Loading...
2013 - April 15APPROVED Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2013 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Le, Senior Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call All Commissioners present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None PLANNING MANAGER REPORT: Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated a flier had been distributed to the Commissioners regarding the Orange County American Planning Association award's banquet. The City had submitted 2 projects for consideration and the organizers recommended that the City of Orange had representation at the meeting. The City was optimistic that they may have won an award. The first project was the Sante Fe Depot Specific Plan Update and the second project was a Neighbors Helping Neighbors project. Chair Steiner reviewed the appeal process. Page 1 Consent Calendar: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2013 Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the April 1, 2013 Planning Commission meeting as written. SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Page 2 CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) TITLE 17 (ZONING)AMENDMENT - TRANSITIONAL /SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Continued from Planning Commission meetings of February 4, 2013 and March 4, 2013. An Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Orange Municipal Code to allow for "transitional housing" and "supportive housing" in Single - Family Residential, Duplex Residential, Multi- Family Residential, Old Towne Mixed Use, and Public Institution zoning districts either as a "permitted" or "conditionally permitted" use, pursuant to State law. LOCATION: Citywide NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alternations to Land Use Limitations). This exemption applies to projects involving minor alterations to land use limitations, which do not result in changes in land use or density. The proposed Ordinance Amendment falls under a Class 5 categorical exemption because it involves a minor amendment to the Zoning Code that adds definitions for transitional and supportive housing and establishes land use regulations allowing those uses in zoning districts where similar housing types are already allowed. Therefore, it does not change land use or density. It also does not propose or require physical changes to any specific property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 06 -13 recommending that the City Council approve an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Orange Municipal Code to allow for "transitional housing" and "supportive housing" in Single - Family Residential, Duplex Residential, Multi - Family Residential, Old Towne Mixed Use, and Public Institution zoning districts either as a "permitted" or "conditionally permitted" use pursuant to State law, and to assign parking standards for transitional and supportive housing consistent with existing parking standards applicable to other similar housing types. Chair Steiner asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz as the item was previously submitted and the Public Comment had been heard, would additional public comment be heard on the continuation of the item? Mr. Sheatz stated that Staff would present the item and then the item could be opened for any additional Public Comments from any member of the public that wanted to speak. Page 3 Staff would be introducing something that was requested at the direction of the Planning Commission based on Public Comment and there may be additional comments which could be taken after the item's presentation. Senior Planner Jennifer Le presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner asked if Ms. Le could provide further information on the Public Institution's area and the recommendations made by Staff. Ms. Le stated Staff was recommending the allowance of transitional and supportive housing as a permitted use in the Public Institution's zone ancillary to existing institutions. The reason for the PI Zone approved uses were very specific and dealt generally with City Hall and Government buildings and they specifically called out churches and hospitals as permitted uses. The idea behind transitional housing associated with those uses was the idea of piggybacking onto uses that were already allowed in that zone with no expansion beyond that. Chair Steiner opened the item to any questions for Staff. Commissioner Cathcart stated on the parking issue, was the manner conditioned for 2 for each person. Ms. Le stated it was 1 space per client bed and 1 space per staff personnel. Commissioner Cathcart asked if there would be any in lieu fees to cover additional parking, as parking was a problem. Was Staff sticking to their guns that one parking space per person was required? Ms. Le stated that was Staff's recommendation and it was a conservative parking standard and a minimum and similar to the boarding house standard. A site visit was completed at Hope House on S. Lemon and that facility was parked at the same parking standard and appeared to work well. That location was a transitional program where 100% of the residents had automobiles and the 1 space per bed standard appeared to be working well. Staff had also set up the additional process for a facility such as Casa Teresa to allow such a facility to apply for a lesser parking standard through the City's Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Buttress stated when she read through the Staff Report, she found it interesting that the statement had been made that enclosed parking spaces were typically used for other things, such as storage. Ms. Le stated that was correct and they used those facilities for storage, for community meetings, and generally for community storage. Commissioner Buttress stated she had wanted to ensure that she understood that the recommendation was not for enclosed garage parking. Page 4 Ms. Le stated what the City had found was that when enclosed parking was required, such as a garage, the garage was used for something else and the recommendation was for unenclosed parking to be used for parking. Commissioner Gladson stated the parking layout was a hierarchy for supportive or transitional housing providers to comply with the zone that they would be going into first and to attempt