityCouncil, as indicated in the Agenda Chairman Bosch announced Commissioner Smith was not feeling well and thus adjourned from the meeting.4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2172-97 - BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION ( CHILI'S)A request to allow for the sale and service of alcoholic beverages with meals in a restaurant. (A. B.C.License Type 47, On-sale general). The site is located within the new Century Plaza Center at the northwest corner of Main Street and Katella Avenue.NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1501-96 previously addressed the environmental effects related to a comprehensive site development plan.The full presentation of the staff report was waived as no one opposed this project. The public hearing was opened.ADDlicant Lorenzo Reyes, 1224 East Katella Avenue #105, represented Brinker Restaurant. They have read the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval except condition 6 -- hours ofalcoholicsales. They met with the Police Department and Planning staff. An hour has been added where they are allowed to sell alcoholic beverages from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday; and 11:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday. They, therefore, request to modify that condition.Sgt. Barry Weinstein, Orange Police Department, affirmed they had talked to Brinker Corporation and both representatives were present. They also investigated the Chili's restaurant andfoundnoproblems.By adding this additional hour it will be beneficial to the City.Chairman Bosch noted there were different hours of alcoholic beverage sales for different restaurants,The concern was to be able to set language with that to avoid setting a precedent that is just blanket applied. They know in certain areas, longer hours do cause problems.Sgt. Weinstein said it depends on the area in which the restaurant is located. Their plan for this particular complex, which is next to The Pond and in a commercial area, the hours for all restaurants that will have alcohol sales will be the same in that area. However, in downtown and in other areas, they do have to modify the hours in accordance with the residential locations and other concernsthe Police Department has.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch stated the Commission would consider Sgt. Weinstein's comments with regard to relationship to the Specific Plan for this overall parcel relative to the hours of operation as part of their findings in order toestablish this isn't creating a precedent for other sites without regard to the specific neighborhood and community plan for other potential applications.Sgt. Weinstein wanted to make it clear that the ABC unit of the Police Department is specially relating the hours to the sales of alcohol. The restaurant can technically be open 24 hours a day. They do recommend and it will be required that the restaurant stay open one hour after the sale of alcoholic beverages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 diminish any drunk driving or drunk in public arrests. For the last two years, the ABCNlce Unit has put a condition In all of the conditional use pennits alcohol sales guidelines, which are now in conjunction with ABC, where the special unit must be notified of any speciaf functions, special events or banquets. The hours would not be extended for any special function or banquet. Chainnan Bosch understood since Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved as part of the major site plan review, the Commission need not take any further action on that. (That was correct.) Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Pennit 2172-97 with conditions 1-12, modifying condition 6 to extend the hours of alcoholic beverage sales to the hours between 11 :00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday throuph Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Friday and Saturday. The CommiSSion finds the conditional use pennit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community and fits within the Specific Plan of the overall parcel. The project should not cause any deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area In which the site is located because it is within a commercial area. The conditional use permit does consider the relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans for the area; specifically, the Specific Plan that was approved for the theater complex site. It is made subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare of the public and not the individual welfare of the particular applicant. A grant of special privileges is not intended in tenns of the modification to condition 6 and hours of operation that was meant to provide for the services required by the community of the complex. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2173-97 - GRACE CHURCH OF ORANGE A request to place a portable building on the property for additional classroom and/or meeting room space. The proposed site is at the rear of the property located at 2201 East Fairhaven Avenue, near the cui de sac on Breezy Way.