Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-1999 PC MinutesCaSSI'~ C J.. 5" b6 . 6-. :<. 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange January 4, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary r_. j ['v f ~/~) t-~;,-:" (."j 1 ' n 1.] I: J -ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSONMoved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner .Pruett, to nominate Randy Bosch as Chairperson for 1999.AYES:NOES: IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED ELECTION OF VICE- CHAIRPERSON Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to nominate Tita Smith as Vice-Chairperson for 1999. AYES:NOES:IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2261-98 . DANBERG DEVELOPMENT (CHAPMAN STORAGE)A proposal allowing the construction of a 123,000 square foot self-storage facility. The site is located on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Wayfield Street.Negative Declaration 1584-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Applicant requests to continue this item to January 18, 1999. NOTE: MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2261-98 to the meeting of January 18, 1999. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of December 21, 1998. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of December 21, 1998. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 3. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 67-98 - LEASON POMEROY A proposal to allow the demolition of a small, 1,600 square foot, non-historic 1950's building located at 152 North Glassell, and the construction of a new, two story in-fill addition, including a new passageway and the addition of a second story addition on to and behind an existing historic facade located at 154 North Glassell.This item was continued from the November 16, 1998, December 7, 1998 and December 21, 1998 hearings,)NOTE:Mitigated Negative Declaration 1580-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, presented additional information that staff received in the late afternoon.Attachment "B" references the Orange Historic Building Survey. The address at 154 North Olive is marked "demo". Staff discovered that the address is incorrect and there was a demolition at 152 North Olive in 1982.The public hearing was opened.Applicant. Leason Pomeroy, 11222 Vista Del Laqo. Santa Ana, stated that he and AI Ricci purchased this property some time ago and saw the potential for improving the Downtown area. They discovered there is a natural court yard space within the building and they want to activate that court yard and make it a public space. They presented their plans to the Design Review Board. The DRB had concern about putting in a second floor in the front of the SAVI building and actually opening it up to the street with windows. The architect's opinion, after looking at the site, was that the most valuable asset on the property is the south side of the historic building. The second design was approved by the ORB and opens up the passage way to the rear, next to the SAVI building, thus exposing the full height of the wall to the outside. A simple bridge connects the two buildings. They will occupy the rear of the building in a second story configuration, leaving the front of the building the full height inside. He was able to take the OTPA Board through the project and they offered their support. They also presented this project to the Orange Historic Society's Soard and they also are anxious to see this improvement.Commissioner Smith wanted to know if the arched windows could be replicated in the small windows of the new building.Mr. Pomeroy explained the different elevations, and would consider putting in arched windows. He pointed out the historic building is made of brick. The Secretary of the Interior Standards suggest that when two buildings are put together, you make a difference and not replicate the Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 There was discussion about the cultural and scenic aspects of the project site, and how the Design Collaborative was involved with the buildings' facades. Mr. Pomeroy also talked about the bridge and the stone base at the rear of the building. Chairman Bosch referred to condition 6, which spoke of the in-lieu parking fee or other arrangements to fulfill the parking requirement for the expanded square footage. The in-lieu parking fee indicates "if adopted." There is a requirement to meet the parking needs, otherwise a variance would be required for the building.Mr. Pomeroy's understanding is that there will be a fee and they will pay that fee.Mr. Jones responded back in April, the City Council approved a new parking requirement for the Downtown Plaza area, and approved the concept of in-lieu fees. They directed staff to come back to them with the actual fee. Staff is approximately three (3) weeks away from reporting back to the City Council,and this project precedes that. Staff has attempted to fashion a condition that will allow the applicant to pay that fee. And, the applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the City staff to attempt to look at allowing the small parking area behind the structure to be incorporated into a potentially much larger area to allow increased parking.The Commission and staff discussed the implementation of the in-lieu fee, variance and alternative parking arrangements. Ms. Binning suggested to replace the words, "if adopted" with "when adopted" in condition 6, and delete "prior to the issuance of building permits."Two (2) people spoke in favor of the project:Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange.Gloria Boice, 143 North Pine.They felt Mr. Pomeroy was being very sensitive to the historical nature of the area. The pass thru will be beneficial to everyone. They appreciate the decision to retain the entire front facade of the SAVI building.The historical significance of the garage is also important. They requested that both structures be thoroughly documented through photographs to capture the buildings for future viewing. It was also suggested that the applicant consider re-using the brick, doors and windows in the garage.Aoplicant's resoonse:Mr. Pomeroy said the DRB had the same comments about re-using the folding doors and hardware in two locations on the garage, and they will make every effort to do so. They would like to use the brick in the paving, but he wasn't sure if they could use the brick for the walls. He will provide a photo survey of the interior and exterior buildings.