RES-8571 Denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2103-95RESOLUTION NO. 8571
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE DENYING A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DANCING AND LIVE
MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT AS AN ACCESSORY
USE UPON PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1988
NORm TUSTIN STREET.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2103-
95 SUEDE
RESTAURANTIBILLIARDS
RECITALS:After report thereon by the Planning Commission and after due public hearings
as required by law, the City Council considered Conditional Use Pennit 2103-
95 and determined that Conditional Use Pennit 2103-95 be denied. Subject
property is more particularly
described as follows:Parcell of Parcel Maps recorded in Book 14, Page 26
of Parcel Maps,Records of
Orange County, California.During the public hearing, the City Council found the
facts as follows:l. The applicant, Mr. Mehdi Rafaty, is requesting a conditional
use pennit to allow live music entertainment and dancing as an accessory use to
an existing billiard and restaurant facility (Suede Billiard/Restaurant). Suede currently occupies
a 4,386 square foot shopping center complex. Current business hours are 5:00 p.m. to 2:
00 a.m.Monday through Wednesday, and 12:00 noon to 2:00 a.m.
Thursday through Sunday.2. The proposal is to convert an existing area within the
building for live band music and a customer dance area. Also proposed is that valet
parking be provided only for scheduled events where there is expected to be over 150
patrons. This proposal would modify the original approval of Conditional Use Pennit
2012-93, which pennitted theestablishment of the billiard/restaurant facility and the serving
of beer and wine.Conditions #12 and #13 specifically prohibited dancing
and live entertainment and condition #16 required that valet parking be made available to patrons
of the
facility (at all times).3. The applicant has met with the Chief of Police
on several occasions to discuss this application. The Police Department has recommended that,
if the request is approved, dancing and live music entertainment activities initially
be restricted to Friday and Saturday evenings from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. only, but
that the applicant be allowed to return to the Planning Commission after a one
modifying or deleting the restriction. At such time, the Community Development and
Police Departments would report on the applicant's compliance with the conditions of
approval, and any police or code enforcement action which may have occurred,
indicating an impact to the surrounding area. The applicant has responded to this
recommendation with a request that such review take place in six months rather than one
year. The Police Department would agree to a six month review period provided that
they retain the right to detennine such review is warranted. As an additional safeguard,
a condition (#3) has been placed on the project for on-going monitoring of the
business by the Police Department and Planning staff so that if there are excessive or
unnecessary activities resulting in high use of police services, the conditional use pennit would
be brought back to review for a revocation
process.4. The Planning Commission considered a similar proposal by the
applicant CUP #2067-94) last year on July 20, 1994. The application was
subsequently appealed Appeal #422) to the City Council on September 13, 1994, and was denied
for the
following reasons:a. Off-street parking on the subject property is
presently deficient to meet the needs of all businesses located thereon. Introducing an
additional high activity component to applicant's business will exacerbate
the parking problem.b. In the context of the proposed late hours of
operation of the applicant's proposal, the activity is not compatible with adjacent
residential uses. Of particular concern is noise emanating from the location and the fact that
parts of the parking area are
next to residences.5. The current application (CUP #2103-95)
for live entertainment and dancing was again heard by the Planning Commission
at their regularly scheduled hearing on April 3, 1995. A motion was made to approve
the project, however, the motion received a tie vote of 2 ayes and 2 noes and, lacking a
majority vote to
approve,the motion failed.6. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission'
s denial of the project. The applicant is requesting that the City Council review all
facts relating to the proposal. The applicant has stated that all the facts were not
presented at the Planning Commission hearing and that they would like to have an
opportunity to clarify some misunderstanding and provide evidence to demonstrate that there
would not be any adverse impact to the surrounding area. The applicant also stated
that they have been operating their business in the City of Orange for over a year and
there have been no reported problems with the Orange Police Department. In
regard to potential noise problems, the applicant notes that the property is relatively deep (+500
t.), and that the offices and the parking lot on its westerly side buffer the
adjacent residences from the commercial uses at the front of the site. The rear parking lot adjacent
to the residences is Reso.
No.
seldom used as it is further away. Most customers are parked either in the front parking
lot or in the middle courtyard and side parking lots, as these are the closest and most
convenient parking areas to Suede. The peak business hours are generally from 10:30
p.m. to 12:00 a.m. when most of the surrounding businesses are closed and parking
conflicts are minimal. The applicant has submitted a petition signed by the business
owners within the shopping center to verify that this proposal would not create any
adverse impact.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Orange that Conditional Use Permit 2103-95 be denied for the following
reasons:1. The proposed project would intensify the use of the property,
thereby creating parking problems for the surrounding
area.2. The proposed project would increase noise levels significantly
and,therefore, is not compatible with the existing residential uses to the
west.ADOPTED this 9th day of January
1996.
ATTEST:I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9 th
of January. 1996, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS BARRERA, MAYOR COONTZ, SPURGEON,
SLATER COUNCIL MEMBERS
NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS
MURPHYic~~City Clerk of City of
Orange SSH:ld Reso. No.
8571