Loading...
2011 - June 6Planning Commission Meeting APPROVED June 6, 2011 Page 1 of 15 Minutes Planning Commission June 6, 2011 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff, and Merino ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION Vice Chair Buttress opened the Administrative session @ 6:46 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. She stated that Agenda Item No.1, Harvard House, would be continued as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Grangoff asked if it would be continued indefinitely. Assistant Community Development Director Ed Knight stated the item would be continued to a date uncertain. Commissioner Gladson stated she would recuse herself from the presentation on Agenda Item No. 4, as she had previously participated in the discussion of the proposal when she was a member of the Design Review Committee. She would also abstain from the motion for the Harvard House item. Vice Chair Buttress asked if there were any questions on the other items. Commissioner Merino stated he had no questions currently, however, he reserved the right to have questions when the items were presented. He stated he would have questions on the EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Ayres project. Commissioner Gladson stated she had been prepared in the event she was able to be present for the Ayres item. Commissioner Merino asked Commissioner Gladson if she would be recused from Item No. 4 and not return for the adjournment? Commissioner Gladson stated that was correct and she would not return for the adjournment. Vice Chair Buttress asked if anyone wanted to volunteer to do the flag salute? Commissioner Grangoff stated he would do that. Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:55p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None REGULAR SESSION Planning Commission Meeting Consent Calendar: June 6, 2011 Page 2of15 (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 2, 2011. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 2, 2011, with the correction on page 9 as noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Merino NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting New Hearing: June 6, 2011 Page 3 of 15 (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2813-10 —HARVARD HOUSE DEMO Item continued from May 2, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is proposing to demolish 2 substandard, non - contributing buildings and construct 2 two - story residential structures for new in -fill housing. The two new separate 1,766 square foot buildings will be of the Prairie architectural style. LOCATION: 468 N. Olive (Old Towne Historic District) NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines per the following Sections: 1. Section 15303 — (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) 2. Section 15302 — (Class 2 — Replacement or Reconstruction) consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures where the new structure will be located on the same site and have substantially the same purpose as the structure replaced. The proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines as to: use of in -kind materials, secondary roof height, massing, placement and orientation of the addition in relation to the site, block and surrounding Historic District. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 08 -11 approving the demolition of 2 non - contributing residential buildings and the construction of 2 two -story residential units for new in -fill housing. Vice Chair Grangoff stated the applicant had requested a continuance of the item. Assistant Community Development Director Ed Knight stated Staff had received a letter from Leason Pomeroy requesting that the item be continued and that would be to a date uncertain. Commissioner Merino made a motion to continue to a date uncertain, CUP No. 2813-10 - Harvard House Demolition. SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff and Merino NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gladson ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 4 of 15 (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4530 -11— SHANNON RESIDENCE The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 107 square foot rear shed porch and construct a new rear porch and bedroom addition. The new net expansion of the addition and bedroom will yield 489 square feet of building area that will expand the existing residence by 38.5 %, from 1,274 to 1,763 square feet in area. LOCATION: 238 N. Orange NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines per the following Sections: 1. Section 15303 — (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) 2. Section 15302 — (Class 2 — Replacement or Reconstruction) consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures where the new structure will be located on the same site and have substantially the same purpose as the structure replaced. The proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines as to: use of in -kind materials, secondary roof height, massing, placement and orientation of the addition in relation to the site, block and surrounding Historic District. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 12 -11 approving the construction of a new addition for a contributing residence. Historic Preservation Planner Dan Ryan presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Buttress opened the item to any questions for Staff. There were none. Vice Chair Buttress invited the applicant to address the Commission. Wade Shannon, address on file, stated his goal was to clearly take a house that had been neglected for many years and turn it into a house that was more livable and desirable for his wife and children. They were an old time family in Orange, since 1933, and his family had the mortuary there and they lived right around the corner from it. They valued the community and wanted to have their house beautiful and the house was close to the Plaza. Vice Chair Buttress opened the hearing to Public Comment. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 5 of 15 Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the OTPA had followed the project through the DRC process, as the Commission had probably seen from the minutes and although it had changed from a very modest addition to a somewhat larger addition, it was still sympathetic to the original structure and to the massing and scale. The applicant planned to use in kind material and to remove the asbestos siding and restore the original clapboard siding which was an additional plus. The addition would not be noticeable from the street and not impact the streetscape. The FAR was appropriate and fit in with the context of the block. It was an example of the type of project that the OTPA could support. Vice Chair Buttress closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Merino stated the proposal was an example of how things could be successfully developed in cooperation with groups in the community and the owner. He would be pleased to move approval of the item. Commissioner Gladson stated she would second the motion, concurring with her colleague. The proposal was an excellent example of what to do right in Old Towne and she was happy to support the project. The joke sometimes in the historical circle was "who was that salesman that came to town putting asbestos in many Old Towne homes ? ", many would want to cringe but also thank that salesman because the home was still standing and the asbestos probably protected the home. It was a wonderful project and she would support it. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 12 -11, approving DRC No. 4530 -11- Shannon Residence, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Grandgoff AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff, and Merino NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 6of15 (4) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2007 -240; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2674 -07 (LOADING ZONE); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2834 -11 (ABC TYPE 47); VARIANCE 2204 -10; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 0527 -07; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4274 -07; AND ENVIRONMENTAL 1801 -07 — AYRES HOTEL & PARKING STRUCTURE The proposed project to construct a new hotel tower with conference facilities, kitchen and dining room for breakfast and evening lounge, parking structure, at -grade parking, swimming pool, spa, trash enclosure, and landscaping. The applicant is proposing a Variance for 57 parking spaces and is proposing to use signage Variance #897 -66 for the existing and proposed signs. CUP's are needed to modify the loading zone and for the proposed Alcohol Beverage Control Type 47 license (on -sale general for a bona fide eating place). The existing five parcels will also be consolidated into two parcels. LOCATION: Vacant lot and surface parking lot to the north of 3737 W. Chapman Avenue NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1801 -07 (Attachment 8) was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation measures were identified through the analysis. The public review period was initiated on December 9, 2010 and ended on January 3, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was available for public review at the City of Orange Libraries, City Hall and the City's website. As of the morning of May 25, 2011, Staff received nine (9) formal written comments regarding the project. General comments included concerns regarding conflicts with existing utilities, capacity of existing utilities, traffic analysis, and bus stops. The public's written comments and the City's response letters can be found in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1801 -07 (Attachment 8) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 13 -11 allowing the construction of a 142 -room hotel tower and 212 -space parking structure located at the vacant log and surface parking lot to the north. Commissioner Gladson stated she would be recused from the item's presentation as she had participated in the item at the Design Review Committee level. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 7 of 15 Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Buttress opened the item to any questions for Staff. Commissioner Merino stated first he wanted to verify that the 9 formal written comments that were referenced on page 2 of the Staff Report were the 9 responses that were noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration? Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino stated on page 28 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration portion that was prepared by COA Corporation on the traffic, circulation and parking, the document referred to 348 spaces; of which 223 would be provided. The Staff Report had not concurred as there was a difference of 10 spaces. He asked if that was a typo. Ms. Nguyen stated the Staff Report contained more recent information. Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant resolved that. Ms. Nguyen stated yes, through a redesign. Commissioner Merino stated one of the findings that the Planning Commission needed to make was that the variance in the parking was being made due to special circumstances applicable to the subject site, including size, shape, topography, surrounding and what have you. The Staff's reasoning for the variance was due to the parcel being oddly shaped. Ms. Nguyen stated the site was land locked on three sides and adjacent to the freeway and it was an unusually shaped parcel. Commissioner Grangoff asked if she could elaborate on the land lock situation and to explain why the odd shape would warrant a variance. Ms. Nguyen stated because of the unusual shape and location, the lot could not be accessed from all different sides. There was not the ability to get as much parking if the site had been a perfect rectangular lot with access on all sides. Commissioner Merino stated he had a follow up; there was a new parking structure on the plans noting that it was a separate submittal. He asked Ms. Nguyen if the Planning Commission would be approving the parking structure with the rest of the proposal. Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino asked was there a vertical limit or any bearing why the parking structure could not go one floor higher and resolve the parking situation. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 8of15 Ms. Nguyen stated she would defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Nguyen, were there any limitations based on any City requirements that would prevent an additional level of parking be provided? Ms. Nguyen stated there were no code requirements that would prohibit that. Vice Chair Buttress invited the applicant to address the Commission. Don Ayres, address on file, stated he was available for questions. Vice Chair Buttress asked if he had understood the questions. Commissioner Merino stated he could ask the question. He asked Mr. Ayres if he could answer the question that he had asked Ms. Nguyen. Mr. Ayres stated that was what was on the table for right now. They had not wanted to go an extra level for aesthetic reasons and to keep the parking structure not so visible on the site. The project would look better with just the level of parking as proposed. Commissioner Merino stated he guessed when dealing with 3 levels of parking, would it make a difference to just add another level and resolve the parking deficiency that was on the site for number of parking stalls? Mr. Ayres stated in adding another level of parking, the site would be over parked. There would be too much available parking. With the parking spaces provided, they would currently have plenty of parking available for both hotels. Between the parking structure and the spaces that were on each property at each hotel, there would be enough parking. Vice Chair Buttress stated there were 171 spaces on the existing property. Mr. Ayres stated yes, currently the existing property with 129 rooms had 171 required parking and the required parking for the new site was 224. The number for both projects totaled 395, and the number of spaces provided for was 338; which was 57 under parked. In his calculations, with both hotels at a 64% occupancy, there would be 165 spaces still available. With a 75% occupancy at both hotels, there would still be 135 spaces available. They were focusing on the amount of parking that they would gain with just the parking structure being at its current level and he felt the project had sufficient parking without the need to add another level of parking. Commissioner Merino stated that decision was based on a 65% occupancy and if there was a conference, for example with something Disney wanted to do, the site could potentially be under parked with an impact on surrounding properties and that was his main concern. He asked what the mitigation would be for that situation. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 9of15 Mr. Ayres stated history showed them that the meetings were held during the days and with occupancy that would be at night and that situation would mitigate itself. Commissioner Merino asked if there was a plan for conferences in the evening in the conference center. Mr. Ayres stated most of their events were corporate business meetings and sometimes there were rooms rented on weekends for church retreats. Typically the people who were at the meetings for weekend events were people who were already staying at the hotel. It would not be a different set of people coming for the meeting. During the week it would be a bit more corporate driven. When meetings were booked it was generally with sleeping rooms and a meeting space. He would not state that there were not times where they booked a meeting where people were not staying at the hotel, but with the history that they had, it was not an issue. It was not a situation where the hotel would be 100% booked and there were still 67 spaces available and then to have a meeting with people coming to the hotel who would not have booked a room. Commissioner Merino stated in hearing Mr. Ayres comments he gathered that Mr. Ayres would not be amenable to a condition that would prevent or potentially address; and he had to understand that the area with CHOC and some of the other uses there were some serious parking issues down there. His concern was that the City would have a means to address the parking issues that might occur. The application could be conditioned so the hotel could not have an evening event. In reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Staff Report, it