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the presentation of the full staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened.ADDlicant Pete Roberts represented the Church. They would appreciate an approval for their portable building as they were looking for more space for their college group. It's for meeting space -- not necessarily classroom space. They have also talked to one of their neighbors adjacent to the property. The neighbor's concern was with the placement of the portable building. The neighbor requested the portable be rotated 90 degrees so that the narrow end would be facing Breezy Way. The Church would be more than happy to accommodate the request If it met with the Commission's approval.Commissioner Pruett asked what the plans were for the Church in terms of duration of the temporary building?Mr. Roberts said their plans were for three years. He knew this issue had been brought up before because the portables have a tendency to remain there longer. The Church plans to move forward with some permanent buildings that were approved many years ago. They learned if they change those plans or modify them, they must come back to the Planning Commission for review.Commissioner Pruett asked if they would object to a condition that would provide for a review after a certain amount of time to make sure everyone is progressing towards something other than a permanent temporary building?Mr. Roberts did not have a problem with that added condition. 9 rr--- r- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Mr. Jones said there would not be a problem placing that kind of a condition on the project. Staff does not have a problem with rotating the building 90 degrees. It will reduce the length of visual impact to the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Soo-Hoo commented on the suggested review period. Conditional use permits aretypicallygrantedtorunwiththeland. The Commission does not have the ability to set time limits to Impose review processes with the idea in mind that it would force the use to be temporary. In this case, the difference is that the proposal is for a temporary use, and the Commission has the ability to either set time limits or to impose review procedures. However, he wouldn't encourage that as a normal condition for CUP' s.The public hearing was dosed.Commissioner Pruett had no problem rotating the building 90 degrees and thought it would helpmitigatetheissue. In terms of bringing this back for review, he thought there needs to be a review at some point. He wasn't looking for anything short-term; it could be 4 or 5 years from now.Commissioner Carlton agreed that five years would be good for further review. She did not have a problem with granting this conditional use permit.Commissioner Romero was pleased to hear about the 90 degree rotation of the building. It would have a more suitable visual appearance for the neighbors. He agreed to a five year review.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2173-97 with conditions 1-7, adding condition 8 that would require the project be subject to review in five years, and adding condition 9 to rotate the building 90 degrees to miti9ate the impact on the adjoining neighbors. The Commission finds the project is granted upon sound pnnciples of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. This CUP was considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan and in granting the CUP, it's made subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare and not the individualwelfare of any particular applicant.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 7. CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2167-97-STUART'S ROLLERWORLD The Planning Commission is asked to clarify the intent of Condition #3 regulating the business' hours of operation.NOTE:The public hearing for this item has been closed; the Planning Commission is not required to accept any additional public input.Mr. Jones stated there was some confusion as to what the Commission's intent was as to the roller hockey operations including practices, exercises and organized games -- at what times these activities could begin and end.Commissioner Pruett was not present at the meeting when the Commission took action; therefore, he abstained from participating in the discussion.Commissioner Romero's intent was the time referred to the hours of operation were not just for organized skating, organized games, etc.Commissioner Carlton re-read the Minutes and gave it some thought. In her mind, they were recommending the operations, whether they be for exercising or games or whatever, those are the Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 that someone is to be active on the site. It was to cut off at 9:00 p.m. They were to get out of there by the time security made their rounds. There was no discussion at the hearing specifically towards practicing, starting at a certain time, and then games only from a certain time to a certain time. Chairman Bosch's recollection was the Commission did not discuss the finite detail that is being asked now. They put forth that organized games would take place between certain hours that were included within or less than the hours that the place was open. His concem was about the noise -- the disruption was the key thing he wanted to control. When he thinks of organized games, he thinks of crowds cheering, the pucks being slapped against the sideboards, homs and bells, and all those things that go with it. He can see that leaves some interpretation of what part of that happens before and after an organized game? He was concerned about that. The intent was not to cause the emulation of organized games to occur so that the same noises occurred before and after the organized game hours, as would occur during them. But, he didn't have a problem with people getting out and practicing skating. It was again, the pucks banging into the boards, the aowd noises, the horns and bells and time limits going off that were the major disruptions that would