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.