appeared that the applicant had not felt there would be an issue of parking as there would not be an evening event at the same time all the guests would be back in their rooms. If they conditioned something to that effect, he assumed Mr. Ayres would not be amenable to that? Mr. Ayres stated they would prefer not to have such a condition; there was confidence with their history with the number of other properties that they built over the last 26 years and he felt that there was adequate parking being provided. With 338 parking spaces there would be enough parking between both buildings; with the parking structure and the parking spaces around both hotels. There would be 67 available spaces with 100% occupancy. Often times when the hotel was at 100% occupancy not all the parking spaces were filled. A study had been completed at their existing hotel just last week which had been forwarded to Ms. Nguyen. With the site being 100% sold on the evening of June 4, 2010, there were only 98 parking spaces used at 78% of the spaces being used. People traveled together, using single vehicles with multiple rooms. There were so many variables and he was quite confident that there was plenty of parking. It was in their best interest not to build something that would not provide for enough parking. It was in their best interest to ensure there was adequate parking for meetings and sleeping rooms. It had been looked at to add another level of parking to the structure, but with costs, and in making the project pencil out, they also looked at the aesthetics of the project. They had not wanted to add that level and also the parking situation had not warranted more parking. It had been an internal discussion that they had over the last year and a half. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 10 of 15 Commissioner Grangoff asked how many spaces would an additional level of parking provide? Mr. Ayres stated the parking structure now had 212; another level would provide 106. Commissioner Grangoff asked what was the average occupancy? Mr. Ayres stated the hotel had been at 64 -65% year to date at the site in Orange, and historically with their sites in Orange County, they were at 70 -75 %. Their Anaheim property at Katella had done a bit better. They were confident between the two hotels that there would be adequate parking for their customers and also to be able to have enough spaces for people who came to meeting events. He found that many times with the groups who came to their hotel that they tried to match up meeting rooms with sleeping rooms. They held the sleeping space available for people who were there for meetings; and they had not wanted to book meeting rooms for people who were not using sleeping rooms on one date and then another group wanted to come in to book sleeping rooms and there was no meeting space for them. They tried really hard to hold the meeting space for those groups that booked sleeping rooms. Vice Chair Buttress asked when there was a group that came in to meet and also booked sleeping rooms, would those groups come in busses or vans. With occupancy at 100% Mr. Ayres had stated the parking was still lower, was that due to carpooling? Mr. Ayres stated there were groups that carpooled or a family that came in a van and booked 2 or 3 rooms. They found that more often than not, there were multiple guest rooms with only one car, especially on the weekends. Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Ayres, as the applicant, if he would not be receptive to some sort of a condition that placed a restriction or somehow mitigated the parking? Should at a later date the economy improve and the occupancy rate would go up; again there was no vicinity parking study, the parking dealt with circulation but not with a potential parking problem outside of the project. Should there be a high occupancy with a meeting or other activity, where would those people go? He understood the applicant was relying on some historic scenarios, but the City would be providing an entitlement. Mr. Ayres asked if he was referring to something outside of their hotel site. Commissioner Merino stated the entire area outside of UCI, the Doubletree and in that entire area, there were already parking issues. One trip to the Block on a weekend added to that. If there was a major event, people were going to want to park somewhere. Mr. Ayres stated in the event that both of their hotels were at 100 %, there would still be 67 parking spots available. The meeting space was not large; it was not a big ballroom. It held approximately 30 -40 people. It was 190 square feet. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 11 of 15 Commissioner Merino stated he was attempting to find a way to address the parking, for example, a limitation on hours of a conference and it was something the Planning Commission had done in the past. To mitigate potential parking problems, an application could be conditioned to have certain hours when events could take place. Mr. Ayres stated it was important for him to have the Planning Commission's comfort level with the proposed project. He assured Commissioner Merino that his own comfort level was high. If they had to do something to get his comfort level higher, they could look at that to see how that could get played out, whether it was a restriction on them having meetings or he was not certain how they could do that. He was really confident that parking would not be an issue for the site. It was based on their history, with other properties and the meeting spaces located