to meet the parking requirements; with those being either R -1, R -2 or single family. If there was an exceptional circumstance for those facilities with group quarters, an alternative parking standard could be sought. Ms. Le stated that was correct. Commissioner Gladson stated the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone, allowing a facility as a permitted use for existing facilities, allowing the facilities to be conditionally approved for new facilities. As the other part of the discussion, she wanted to understand what the term expansion would mean to an existing facility. She would interpret that as an allowance to add additional people. Ms. Le stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated the previous presentation had been the issue for Casa Teresa and what they had been most concerned about was if they would be able to expand. With the resolution before them it would allow for expansion and there were 2 options that Staff had provided for their consideration. Ms. Le stated the two options were well outlined in the Staff Report and were subject to the discretion of the Commission. Chair Steiner asked for input from the Commissioners. Commissioner Gladson stated she would want to hear public comment before she made a recommendation. Chair Steiner stated he had not received any request for public comment. A member of the audience stepped forward to speak. Chair Steiner opened the hearing to Public Comment. Mark Murrel, address on file, stated he represented Casa Teresa and he thanked the Planning Commission for sending the Ordinance back for revisions. The revised ordinance was very helpful and accommodating to existing uses in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone. He was unprepared regarding the two options that were presented by Staff and he had reviewed the Ordinance, which had all the components that would allow for expansion with their new Chapman facility. The parking was obviously very difficult for them to meet and without having a provision to apply for a different parking situation, it Page 5 would be very difficult. The ratio for parking that had been presented was a very stringent parking requirement for a transitional operation. Chair Steiner asked if many of the residents at Casa Teresa would have a vehicle. Mr. Murrel stated the only people that had vehicles were Staff members and once the residents graduated into another version of their program, some of them might acquire vehicles, but would be off site at work where a day time parking space would not be required. The only place that would occur would be at Casa's main facility. Chair Steiner stated what he understood in the revised effort would allow for a lot of flexibility in applying of a lesser standard for parking and it appeared that parking was something that could be worked through. Mr. Murrel stated he appreciated that. On the two options referenced, he asked if those were included in the Ordinance or where they outlined somewhere else. Chair Steiner stated they needed to choose one and add it to the resolution, he asked Ms. Le if that was correct? Ms. Le stated Option 1 was already incorporated into the resolution, and in the copy that was provided to the Commissioners. Attachment 2 in the Staff Report contained Option 2, which allowed for transitional and supportive housing with 7 or more persons with a CUP in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone. The Commission would need to adopt Option 1 or Option 2. The Commissioners reviewed the information. Mr. Murrel stated he would be in favor of Option 1, for the allowance of the expansion of existing facilities in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone as a permitted use as presented by Staff in the Ordinance. Commissioner Gladson asked if the concern in implementing Option 2, with a CUP requirement, would be that Casa would need to return before the Planning Commission and incur associated costs. Mr. Murrel stated that was correct. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commissioner for action or discussion. Commissioner Gladson stated there were benefits to Option 2, but she understood the wisdom in Option 1 for Casa Teresa, and she understood their needs. The reality as Planning Commissioners was to look at the broader picture and beyond Casa Teresa's immediate needs and to consider the needs of other transitional and supportive providers that may want to locate to the City of Orange. It was not a question for areas outside of Old Towne, but a question of whether the uses should be conditionally approved or Page 6 permitted uses. Essentially if the recommendation was for permitted uses, it would allow for only those uses that currently existed and maybe that was the direction they wanted to move in. In that situation, it would preclude other providers from establishing their business in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zones and she was not certain she would want to go in that direction. The issue for her was not for the 6 or less residents, but it became more of a challenge at 7 residents and beyond and there was value for oversight. Some of the facilities were well managed and some were not and for the latter she would want conditions on those uses and the only manner in which to ensure that would be through a CUP. She could probably go with Option 1 as written in the Ordinance with further discussion. She felt the parking solution was exceptional with a lot of flexibility. Chair Steiner stated they were just speaking to existing transitional and supportive uses and Casa Teresa had been a part of the community for a long time and was well recognized and a very much appreciated service in the community. He felt comfortable with Option 1. Commissioner Buttress stated she agreed with Chair Steiner. Commissioner Gladson also had a valid point regarding a new business coming in. She asked Staff if Option 1 would absolutely preclude someone else from coming in. Ms. Le stated that was correct. The manner in which the Ordinance was written was that it would apply to existing transitional and supportive housing and just those uses would be recognized as permitted and allowed to expand. A new use would not be allowed in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone. Commissioner Buttress asked if Option 1 