occur.Commissioner Romero said the pucks would still be a problem. Any type of practice of hitting at the goal causes a bang, after bang, noise. That was specifically why he was under the understanding of 8:00,9: 00, and 1000 time frames.Chairman Bosch agreed with the rUCk noises. It's amazing how that noise carries and he wouldn'twant to see that either. How can they tel someone they can'tshoot a puck, but they can skate? It would have a significant impact on the lives of the neighbors. It's nerve wracking to listen to the pucks. He would feel good if people were allowed to practice their skating. He didn't have a problem With not allowing pucks before game times, even though operationally he knew it was a problem.Commissioner Carlton asked if they were practicing skating, how would they know when to stop?Someone would have to blow a whistle. In her mind, they could do what they needed to do within the hours they have. How do you differentiate between a simulated ~ame and skating, and it's more and more, to where you go over the line? She sees that as a real potential.Chairman Bosch said it was a potential and it's a matter of how it would be policed. That goes beyond the restriction he was thinking about. He didn't want to have this come back In six months because they couldn' tcontrol the noises. An organized activity vs. skating practice are two different things.Commissioner Carlton thought operations were the whole thing. They are open and operating be it practicing, sprints or games.Chairman Bosch asked her if she saw no difference between an organized game and operations at all?Commissioner Carlton replied no. It would start the organized games at 8:00 a.m.Chairman Bosch said the opening and closing times were set to the existing overall opening and closing times of the facility -- 7:00 a.m. Monday - Friday and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday vs. the organized activity and how the Commission wanted to define that.Commissioner Romero asked If they were limited to specifically determining hours of operation of game play to be the 8:00, 9:00 and 10:00 hours and no other type of variation?Chairman Bosch said the Commission approved a motion that recognized opening times (Page 11 of the Minutes). On Page 12, under the motion, it states that roller hockey organized games will not commence before 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays....shall conclude by 9:00 p. m. daily. There are two separate things and he understood staff wanted to know what does organized games mean and what does it mean between opening time and organized games? What activities are allowed or prohibited during those times?Mr. Jones responded that was correct. He didn't think there was any question about starting times at the 8:00,9: 00 and 10:00 hours. That was clear. In the Minutes there are various discussions about practices and organized games, and impacts associated with it. That's really what staff is looking for: That definition of (when the motion was made) organized games. How would thal be defined? Is it more of the operations? Times are not being questioned.11 T- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Commissioner Romero said the operations of the games would be the same as the motion: 8:00,9:00 and 10:00 a.m. He understood it was for the total operation of the facility. They could unlock the doors at 8:00,9:00 and 10:00 a.m., respectively. No one would be allowed on the court before those times. Commissioner Carlton also understood the intent of the motion to be that way. Chairman Bosch would entertain a motion in that regard, but he wouldn't support it because he thought it was overly restrictive. The noise could be controlled where there would be no buzzers, whistles or noise elements of any kind, including pucks being in use. But saying no one can get out and skate is overly restrictive. But he was willing to go along with the majority vote for the correct lnterpretation. Commissioner Romero was still questioning the word "clarification". Must they go in one direction only? He also felt if the noise level was controlled and the pucks weren't hitting the wall, that practice sessions could begin earlier than the starting times of games. Mr. Jones thought there was a range within which the Commission could make a determination of what their intent was when they used words such as "organized games" and had other discussions about practices and noise impacts. The Commission could determine that organized games means officiated games that are a part of precisely play. It could be based upon other portions of the Minutes to limit the operations and so forth. It could include being as restrictive as not skating at all or it include some restrictions as to warm up skating, but no hockey sticks. In his mind, there is some flexibility for the Commission to be fairly restrictive in terms of "no, you can't do that", or there is some other element in there, including practices. That's the range staff is not sure about. Commissioner Romero asked if the Commission had the ability to change the hours on Sunday from 10:00 to 9:00 a.m.? Mr. Jones replied no. The Commission did not have that ability. Mr. Soo-Hoo agreed. The Commission needs to stay within the general parameters that were established and refine or clarify their intent within that.Commissioner Carlton commented the 8, 9 and 10 starting times -- everyone knew people would not arrive at 8,9 or 10. There are going to be cars arriving prior to those times, equipment will be unloaded, people's voices will carry. The operations will be opening