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Carlton wanted to know who the custodian of the photos would be and where they will be kept.Mr. Ryan explained the City has a photo archive of several historic buildings. Chairman Bosch said the photos could also be maintained in the archives at the Library, in the Orange History Room.There was discussion about the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the mandatory findings of significance on Page 9; specifically, the cumulative grid relating to the facade of the building. All of Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 Chairman Bosch concurs with the mitigation measures for the design of the building facade. He appreciates the attention to detail on these changes to the historic building. He particularly appreciates the applicant's understanding and willingness to eliminate the concept of puncturing new windows in the Glassell Street facade of the SAVI building in order to maintain the historic facade. He's surprised the garage is still standing, and he realizes it is economically unviable to restore it. The open space connection is of vital importance because it opens the interior of the block for good economic use, and also solves part of the parking problem on North Glassell Street, where one cannot get through from the parking lots to the buildings in front. He strongly encourages any efforts to look at a possibility of combining parking lots. The City Council approved the Design Collaborative studies in lieu of the Design Review Board having to review, if the specific facade were applied. He encouraged the suggestion of adding a condition to which the applicant has stipulated to provide photo documentation of the two older SAVI buildings (office and garage) for the City's historic archives and the archives at the Library prior to any modifications to the facades. Regarding the bridge, he believed with the correct shape and design of a more transparent roof to the bridge that connects the SAVI building with the 16 foot wide new building would be important to help preserve the integrity of the historic design and provide weather protection and safety. With regard to the articulation of the building base, he thought if the materials could be similar to, or different than the SAVI base, it doesn't matter as long as they are the same height and the details are appropriate for the new design. Commissioner Smith would like to call for some type of design on the glass roof over the bridge that has an opportunity for cleaning, with easy access, but stable enough to withstand the winds. She proposed another condition for the applicant to use the existing windows, doors, hardware and brick in the construction of the new building. She agreed to leave the building base up to the judgment of the architect. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1580-98 including the initial study and comments received during the public review process,and find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. This includes comments received for the completion of the Mandatory Findings of Significance table on the bottom of Page 9, as discussion. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Major Site Plan Review 67-98 with conditions 1 through 6, modifying condition 6 to state: "The applicant agrees to pay the applicable "in-lieu parking fee", when adopted by the City. As an alternative to payment of the applicable in-lieu parking fee" the City and the applicant may negotiate a property exchange to expand parking along the 100 block of North Olive Street." Add condition 7: "The applicant agrees to use existing windows, doors, hardware and brick, as possible, in the construction of the new building." Add condition 8: "The applicant agrees to photo document the building being demolished to record the overall size and shape of the building, as well as interior and exterior architectural details, 'and to provide copies of said documentation to the City for permanent historic archives."AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith expressed her appreciation to the applicants for making this significant addition to the Old Towne Plaza Historic District. The Commission appreciates the applicants' interest and investment in this particular Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 4. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 98-17 - TOM AMBUEHL A proposal to adjust the setback distance between accessory structures (corner to corner) and a reduction in the required parking width dimension for a two car garage. The' site is located at 172 North Shaffer. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1587-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Commissioner Smith excused herself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.It was noted the Commission received a letter dated January 4, 1999 from Tom Matuzak speaking to the demolition of the pre- existing garage.Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, presented the full reading of the staff report as there was opposition to this item. The applicant is proposing to increase the building foot print of the garage to accommodate today's larger cars and to meet the minimum current standards. The original garage was recently demolished,without the benefit of permits. The new garage area results in a code conflict for building setback.The Design Review Board had two major concerns: 1) The odd appearance of the small notch cut-out at the corner of the garage, although it would not be visible from the street; and 2) The change in the roof design to a "hip" style rather than a "gable" roof to match the original garage and front Bungalow residence.The public hearing was opened.Adam Hustead, Hustead Construction, 26395 Aoachetrail. Rim Forest, represented the applicant and is the contractor on this project. Planning and Building came up with the present design of this garage, as far as the gable roof, to meet the current standards. The notch was there previously and they put it back in because of the design. They proposed to build the new garage six (6) inches closer to the property line.The old garage was in bad shape and the insurance company would not renew Mr. Ambuehl's homeowners insurance. The tenant on the property took the old garage down.In response to the Commission's questions about the original garage being demolished, Mr. Jones explained a demolition permit was not issued. The Building Official determined that while the building was in substandard condition and probably needed to come down, it was not a safety issue at the time.Commissioner Carlton questioned if there was an Edison easement and wanted to know if a permanent building could be built across that easement. She also wanted to know how close the new garage would be to the adjacent property to the south.Mr. Hustead was not aware of an easement. He thought the adjoining properties had garages built 1 1/2 to 2 feet from the property line.Public comments:Gloria Boice. 143 North Pine, was opposed to this project because she is concerned about the demolition occurring in the National Historic District. Demolition should only be done under the strictest adherence to safeguards that the City has provided to homeowners and developers. This particular demolition did not occur within the guidelines established by the City. She would like the Commission to consider other alternatives.The public hearing was closed. The applicant chose not to respond to the Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 Commissioner Carlton asked for clarification on the parking requirements. Mr. Jones responded the parking requirement is one covered and one uncovered space per each residential structure on the lot. He commented that staff did review the replacement structure after the demolition occurred and realized the dilemma of having a substandard garage. It did not meet code the way it was. Staff questioned whether or not to rebuild a substandard 2-car garage that may not in fact park cars in it, or do they try to get something larger that will bring the garage up to code and get two cars in the garage. By doing this, it necessitates the Administrative Adjustments. The other factor is the setback from the rear property line.The options were discussed with the applicant in order to get a more functional garage space. The site remains non-conforming.The Commission and staff discussed utility easements at length. Staff did not know if there was an Edison easement on the property.Chairman Bosch had a couple of concerns, notwithstanding how the demolition occurred. He concurred that in no way, shape or form should anything be done to send the message out to the public that it is okay to demolish a building, whether or not one says they know what the ordinance says. A significant concern is the easement issue -- is it there or not. Too often they are discovered after the fact. With regard to the design, options and administrative adjustments, the notch isn't as much the garage as the shed that was constructed on the north side of the garage. It's made part of the construction for the new garage and it is that space, not the actual car parking space, that drives over the square footage. An alternative is that the excess square footage could be eliminated. The other concern is all of the architecture on the site. There is the historic residence, the guest house does not contribute to anything, but is a residence for someone, and now a garage with a design that's entirely different. He would be more amiable to a variance given the historic condition and the hardship it sets to conform to the National Historic District's Standards and the pre-design expectations for this simple type of replacement than he would the Administrative Adjustment.Ms. Binning referred to Section 17.38.020 of the Orange Municipal Code, which deals with repairing damaged or destroyed non-conforming structures. There are two reasons why this could not be reconstructed on the exact footprint. For non-conforming, non-residential structures, the reconstruction provision only applies to those that are damaged or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God, act of a public enemy, collapse, or other casualty or calamity. She didn't know if the demolition would qualify as one of the permitted reasons. The code further defines partially destroyed or damaged, provided the damage to the structure does not exceed 75% of the appraised value of the structure. The garage is demolished; 100% destroyed. The section allowing it to be reconstructed doesn't apply.Commissioner Carlton questioned moving the proposed structure forward and attaching it to the non-conforming guest house. It would get it away from the rear setback. The side setback is not as critical to her.Mr. Godlewski responded the zoning ordinance allows for accessory structures to be as close as the property line; however, residential or occupied structures have a much greater setback. It requires a 5 foot side yard setback, and a 10 foot rear yard setback. If you combine the garage with the guest house, then it all becomes one structure and it is considered a residentially occupied structure. The garage wouJd have to maintain a 5 foot side yard, and a 10 foot rear yard setback. The only way to get this to fit on the property, would be to allow the Administrative Adjustment to allow some reduction in the required 6 foot setback and still consider them two different structures. As far as the Building Code is concerned, they have addressed the one hour walls and one hour separations so that it will work. They have also looked at the set back of the eaves and thebuilding walls at 1 1/2 feet for the non-occupied accessory structure.The Commission asked the applicant's representative if he were willing to continue this project to review other alternatives including another location for the shed to reduce the size of the garage, or obtain a variance and have the Design Review Board review the project, and provide information on the Edison easement. Mr. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Romero, with the stipulation of the applicant, to continue Administrative Adjustment 98-17 for 30 days to the meeting of February 1, 1999. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.Commissioner Smith returned to the meeting.5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2266-98 - SANTA MONICA SEAFOOD COMPANY A proposal to allow a restaurant use in an industrial zone. Application includes a 260-foot addition, a 500 square foot outdoor dining patio, and the addition of take-out and outdoor dining uses. The site is located at 1700 North Main Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303.There was no opposition to this item. The public hearing was opened.Applicant. Anthonv Eckelberrv. 4535 Gainsborouoh Avenue. Los Anoeles, is the architect for the project.The owners opened a small grill in the facility and it turned out to be very successful. They want to improve the existing facility and make it more pleasant and easier for service. They propose to have outdoor dining and take-out orders. A staff restroom has been added; however, if the public needs to use the restrooms they can. Access to the restrooms would be around to the back of the building.Jhe public hearing was closed.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2266-98, with conditions listed in the staff report, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles 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. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and it is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2268-98 - JOHN AND SARAH PEARSON A proposal to allow outdoor receptions (groups exceeding 50 persons) and shared parking for an existing bed and breakfast establishment. The site is located at 248 South Batavia Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1589-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, presented the full reading of the staff report as there was opposition to this project. The applicants were requesting to be allowed to hold outdoor weddings and receptions for groups not exceeding 200 persons at an existing historic bed and breakfast inn. They also request approval of shared parking and operation of a shuttle service. The applicants have operated this bed and breakfast site for the last two years, which was granted by Conditional Use Permit 1970-92, in April, 1992.Permitted within the use of this application, the owner can have receptions of up to 50 guests. The current site has parking for approximately 10 cars.The Staff Review Committee had concerns about the impact of parking in the neighborhood, vehicles backing out onto Batavia Street, and increased noise. Staff recommended restrictions to limit potential impacts: Large receptions not be held during consecutive evenings; persons attending private events shall be admitted by invitation only; events may not be open to the public and, admittance fees shall not be charged; and all activities shall conclude by 10:00 p.m., Sundays through Thursday and by 11 :00 p. m.Fridays and Saturdays.The owners have held wedding receptions and other outdoor events since 1997. Code Enforcement received two complaints on August 3, and 28, 1998, and the Police Department received one disturbance complaint for a loud party on October 10, 1998 and one complaint for a landlord tenant dispute on May 14, 1998. The complaints do not seem to be the number of guests or type of music, but rather the fact that two events were held on consecutive nights in August of 1998, and a total of three ( 3)large receptions were held during the month of August.Commissioner Pruett was concerned about alcoholic beverages being served without an ABC license, or other limitations.The public hearing was opened.Applicant. Sarah Pearson. 248 South Batavia Street. explained why she chose this property to run a bed and breakfast inn, as well as large receptions. She talked about the condition regarding amplified music in the front yard. They face out onto Batavia Street and there is vegetation on either side of the property.Music in the front yard does not have much impact on the neighbors. They have ceremonies on the front porch and some amplification is needed so that people can be heard. They do not sell alcohol at the French Inn; however, they do allow a host to provide and serve alcohol. She's not opposed to a cut-off time for serving alcoholic beverages. They do not allow hard liquor; only beer, wine and champagne.Their neighborhood is very busy. They're asking to be dense and a little bit noisy (occasionally) in a sensitive manner. They've encouraged their neighbors to let them know if there is a problem. The complaints in August were because they held two events back-to-back, and that was too much to ask of their neighbors. She wants to hear her neighbors' concerns and would like to resolve the issues.Commissioner Carlton thought the home was lovely. She asked if there was an average demand for large receptions.Ms. Pearson replied they have held three (3) large events in one month. Over the course of the winter,they do not have large events. The average would be one or two events a month.Commissioner Smith wanted to know