precluded new uses only in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone. Ms. Le stated that was correct and transitional or supportive uses could come into other parts of the City with a CUP. Chair Steiner stated would that be allowed as a duplex or single family residential. Ms. Le stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated it had been State Law as of 2008. Commissioner Cathcart stated he favored Option 1 and had not wanted to preclude other uses from coming into Old Towne; however, with the parking situation and the parking requirement, he had not felt anyone could move in and meet those requirements in the Old Towne area. For those who lived and worked in the district and understood the reality, there was no parking. Commissioner Buttress stated with the clarification, she was more inclined to recommend Option 1. Page 7 Commissioner Buttress made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council, PC Resolution No. 06 -13, approving Title 17 (Zoning) Amendment - Transitional /Supportive Housing, with Option No. 1 as written in the resolution and subject to the conditions contained in the Staff report and noting the items categorical exemption from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Page 8 NEW HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2881 -12 — WORLD CHAMPION KARATE The applicant proposes martial arts and character building classes for children and adults in a commercial center. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the school use and shared parking agreement. LOCATION: 1621 E. Walnut Avenue NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the project includes no expansion of the existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 16 -13 approving the allowance of a martial arts and character education school. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Raymond Daniel, address on file, stated World Champion Karate had been in the City of Orange for about 5 years on Chapman and Newport and they wanted to open a new location. He had been in martial arts for many years and it was a way of life for him. He was a Police Officer in the City of Long Beach for 7 years and he was very fortunate to be able to understand the benefits of martial arts. He wanted to continue to grow his business and there was plenty of parking at the site. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Daniel if he was in agreement with the 9 Conditions of Approval as well as the additional condition regarding parking. Mr. Daniel stated yes. Chair Steiner asked for any further public comment, there was none. Chair Steiner closed the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Page 9 Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated before they got to far down the road, it was the first that he had seen the added condition regarding parking and he was not thrilled with the components of the condition. He was not quite certain what the intent was as it related to the applicant before them. As he read through it, he was troubled that if there was a change to the strip mall or in the shopping center, the condition could require the applicant before them to come back and make a change. He could not understand how that responsibility could be held to the applicant. If the application before them and their entitlements were approved and the business was up and operating and through no fault of theirs the landlord or someone else rented a space out and the use had a more intense parking situation, he would not be comfortable to have the applicant before them come back in and pay for the process to amend the parking situation. If he had a better idea of what the attempt in parking was, they might be able to come up with some different language that would address the situation. As it stood currently before them, he would discourage the Planning Commission from adopting the added condition. Commissioner Buttress stated she understood the situation at the center as three property owners who agreed to share the parking. What Staff was attempting to do was to formalize a parking agreement. She agreed with Mr. Sheatz that the applicant before them would have sole responsibility for any future parking amendments. What if it was the Apple One business that had changes to their business, why should the responsibility fall to World Champion Karate? Commissioner Gladson stated she had raised the question to Staff as she reviewed the packet and had correspondence with Ms. Nguyen. The Staff Report referenced a shared parking agreement with the three different parcels and she raised the question of placing a binding agreement or the adoption to memorialize a parking situation beyond the CUP. The CUP would be binding, but she had questioned if there should be an additional requirement to bind the 3 parcels together. That was what she had been seeking and Staff had made the attempt to resolve the situation. There were probably other ways to do that with other language and she had questioned if there was something additional needed and maybe that was not the case. Chair Steiner asked Ms. Nguyen if she would respond to Mr. Sheatz concerns. Ms. Nguyen stated the condition that was added was a standard condition that they were able to choose to place on a project. The 3 parcels had one owner and historically since 1960, it had been that way. A shared parking situation had existed at the site without any formal documentation. Each building was developed at different times, but there had always been a shared situation at the site. The parcel on Walnut was quite overparked, but in looking at the center as a whole, if they were to look only at the one parcel and ignore the other business's parking needs, the Walnut location would be short parking and it would not be fair. She was suggesting that with the addition of the shared parking agreement to formalize, the City recognize that all properties shared the parking. Another way to formalize the situation would be through a deed restriction on all three Page 10 properties so that if any one of the buildings was sold independently, there would be documentation on the title report that all three parcels shared parking. The Commission had the discretion to implement a deed restriction rather than the added condition. Mr. Sheatz stated Planning Staff was very well aware of his feelings on standard conditions. He preferred the latter suggestion of a deed restriction. It would be appropriate with the situation of 3 separate parcels and one common owner that made sense. He had not recalled reviewing the standard condition that was being submitted before them, he might have, but he had not recalled it and it seemed that it would not work in the situation before them. Standard conditions were not a one size fits all situation. He had an issue with that. He would recommend that a deed restriction be placed in the application to tie the properties together. Chair Steiner asked if that would need to be included in the resolution. Ms. Nguyen stated as part of a motion, the Commission could request that a deed restriction be added to all three properties with language being added. When Chair Steiner had it before him for signature, he could review it at that time. Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he was in agreement with their discussion. Mr. Daniel stated yes. Commissioner Gladson stated she thought the proposed project was smashing and she supported recommending approval. Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 16 -13, CUP No. 2881 -12, World Champion Karate, with the draft resolution condition to add a deed restriction, and subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Page 11 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883 -12 — GAME DAY FIRE GRILLED HOT DOGS The applicant is requesting an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine — Eating Place) License to have on -site consumption of beer and wine for patrons of the establishment. LOCATION: 3009 E. Chapman Avenue NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 18 -13 allowing an ABC Type 41 license. Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff? Commissioner Gladson stated with the facility having a drive -thru, it was her understanding that no alcoholic beverages could be sold at the drive -thru. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, alcohol was only available with indoor dining. Chair Steiner opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Steven Dagampat, address on file, stated the restaurant was a fast casual restaurant and family- oriented with a sports theme. There was a drive -thru and they were seeking a license to sell beer and wine, the beer would be on tap and served in pint glasses and not sold at the drive -thru. He had been in business for 18 months at that location with his partner and he sold gourmet hot dogs and hamburgers. He also had a pizzeria in Oceanside that had a Type 41 license and he had been in operation for 5 years without any issues or ABC infractions. Chair Steiner stated there were a lot of Conditions of Approval placed on the application and he asked Mr. Dagampat if he was in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Dagampat stated yes he was in agreement. Page 12 Chair Steiner closed the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 18 -13, approving CUP No. 2883 -12 -Game Day Fire Grilled Hot Dogs, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Page 13 (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2893 -13 — COMMON GROUND INTERFAITH SPIRITUAL CENTER The applicant proposes to open a church and host workshop classes at an existing office complex. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the church use, classes, and shared parking. LOCATION: 1926 W. Orangewood, Suite 102 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the project includes no expansion of the existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 17 -13 approving the allowance of a church with classes and a shared parking agreement. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner stated he had received written correspondence from a Mr. Bradford who objected to the shared parking situation. He invited the applicant to address the Commission. Judy DePrete, address on file, stated she was a co- founder of the center and they were seeking relocation to Orange. Chair Steiner asked where they were moving from. Ms. DePrete stated they were moving from Tustin where they had been located for 9 years. She was available for questions. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment. Dot T., no address listed, stated her home backed up to the office buildings and she signed a disclosure when she bought her home that she was aware she backed up to Orangewood. Her concern was for the parking situation and she had not wanted her privacy invaded with people practically in her backyard and she was against the application. Shahram, address on file, stated he was the architect and had completed the drawings for the proposed project. There was no change to the footprint; just some opening up of doors to the outside. The parking situation would be for the use after regular business hours Page 14 and on the weekends. There were no parking problems at the current location and he had not anticipated any problems. The proposal was just for a change of use and nothing else. L. Anvar, address on file, stated she was the broker for the property. She had spoken with all of the current building tenants and they were all for the project. All the tenants had different hours and hardly anyone worked on the weekends; there might be a few executives that came on the weekend. The landlords welcomed the project. The problem they had was when there was an Angel's game they had people trying to park in their lot. They were glad the church would be there to stop others from coming in. She was asking for an approval to allow the use. Chair Steiner asked if there was adequate parking at the site. Ms. Anvar stated there were open spaces during the week as people worked all different hours. Some from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., some from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and on the weekends, the only people she had seen were the executive suite people and that was only about 2 or 3 and having the church there on the weekend was also a security and safety issue for them. Chair Steiner asked if she was aware that the property owner had objected to the shared parking agreement. Ms. Anvar stated the owner of the subject site was La Linda LLC and they owned 3 of the buildings and had not