the doors, unlocking the doors at those hours not before then. She could appreciate the fact of wanting to warm up and doing all that before, but her intent is the same as stated in the motion.Moved by Commissioner Carlton the intent of condition 3 was to include the total operations. The doors are to be unlocked at the times specified in the motion. And, the operations cease at the times specified. The interpretation of the word "operations" includes warm up practices, simulated games and organized games, and the use of the facility for any of the purposes necessary to carryon the operations. The motion died for a lack of a second.Chairman Bosch was trying to figure out what it was he would be voting on. They already allow the facility to open for operations at a certain hour. Then condition 3 limited organized games to commence at later hours than the opening hour, and before the dosing hour. The basic question, again, is: "What is allowed on the rink before the organized games start?Commissioner Carlton did not believe it was up to the Commission to determine how long it took the players to warm up before game time. It's for them to decide how they are going to use the time between the specified hours.Commissioner Romero said they both agreed on the noise issues. That's why he thought 8, 9 and 10 were stated for organized game times. But he was not unwilling to vote to opening the facility earlier if the noise level could be controlled for warm ups and practice.Commissioner Carlton said that was not the issue. They would have to have a whole new hearing if the hours were changed.12 Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Chairman Bosch stated they were not talking about changing the hours. A motion was approved that stated organized games could not start before 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays, and must conclude by 9:00 p.m. daily. What happens before organized game times and after the gates to the facility are opened? What happens after the 9:00 p.m. crosing and when the gates close? That is what the staff is looking for in tenns of interpretation. What is the limit on what can occur before organized games and after they conclude? They're not changing any hours whatsoever. It's a simple issue of: Is any skating allowed? If skating is not allowed, there are preparation and close out activities, that's all. If skating is allowed, what does that mean? Is it only for the pUl'JlQse of skating and warming up and not using pucks, buzzers, whistles, etc., or does that include that? That's the intent of what staff is trying to get a handle on. Mr. Jones added some other infonnation to help in tenns of the contacts. It was his understanding that the larger facility, including the other sports, operate from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. That's what the applicant originally wanted to operate on. That infonnation did come up during the meeting. One of the questions in staff's mind in terms of reading the new hours of operation was, did that mean the Commission did not want roller hockey operations to commence in any way, open the doors to the facility at 8, 9 and 10, or was there some other interpretation meant to allow them to come in to the site, sometime after 7:00 a.m., but not begin the impact of the operations until 8, 9 or 10:00 a.m.? There is Quite a range there and several people went away with different interpretations of what that action meant. The rest of the site can open at 7:00 a.m. and close at 10:00 p.m. However, roller hockey games must conclude at 9:00 p.m. The Question is related more to the opening hours of operation. Did the Commission mean they could not skate, practice or exercise? Or, did the Commission mean only to open the doors of the facility and begin at 8, 9 and 10? Commissioner Carlton thought if the site opened at 7:00 a.m., then the hockey players could come in at that hour, get dressed and wann up and skate for three hours until the first game starts. That was not the intent of the motion. Commissioner Romero said by unlocking the doors at those times would reduce the income of the property. The major part of the noise problems are the pucks. If that were eliminated, then he didn't have a problem with an earlier practice session. His major concern was with the amount of noise produced. Commissioner Carlton went back to the point being addressed -- the Commission's interpretation of the motion. They, did not say anything about people occupying the site, practice or warm ups at 7:00 a.m.when the facility opens.Chairman Bosch said that was right. The Commission did not say either way. That's why it is being addressed back to them now.Commissioner Carlton did not agree people could come in at 7:00 a.m. and start practicing. That defeats the whole purpose.Mr. Soo-Hoo stated the key issue was summarized by Chainnan Bosch. That is, it was clearly decided what hours the actual roller hockey games can take place. There is no disagreement there. The Issue staff is trying to resolve from an enforcement standpoint is outside of those hours, what can occur? That's being discussed at this meeting. Chairman Bosch thought the Commission was in agreement that people could arrive on the site, the gates are open, they can park, they can do administrative activities, they can unload equipment, get dressed, they can schedule. But, no one has said they can skate. The gates open at 7:00 a.m. Anyone can drive on the property. But to state, hockey players can't even come on the property or prepare for a game goes way overboard and that was not his intent. That's a punitive thing that shows a motion was made in bad faith as far as he was concerned. What makes the noise? If the Commission felt there was no way to control the pucks, buzzers and the like, unless there was no skating on the rink until the time that was stated for organized games, and that was the intent, then the Commission should state that. But, if the Commission feels they want to preclude any use of this premise at all for people even preparing to play in organized games after the said hours, then that should be stated. 