at those other sites. The meeting space was generally held for people with sleeping rooms; they would not try to book a lot of meetings for meeting sake as that was not where the revenue was. The Doubletree and others had those types of meeting spaces. Vice Chair Buttress stated she was hearing that the Ayres Hotels were not trying to compete with places similar to the Doubletree. They furnished meeting spaces for those patrons who had room occupancy and needed the space for a small meeting. Mr. Ayres stated they had done small meetings well; they were not in the big group business, their facilities were not built for that and it was not their focus. If they had a big ballroom and they were looking to do something different, they would have planned accordingly. He had not wanted to inhibit their customers from parking or to get away with anything, he was confident that what they were proposing was more than adequate. As a hotel operator, he wanted to ensure his patrons had parking. Commissioner Grangoff stated he had no further questions for Mr. Ayres and he felt assured that the parking as presented and explained was okay. He had an additional question for staff in how the parking was looked at as far as the impact on the area. Ms. Nguyen handed out a survey to the Planning Commissioners. She stated it was a parking survey that had been completed on Saturday, June 4, 2011 with 100% hotel occupancy. At 7:00 a.m. there were only 87 cars in the lot. At 100% occupancy, only 51 % of the spaces were taken and that addressed the higher occupancy and the adequacy of parking spaced provided. There were times when people came to the hotel in groups, people took shuttles, there was a shuttle system at the airport that would take people to tourist destinations, and people who stayed at the hotel walked to UCI and other places in the area. Commissioner Merino asked if anyone had looked at the potential if the facility had a conference, 90% occupancy and the existing facility as a combined project and the parking situation, looking at both facilities. Ms. Nguyen stated no that had not been done. She would imagine that the hotel operator would manage that. They would schedule accordingly knowing the amount of rooms and Planning Commission Meeting parking available. June 6, 2011 Page 12 of 15 Commissioner Merino stated they were giving an entitlement and relying on the operator to basically self police. Vice Chair Buttress stated there had been an additional speaker card received and invited the applicant's representative to address the Commission. Cyril Chok, address on file, stated he was the architect for the proposed project. He had been with the project since day one and wanted to address some of the issues addressed with regard to parking. In terms of the scale, Mr. Ayres had mentioned earlier that he had not wanted a structure that was too high. There was a courtyard that was quite narrow, approximately 50' and there was basically a one and %2 story structure and to add an additional 10' would greatly increase the claustrophobic or canyon effect. There would be a wall of 20' and make for an enclosed courtyard and a detriment to the site. The light that came into the site would also be much less. They took that into consideration, they wanted the courtyard to be open and inviting and not to be a leftover space, they wanted the space to be pleasant and open — to be part of the design feature of the hotel, it was important. He wanted to address that Mr. Ayres had quoted a parking count that even when the site was at 100% occupancy, there was left over parking. The hotel was only 5 miles from Disneyland and families went to Disneyland in groups. It was not unheard of that patrons took a van from the OC Airport or LAX, packed full of kids and used 3 rooms. That was the reason for empty stalls, there was a use of high occupancy vehicles that used multiple rooms. If it was a businessman's hotel with one person occupying one room, one parking space and next to a business park, but it was not. They had some business meetings there and that approximation to Disneyland could not be forgotten. During the summer, and he would allow Mr. Ayres to speak to that, but there would be high occupancy vehicles with multiple rooms. Architecturally he had not wanted to make parking a big deal. If the parking code was taken to the absolute last stall, many times the site would end up with an empty parking lot that would not be a benefit to anyone. The scale and the reasonable assumption of the hotel occupancy and the approximation to Disneyland should be considered, he felt it was a good solution. Commissioner Merino asked if there was a section on the plans that would show him the relationship between the parking structure and the courtyard? Mr. Chok stated there was not a section cut on the plans that showed that. In looking at the hotel height, and with the parking structure being essentially one story of the hotel, approximately 40' away. Commissioner Merino stated the hotel was at 4 stories, with only one story of the parking structure being adjacent to the courtyard. Mr. Chok stated yes, '/z of the parking structure was below grade. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 13 of 15 Commissioner Merino asked if the hotel itself was 4 stories from the finished level to the eave line? Mr. Chok stated yes. Commissioner Merino stated the parking garage on the opposite side was one floor; the question was why could they not go a floor higher on the parking structure and Mr. Chok's answer had been because the courtyard would be so impacted. One side of the courtyard was already at 40' and the other would be how high? Mr. Chok stated the current height at the parapet would be 20' up in the air as the parking structure was sloped upward and would be at 23' without adding another level. Commissioner Merino stated one side was at 40' and the other side at 23'. Mr. Chok stated yes. One more issue, and it was a personal choice. With a one story it felt more like a slab, and with more holes into a deck it felt more of a parking structure and with only one floor it was much less intrusive. Vice Chair Buttress closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Mr. Ayres wanted to make an additional comment. Vice Chair Buttress re- opened the hearing and invited Mr. Ayres to address the Commission. Mr. Ayres stated he appreciated the Commissioner's concerns regarding the parking. Between the parking structure being at the height proposed, they wanted to keep the courtyard open and airy. They had the elevation on the building with windows and decorative stone and that element made the elevation as aesthetically pleasing as possible. They wanted to have the parking structure as low as possible. If a condition that if there was 100% occupancy that the meeting rooms would need to be part of room sales and that there would be no outside meeting space if the hotel was at 100% occupancy; that would be a condition that they could work with and he wanted Commissioner Merino's comfort level to be high. Commissioner Merino stated thank you very much and it was appreciated, it was good to hear. Vice Chair Buttress stated that would not prevent the hotel from using the meeting rooms as long as it was based on room occupancy. Mr. Ayres stated it would not, and that was what they generally did. Vice Chair Buttress closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or a motion. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 14 of 15 Commissioner Merino stated as having gone to the site and reviewed the parking situation in the surrounding area, his goal was to not add to or aggravate an already bad situation. Additionally, the finding that the Commission was required to make was in granting the variance based on a special circumstance and the fact that the property had an odd shape to it was not a reason for him to forgive a significant amount of parking spaces. As an architect, he had people come to his office with unusual sites and he had never had a City provide a variance for that basis. He was pleased that the City was being so cooperative with the applicant, but for him to make a decision, without a condition that Mr. Ayres was agreeable to. He would want the applicant to be successful and have 100% occupancy, which could provide for a potential parking situation in the area. With the applicant agreeable to a condition that would state when the occupancy of the new site was at 100% the meeting place would be used by those occupants, he would be comfortable. If there was a conference without the condition, there could be a conference activity, other activities in the area and with 100% occupancy, and the kids would not be driving the cars and with that he felt the parking could be mitigated. Commissioner Grangoff stated he was pleased with Staff's recommendation and how the proposal was presented. He wanted to ensure that a condition placed on the project, as proposed by Commissioner Merino, would not have a negative impact on the project? Commissioner Merino asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz if the applicant wanted to come back if the condition created a business restriction, would he have the ability to come back and have the CUP amended. Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct, the applicant could come back. If the applicant's business model changed and they felt the condition was too restrictive, they could return to have their CUP amended. Vice Chair Buttress stated she had agreed with Commissioner Grangoff and had wanted to ensure that the applicant would be able to conduct business as usual. She appreciated that Mr. Ayres had provided an explanation to allow them to understand what he was willing to agree to. She would be able to move forward with a condition, knowing that the applicant could return if their business model changed. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 13 -11, Tentative Parcel Map 2007 -240; CUP No. 2674 -07 (Loading Zone); CUP No. 2831 -11 (ABC Type 47); Variance 2201 -10; MSPR 0527 -07; DRC No. 4274 -07; and ERI 1801 -07 — Ayres Hotel & Parking Structure, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional condition referring to parking, and Staff had information based on comments presented. Commissioner Merino stated he was grateful to Mr. Ayres for being so reasonable and for consideration of other issues in the community, and noting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and approved. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Page 15 of 15 SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff, and Merino NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner RECUSED: Commissioner Gladson MOTION CARRIED (5) ADJOURNMENT: Adjournment to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday, June 20, 2011. Commissioner Grangoff made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on June 20, 2011. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff, and Merino NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gladson and Steiner MOTION CARRIED Meeting Adjourned @ 7:52 p.m.