objected to it at all. The property owner Chair Steiner referred to was the business behind them and those parking spaces were not used by their tenants. That business was closed on the weekend. Chair Steiner asked if there was intent to use parking at 1820 W. Orangewood. Ms. Anvar stated when the church would occupy the space on the weekend, there was adequate parking at their site. There was ample parking. The building at 1820 W. Orangewood was an office building and not occupied on the weekend. Chair Steiner asked if there would be any spill over to that parking lot. Ms. Anvar stated there might be, but that lot was already receiving spill over from the Angel's stadium patrons and was the property complaining about that situation and had that business owner wanted to close off the lot? Chair Steiner stated the correspondence only addressed the proposed subject site. Commissioner Gladson stated the addresses at 1820 and 1940 W. Orangewood were also referenced in the letter; there were 4 addresses. Ms. Anvar stated 1926 was where the church would be and the assembly room had been warehouse space. Prior to that, there had been a construction company that had occupied Page 15 the space with engineers and forklifts and many other things that created more noise and congestion than the proposed use before them. Commissioner Buttress stated it was to the east of the property and not behind. Ms. Anvar stated that was correct. Commissioner Gladson asked if all the buildings were owned by separate people. Ms. Anvar stated 1926, 1914 and 1940 were all owned by La Linda LLC., 1820 to the east was owned by another property owner and he had submitted the letter in disagreement of the parking. That person who submitted the letter was friends with the prior business owner of the construction company who had engineers, forklifts and they had placed their trucks into the warehouse. Commissioner Gladson stated that property owner to the east was concerned that his parking lot would be utilized by the use before them. Ms. Anvar stated in the agreement they would be placing signs for church parking and would not be using the adjacent lot. Commissioner Buttress stated she now had a better understanding of the business locations. Commissioner Gladson stated the space that the proposed business would be using was large and were there plans for further growth and had the business owners understood that they would be limited by the parking allowance? Ms. Anvar stated they had an understanding of that and if they wanted to expand they would need to find a larger space. Chair Steiner stated there would be classes held during the week as well. There was a lot of parking available 122 spaces. The Commissioners reviewed the site map. Chair Steiner closed the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Gladson stated on Condition No. 2 regarding noise, if there had been an objection from a resident she asked Staff how they would ensure there would be some controls in place for noise. Ms. Nguyen stated the Condition read that any noise, music or instruments shall not be audible at the exterior of the building, whether the doors and windows were open or closed. She had written such a tight restriction because on their website there was Page 16 information about chanting and drum circles that were being proposed at the new site. The drum circles were not currently occurring; however, it was advertised on their website as a new service that would be in place in the coming weeks. As part of the alcohol licenses and entertainment, the language was pulled from those conditions. If there was live entertainment that music would not be audible outside of the building when the doors were open and that was where the condition was pulled from. She could change the condition that the music or noise would not be audible at the parcel line. The other concern was that if there were other tenants there during the week, they would not be disturbed. Commissioner Gladson asked if Ms. Nguyen had any sense of how far away the doors and window were from the adjacent residential properties? That would be a factor if they would want to modify the conditions. Chair Steiner stated the applicant was aware of all the Conditions of Approval and had not presented any opposition to those conditions, and he asked the applicant if they would be able to operate under the conditions as presented? Ms. DePrete stated yes. Commissioner Gladson stated with the conditions in place, it would be very quiet outside of the building. Commissioner Buttress stated there were two rows of parking spaces between the building and the driveway area. Ms. Nguyen stated a two lane drive aisle was required to be 25'. Commissioner Gladson stated she would be inclined to request that doors and windows remain closed. Chair Steiner asked Ms. Nguyen if she could review the parking situation. Ms. Nguyen stated as an office use, the business would require 35 parking spaces; however, as a church use, due to the assembly situation of a church, they were using an assembly situation of non -fixed seats and that was the highest amount; in using that with the office space, the requirement was for 98 parking spaces and an increase of 63 spaces above the office use. There were in total 122 parking spaces and if the suites were closed on a normal basis at 6:00 p.m., the business before them would host classes at 7:00 p.m. which would allow for vacating of the day parking users and adequate space for those attending classes. The weekend parking situation would allow for the use of 122 parking spaces. If there were other tenants there during the evening or weekends, there would be adequate space for all of them. Page 17 Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 17 -13, CUP No. 2893 -13- Common Ground Interfaith Spiritual Center, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. Chair Steiner stated the proposal before them was for a CUP and the City had the authority to have the applicant return for modifications to that CUP if there were any problems. SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Page 18 (6) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Buttress made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, May 6, 2013. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Meeting Adjourned @ 8:05 p.m. Page 19