13 I -, Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Commissioner Carlton said a mistake was made when they made the motion; it was not complete enouQh. Because in her mind she could not see people coming in to the facility at 7:00 a.m. and then warrmng up for three hours. What do they do for three hours? If the Commission wanted to allow 1/2 hour prior to opening for wann up, she would go along with that. Commissioner Romero asked if it were specifically a decision of a motion of opening the doors at 8:00. 9:00 and 10:00, or doors can open at 7:00 am. with games at 8:00,9:00 and 10:oo? Mr. Soo-Hoo said they were beginning to push the envelope a little bit, but in order to pet a handle around this, they must get into the terms of practice. The Commission needs to give staff the parameters by which they can enforce the conditional use permit. The conditions can be clarified. It's a matter of defining when practice activity can take place. The only way to do that is to add verbiage to the condition to address the practice hours.Moved by Commissioner Romero, regarding Conditional Use Permit 2167-97, the clarification of condition 3 is that games are not to begin prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday; 9:00 a.m. on Saturday; and 10:00 a.m. on Sunday. But, hours of operation, practice, etc., is allowed at 7:00 a.m. Pucks, buzzers,bells, whistles and speakers are not allowed to be used in practice, prior to said game times. The motion died for a lack of a second.Chairman Bosch said there was still a problem. He understood where Commissioner Carlton was coming from. The bigger challenge comes from the three hours on Sunday between the time the facility opens and the first organized game. A simulated game during practice is just as bad as an organized game. Skating as part of a warm up is not a problem.Commissioner Carlton thought that was reasonable, but how much time do they need to warm up? She thought 1/2 hour of skating prior to a game was enough time to warm up.Chairman Bosch thought they could occupy the premises the hour before a game, but not get on the rink until 1/2 hour before the organized game time. When the games are over, people may want to linger and practice those shots they missed. There should be a statement made to help solve the time problem on the back end as well to make sure people get out of there. He would like to see everyone off the court at the end of organized play time. They will be packing up and that will make enough nOise.CommissionerRomero didn't think the 1/2 hour prior to games starting would go either way. It was changing the original motion. That's another option to consider.Mr. Soo-Hoo responded that the Commission had already acted hard and fast on the hours of operation.Those must be lived with. What's being clarified now are the activities outside the hours of operation.There is a certain latitude to work on those practice hours. But as far as the hours of operations that were approved previously, that's already been set. The 10:00 a.m. starting time on Sundays was approved at the last meeting and there is no flexibility now to deviate from that. But, with regard to practices on Sunday mornings, the Commission has the ability to define that a little more.Chairman Bosch asked if the Commission was comfortable with the concept of no organized scrimmages.no simulations of games, no bells, whistles, buzzers or pucks before the times indicated as the organized games starting times, but there could be a wann up time earlier than that with the opportunity to qet on the court and skate 1/2 or one hour prior to organized games. He would go along with the mBJority vote. No matter what they do, it's the best of a bad deal. However, he was willing to give it Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, in regards to Conditional Use Permit 2167-97, clarification of condition 3, the hours of game activity remain the same as was approved at the March 17, 1997 meeting -- 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; 9:00 a.m., Saturday; and 10:00 a.m., Sunday. But, the rink can be used 1/2 hour prior to those times, along with the requirement that there will be no pucks, bells, buzzers or whistles used in that 1/2 hour time period. All roller hockey, related equipment and skating rink activity shall cease at 9:00 p.m. Maintenance can occur after 9:00 p.m., but must conclude by 10:00 p.m. A YES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith ABSTAINED: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Mr. Soo-Hoo clarified the appeal period for this conditional use permit will commence as of this meeting.There are 15 days in which to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjoum to a joint study session with the City Council at the Ubrary Community Room on Tuesday, April 29, 1997, at 4:30 p.m. for the purpose of reviewing the Design Collaborative Proposals for the Downtown Area, AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None .Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p. m. Isld