where the receptions were held on the site, and also the size of the crowds.Ms. Pearson said the front yard will accommodate 200 people sitting ceremony style. The side yard has an arbor, where people mingle for refreshments. Receptions are held in the back yard. Amplified entertainment is used at the larger receptions. Speakers are aimed inwards towards the property, but she is amiable to configuring the speakers another way to minimize noise. Masonry walls vary in height and Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 Commissioner Smith wanted to know when they purchased the property, were they given a list of the conditions of approval. Ms. Pearson was given the conditions of approval from the previous owner, who was conducting large weddings. She paid attention to the noise ordinance and stops the events by 10:00 p.m. She has tried to use good judgment and feedback from the neighbors. Commissioner Smith asked if they had an agreement with Batavia Woods for parking, or is it something they are thinking about. She also asked where people are now parking. Ms. Pearson has a verbal agreement, but because of the holidays, she has not had a chance to finalize it. She would like to run it by the City for their input. People park on the street. They have also used valet services. Commissioner Smith asked if they were operating as a bed and breakfast at this time. Ms. Pearson replied not at this time. They have been busy making improvements to the property. Eventually, they would like to open the bedrooms for overnight stays, but liability insurance has been a real issue. Commissioner Romero wanted to know what the operating hours were for these special events. Ms. Pearson said the times vary. With a garden setting, it is conducive to day time weddings. Music must stop at 10:00 p.m. Many times though people are finished by 9:00 p.m. and everyone goes home, After the one August event with the one disc jockey, she realized she needs to have more influence in the selection of disc jockeys and to reserve the right to turn down the music. Six (6) people spoke in favor of this proiect: Jill Kardously, 233 South Batavia Street. Adrienne Gladson, 700 East lake Drive #97. Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street. Karen Clements, 248 South Batavia Street. Jaymes Curvan, 248 South Batavia Street. Dolores Swanson, 220 South Batavia Street. The property is very well maintained and they have never had a problem with noise. There is adequate parking, even on the weekends. Most of the neighbors are in support of the large parties. The atmosphere at the French Inn has been conducive for small events and the operation is run professionally. This is a nice adaptive use and a nice outgrowth of the bed and breakfast activity. The issues of noise and parking can be adequately addressed by the conditions of approval. The French Inn brings people to Orange and also brings interest to Orange. The French Inn shows off a beautiful architectural history of Orange and Orange County. The applicant is willing to negotiate and solve problems in the neighborhood. Six (6) people were opposed to the proiect: Dan Nichols, 236 South Batavia Street. James Creasman, 224 South Batavia Street. Larry Johnson, 236 South Batavia Street. Shirley Hobbs, 236 South Batavia Street #C. Cynthia DelaPaz, 236 South Batavia Street #G. Carl laybourne, 236 South Batavia Street #G. 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 They were opposed to the large events because of the loud noise level and late hour of 11 o'clock. They were opposed to amplified D.J. events. Batavia Street is very congested and the street cannot accommodate the additional parking and traffic. The vegetation is not adequate to screen the noise from the apartments. The use of alcoholic beverages poses additional problems. There is no agreement with Batavia Woods for a shared parking arrangement. Property values will be adversely affected. The apartment units do not have any privacy when there are large parties. Aoolicant's resoonse: Ms. Pearson responded to the complaints she heard. She talked to the apartment manager of the units to the south of them, who did not have a problem with their activities at the French Inn. She believes the events they've held at the French Inn were permissible. She has been in contact with Planning and Code Enforcement during this process and wants to resolve the issues and bring her business into compliance. She does not have a signed agreement for shared parking with Batavia Woods. In the staff report it states that an agreement is needed before events or large parties are held, and she understands this. Commissioner Smith asked what the minimum number of events could be in a month to survive. Could the applicant live with a cut off time of 9:00 p.m. It was noted that there were only four (4) large group events of over 150 people. How did the applicant feel about not allowing alcohol at these events. And, is amplification required in the front yards to be heard. Ms. Pearson asked for an average of 3 or 4 events per month. The busy months are May, June, August and September. She believes 10:00 p.m. is reasonable. A booking of 100 people is preferred; 200 people is the exception. Most brides want a champagne toast, but she tries to discourage other types of liquor. Amplification is required in the front yard because Batavia Street is so busy and loud. They've had open houseslboutiques for the neighbors and she is open to doing that again. She is considering distributing notices to the surrounding neighbors of when large events are taking place. Commissioner Pruett suggested Ms. Pearson provide a list of musicians and D.J.'s to her clients. He was concerned about the noise level and how it can be mitigated to minimize the impacts on the neighbors. He discussed the placement of the speakers with Ms. Pearson. Chairman Bosch was concerned about the louder types of music that is amplified and the complaints associated with this. Another concern is on the set up and take down with delivery or catering trucks in that it becomes a safety problem. There is concern about the proposed shuttle service, the remote parking and shared parking arrangement. In addition to the noise, major events with 200 people is a concern. The property is not suited to accommodate this many people, given the potential impacts on the neighbors. Ms. Pearson described how the delivery and catering trucks access the property. The proposed shuttle service was explained, and they are working on a plan/schedule for the shared parking arrangement. Ms. Pearson was open to regulating the music and amplification. She would be happy to limit it to two (2) D.J. events a month. However, she felt 200 people was manageable. She will never have four (4) events of this size in a month though. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith said the owner/applicant has to control the variables on the property. Neighbors have been impacted by the larger events in a dramatic way. It was wrong to assume that large weddings were okay under the conditional use permit that was previously approved. She encouraged the owners to make friends with their neighbors and try to mitigate concerns and problems. She is also concerned about events with 200 people in a residential neighborhood. She is in favor of limiting the number of people to a maximum of 150, and encouraged that the music stop at 9:00 p.m., and the premises vacated by 10:00 p.m. She liked Commissioner Carlton's idea of limiting the events to a maximum of three (3) during the busy months (May, June, July, August and September). The other seven (7) months of the year she 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 would encourage a maximum of two (2) large events. She is in favor of amplification of the spoken word and vocalists, with no more than two (2) instruments in the front yard. In the back yard, the speakers need to be pointed toward the west, towards the garage area and to the school ground. She would like the applicant to consider a sound screen of perhaps an arbor on the north side and the south side that would be planted with thick plant material to create a sound barrier. It is conditioned in that the applicant would distribute a schedule of events to the neighbors, or perhaps mount the schedule on the gate. She thinks the business can be run without alcohol, but it does limit the clientele. She encouraged that alcohol be limited to beer and wine, which includes champagne. She would like to condition in that there not be any refrigerated trucks or trucks with generators working on site at any time. She liked the idea of limiting two 2) D.J.'s per month. The speaker volume must be at a low and acceptable range for the neighbors. Commissioner Carlton agreed with Commissioner Smith's comments. She would also agree to grandfather in the two (2) large parties that are already booked. She questioned limiting the D.J.'s to only two (2) a month. The owner should have the control initially to tell them to lower the sound/noise. Commissioner Smith responded that weddings are being held at the site illegally. If the two large weddings are allowed, the applicant is taking a risk with the neighbors, unless something is done officially with the neighbors to mitigate the concerns and avoid further complaints. Commissioner Pruett had a different view on this issue. The CUP allows receptions of up to 50 people. That is an intimate group. As you begin to increase the size of the group, you need amplification of music and the spoken word. There are many problems that are created as you add to the size of the group. He wonders what kind of atmosphere is going to meet the concerns of the neighbors vs. the operations of the business. He would limit the events to 100 people, without having amplified music. By limiting the events to 100 people, it begins to address the parking issues to some extent. The existing CUP satisfies the needs of the community. He's not in a position to support the proposal. Commissioner Romero hears that the apartment complex to the north is experiencing a large amount of the noise problems. Yet none of the southern apartment units have voiced any complaints. The placement of speakers can help mitigate some of the noise problems. He's willing to go along with Commissioner Smith's proposal. He agrees to only have 150 people at the large events. Chairman Bosch said this is a residentially zoned neighborhood with a historic property listed on the National Register, which qualifies it for approval of a bed and breakfast inn. This allows for limited accessory commercial use of the property. Reasonable limitations/controls are needed. He supported the concept of stopping music at 9:00 p.m., and having all activities conclude on site by 10:00 p.m., including any break down. Three (3) large events per month in May, June, July, August and September is excessive. The key is the size and music. One key way to control size would be to not allow amplified live music and D.J.'s outside. He didn't know what the right number of people would be; he would be more comfortable with 100 people. If there is a shared parking agreement, it is necessary to be in a format with content that is approved by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development. The medical center parking use and availability needs to be demonstrated regarding the business hours and parking demand of its tenants. He didn't know how to legitimize the pre-booked large events. Maybe there is a special permit with special controls that could be put in place to assure a precedent is not set. He wants the French Inn to succeed, but he didn't have a solution to the problem. He had trouble with the number of people and amplified music.The Commission discussed amplified music and the number of instruments allowed at an event. The two large wedding events of 200 people that are already booked could be the two special events for 1999. A written parking agreement is needed in order for this use to be considered. There has to be a place to park the cars other than the street. It was felt that a compromise could be reached on the number of large events during the month, number of people, and amplified music by limiting the number of instruments. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1589-98, recognizing that there would be some .impact to the neighborhood by this conditional use permit, with the following changes to the conditions listed on Page 7: 4) Approval is limited to no more than 3 large events in the months of May, June, July, August and September; and 2 large events during the remaining months, such as weddings, fund raisers and other private events, per month. (Large events or receptions shall be defined as having from 51 to a maximum of 125 guests.) 8)The use of public address and other sound systems is allowed in the front yard for the spoken word,vocalists. and/or two (2) instruments. 10) All activities shall conclude by 9:00 p.m., with premises vacated by 10:00 p.m. 11) The applicant will provide a shared parking agreement of access to, and use of, a parking facility, and evidence of a contract for shuttle services for large reception guests to and from the remote parking lot. Form and content of this agreement shall be acceptable to the City Attorney, the Director of Community Development and follow City policy on such agreements. The City shall be notified upon termination of the shared parking agreement. 13) If, for any reason, the applicant's parking agreement is interrupted or terminated, large events must cease and desist until an adequate parking solution is approved and implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Add conditions: 20) Use of alcohol on premise is limited to beer and wine. 21) No refrigerated trucks or trucks with generators shall be allowed to operate on site. 22) Amplified music on site is limited to three ( 3)musicians or disc jockey at a volume acceptable to the comfort of the neighbors. 23) Two (2) special events shall be allowed in 1999, which include a guest list of 150 to 200 people. Such special events will not be allowed after 1999. The suggestions of a planted arbor for sound attenuation and speakers directed west to the school shall be taken under advisement by the applicant. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2268-98, including the conditions of approval previously specified, finding that this conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use appropriate for this neighborhood. The granting of this permit will not cause deterioration of bordering land use or create special problems for the area in which it is located that cannot be mitigated. That it is considered in relationship to its effect on the community and on the neighborhood plan, and with the mitigation factors that have been included. It is made subject to all of the conditions stated necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Carlton, Romero, Smith Commissioners Bosch, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett voted against the motion because to have three (3) large events in any given month,especially during the summer months, is not addressing the neighbors' concerns. His personal preference would have been to have no more than two (2) large events every other weekend so that there would be a down period between events. He still thinks the maximum should be 100 guests. The issue of the large events that are scheduled for later this year should be canceled. The applicant chose to keep these events on the books after Code Enforcement stopped the events in August. There was ample time for advanced notice to allow the people to look for other sites.Chairman Bosch is a strong supporter of the preservation of the historical residences. It's a tough call andhe didn't like to see anyone hurt. He thought this was a little bit over the threshold. He hopes everything is done beyond what is required to demonstrate that this use is worthwhile.Commissioner Smith added she would like the applicant to recognize the close vote, and to pay particular attention to condition 17, which says that should the level of police services continue to demonstrate Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1999 the owners have not controlled excessive or unnecessary activity, then the conditional use permit for holding large receptions shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for modification to conditions of approval or possible revocation. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2269-99 (MODIFICATION TO CUP 2173) - GRACE CHURCH OF ORANGE A proposal to install a modular building on the property as temporary classrooms. The site is located at 2201 East Fairhaven Avenue. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEOA Guidelines, Section 15314. The full reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant, Pete Roberts. 20322 East Randall, said Grace Church is applying for a portable building on their church site in order to use it for classrooms on Wednesdays and Sundays. They received a conditional use permit last year to put up a modular unit. This portable building is positioned behind the existing unit and is not visible from Fairhaven. They have not received any complaints on the modular units. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2269-99, with conditions 1 through 7 listed in the staff report finding that it is granted upon sound principles 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 to the area in which the project is located.It has been considered in relation to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans. It is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare; not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn at 12:10 a. m. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld