Loading...
2006 - October 16 /~r ~p H,OVI~JJ Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 16 October 2006 Monday - 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: INRE: IN RE: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, and Steiner None. Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Mari Burke, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF October 2, 2006. Chair Bonina made a motion to approve the consent calendar. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Steiner None Commissioner Imboden (due to absenteeism) None MOTION CARRIED. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2598-06, VARIANCE NO. 2161-06, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 118-06 - SWIM SAFE SWIM SCHOOL (JIM FLAHIVE) A request to allow for the conversion of a 4,111 square foot office building into a private swim school, on a property zoned O-P (Office Professional). In association with the Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 CUP, the applicant is requesting the variance and administrative adjustment approval to allow a reduction in dimensions for the depth of the parking stalls and the back-up area. The site is located at 1722 East Rose Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 44-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2598-06, Variance 2161-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 118-06. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant, Jim Flahive stated: · They have taught at the Ridgeline Country Club since 1995. · They plan to build a 1500 sq. ft. pool. · Their business is primarily private lessons. · It generally takes 3-4 summers to learn; however, with private lessons they can be taught in 6 mos.- 1 year continually. · Each year they have clients telling them their child would have drowned if they had not been given instruction. Chair Bonina expressed his appreciation to the applicant for filling an important need in the community. Chair Bonina asked if the ADA-adapted bathroom is already in existence. Mr. Flahive responded affirmatively and indicated they will be building small changing rooms next to each of the two bathrooms. Chair Bonina questioned the proximity of the building walls to the pool and asked if the distances indicated from each of the walls is typical. Don Lee, the applicants architect, responded that 5' is the minimum requirement for exiting and it has been reviewed with the Fire and Building Departments. Chair Bonina asked for clarification of the 5' measurement. Mr. Lee responded 5' is the distance between the edge of the water and the wall. Chair Bonina questioned the measurement from the door swing to the water. Mr. Lee responded that it is being shown at the minimum requirement at this time and may be more when they get into construction. Chair Bonina asked if there would be elevated coping. Mr. Lee responded it would probably be flat. Chair Bonina suggested they consider moving the doorway to allow for more significant distance from the pool. Chair Bonina indicated what concerned him the most was the layout of the parking lot and the lack of circulation opportunity. Since the parking stalls literally go right up to the building, which is glass, this presented a challenge to him given the expected clientele of Page 2 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 the business. Mr. Lee responded the parking plan evolved while working with Staff and he wasn't sure how the configuration presented was actually achieved; however, they would follow the suggestion in the Staff Report and have the stalls to the south turned to be in line with the rest of the stalls. Further, he indicated the site is currently striped with no planters and they intend to squeeze in the 10% required landscaped parking which will also serve as a wheel stop bumper. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he didn't see any pedestrian pathways on the plans. Also, on the east side there is a 3' planter abutting a 15' parking space and he suggested relief be given on the landscaping requirement to make the parking spaces larger. He also noted the configuration of Stall #12 would make it difficult to maneuver in/out of the space and pointed out that the clientele served by this business would undoubtedly be brought by parents that drive larger SUV type vehicles. Commissioner Imboden stated he had many of the same questions and concerns with the parking, specifically with the maneuverability in/out of Spaces 9 through 12. He added that safety is a primary concern and his preference would be to give concession on the landscape requirement to provide relief in the parking area. Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight interjected that Staff is recommending that the orientation of Spaces 9 through 12 be modified such that they are consistent and matching with the orientation of Spaces 13 through 18. He pointed out that although this requirement was not specified in the Staff Report, it is reflected in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Steiner echoed Commissioner Bilodeau's observations and referencing Section 3, Page 5 of the Staff Report he asked if the suggestion made to provide relief of the landscaping requirement would affect Staffs assessments with respect to the orientation of the parking. Mr. Knight responded that their reasoning in rotating the spaces was to provide a more efficient and effective use of the parking lot. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that if Spaces 9 through 12 were rotated it would mean that all spaces (9 through 18) would then be 15' deep, assuming the planter remained. Mr. Knight confirmed that was accurate. Commissioner Steiner then asked for clarification that if the relief were granted for the elimination of the planter, there would not be a requirement for a variance as all spaces would then be 18' in depth. Mr. Knight confirmed that was also accurate. Given there is a condition that limits the number of instructional swimming sessions that can be conducted at anyone time to 5 (5 instructors,S students), Chair Bonina asked Mr. Knight what the basis was for the 18 parking stalls. Mr. Knight responded there were two reasons: (1) 18 could be accommodated on the site. (2) If at some point in the future, the use changes to office use, the 18 spaces would be applicable under current Code for that use. Chair Bonina stated that the only reason the 18 spaces could fit would be due to the approval of the variance and he suggested it might be more appropriate to reduce the Page 3 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 number of stalls, which would address the safety concerns shared by the entire Commission. Mr. Knight stated the Commission did have that latitude and that the worst-case scenario was 16 spaces. Commissioner Imboden asked if Staff had done a scenario to see how many legitimate parking spaces that meet Code would fit in the allocated space. Mr. Knight responded that they had not done that analysis. Commissioner Steiner asked what the basis was to the last statement on Page 5 in the Staff Report, "Leaving the parking lot as is, void of any landscaping, is ineffective." Mr. Knight responded that "ineffective" may not have been the most precise word; what was meant is that it would not meet or enhance an aesthetics standard. Public input was provided as follows: Kenneth Meany, address on file stated: · He is the Owner of Boot Barn, the property in the front on Tustin Avenue. · They have been in the same location for over 25 years. · They have a parking problem and they meet all the Codes; in fact, they had to do a certain size building to enable them to meet all the Codes. · They have a parking problem due to all the apartments down Rose Avenue. · It seems to him the City is bending over backwards to try to accommodate this project. · It has been wisely stated by the Commission that the average Mom now drives a SUV type vehicle when they transport young children and they therefore require additional space. · He anticipates they will be forced to use his lot, as they won't be able to find parking on the street and his lot is safe and will be easier to use. · He doesn't want to create ill will for customers of a business he respects. · This is not the appropriate use of this building. . He can't understand how there can be guarantees there will only be 5 students, 5 instructors at a time. . His Store Manager observed an employee of the City of Orange taking photographs of the Boot Barn parking lot and when he inquired of the employee what they were doing the response was "there is going to be a swim school and we understand this is shared parking. " · His parking lot is not for shared parking. Chair Bonina agreed with Mr. Meany that the Boot Barn parking lot was not for shared parking. Mr. Flahive indicated: . They can tell their customers not to use the Boot Barn parking lot and they won't. . If they need to widen the parking spaces to accommodate SUV's, he believed they could do that as well. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Lee if the building would have proactive, mechanical ventilation. Mr. Lee responded it would have to and that is one of the things being worked currently with the Mechanical Engineers, as they will have to evacuate the water vapor effectively. Page 4 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 Mr. Lee also commented that the parking lot is not contiguous into the other parking lot so there is no overflow parking. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Knight if this Conditional Use Permit was specific to this use so if this use vacated and an office use came forward the parking situation could be re- evaluated to potentially increase the number of spaces for that application. Mr. Knight responded affirmatively. Chair Bonina stated he really liked this use, it was a great use for the City and something that is needed; however, he continued to express concern about the parking lot. He then suggested reconfiguring the concrete patio area, the green area and the parking area to alleviate the concerns expressed. Commissioner Imboden expressed concern that the Administrative Adjustment and the Variance combined potentially makes the situation worse. Instead, his preference was to reduce the number of spaces and use the patio area to increase the overall amount of space devoted to parking. Commissioner Bilodeau agreed with Chair Bonina and Commissioner Imboden, suggesting the package be resubmitted after reconfiguring the parking lot. Chair Bonina made to motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2598-06 to a date uncertain with the following guidance: (1) Reduce the number of parking spaces to 16. (2) Use the concrete patio area for employee or handicapped parking. (3) Adjust the bathroom doors so they don't open to the pool. (4) Optimize the circulation (backing up) area of the parking lot. Commissioner Steiner stated that based on the outcome of the parking area reconfiguration, there may not be a need to grant relief from the planter requirement. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2599-06 - SCHMIDT RESIDENCE REMODEL (HENRY SCHMIDT) A request to allow for the installation of additional plumbing facilities (toilet and sink) in association with an existing recreation room. The site is located at 1655 North Hunters Way. Page 5 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 42-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2599-06. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview. Michael Valen, the Project Designer represented the applicant and stated: · The existing property has four buildings on it and three of them will be remodeled. · The owner has a handicapped son who is very interested in model trains. · There is a large garage that will be converted into a recreation space where they will set up model trains. · There is a 3-piece bathroom existing in that garage that was built without a permit. · The owner would like to retain that bathroom. Public input was provided as follows: Lee Tannenbaum. address on file stated: · There are 8 houses on Hunters Way that form a homeowners association (Wilderness East HOA). · She is on the board of the association as well as on the Architectural Approval Committee and she was representing them. · She lives in the property adjoining the Schmidt property. · She has lived in her residence for 29 years. · There are four buildings, the main house, the garage and (2) other units that were warehouses used by the previous owners for their business. · The recreation room and existing garage has been used as a guest house. · Since this is to be used as a recreation room, there should not be a need for a full bath. . The owner has mentioned to a few people that what he really wants to do is create a family compound. · He has moved a manufactured home onto the property. · There would be a total of three granny units on the property, if the use isn't changed. Mr. Valen responded: . He couldn't speak for what the previous owners had done; however, the current owner wants to bring the property up to Code. . The barn is simply being converted to a garage with a 636 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit which is allowed by the Code. . The dwelling unit will have additional storage space behind it, separated with no common access way into the storage space. . The existing garage does have a finish space and adjacent to it is the 3-car garage. · The owner's intent is to use it as recreation space, not as a bedroom. · The owners son has a mental handicap and requires constant attention. . The father works from home and attends to the child when he is not in school. . The child will use the bathroom as a convenience. . There is a RV on site where the owner would stay while construction is underway. Page 6 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 Chair Bonina asked Staff what is done to ensure there is not more than one guest home on the property. Ms. Thakur responded the applicant will be required to record a covenant stipulating that the recreation room, associated garage and storage facility shall be maintained as an ancillary use to the primary residence and that it shall not be rented, sold or leased as a separate dwelling unit or any form of habitable space. The consequence to violation of the covenant would be revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Bonina asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz if there is a decision rendered by the Commission that somehow conflicts with the homeowner association bylaws, how the interaction of the two is managed. Mr. Sheatz responded the rules and regulations of the Homeowners Association (HOA) do not govern the actions of the Commission; however, if the applicant does something in violation of their HOA CC&R's then the HOA could enforce their own rules in a separate action. The City has not previously consulted HOA's prior to issuing a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff if they had validated the statement made by Ms. Tannenbaum that there was a manufactured home on the property. Chair Bonina responded that he had visited the property and viewed a large RV. Commissioner Imboden questioned the ratio of accessory structures to the principal residence. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry responded you are permitted to have 50% of the square footage of the principal building as accessory structures. Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Chair Bonina made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2599-06. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2606-06 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC A proposal for co-location of six (6) antennas onto an existing 55'0" high non-stealth monopole wireless communications structure and new ground equipment on the property of a neighborhood shopping center (Saddleback Plaza). The site is located at 3413 E. Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Page 7 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 45-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2606-06. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry provided a project overview. Chair Bonina asked for clarification that the antennas shown in the photographs closest to the ground are what is being proposed and if so, how close they will be to the pole. Ms. Roseberry clarified those were the proposed antennas and deferred to the applicant to answer how close they would be situated to the pole. Laura Bishop, the applicant's representative stated: · There will be approximately 15 applications from Royal Street for installations in the City of Orange. · The current site is a co-location on a monopole. · They have reviewed the Conditions of Approval and mounting the antennas flush to the monopole will not be a problem for Royal Street. · When you mount the antennas on the monopole, the distance from the pole is dependent on the style rack used. They could be 3"-4" from the pole; however, they will appear to be part of the pole. · The antennas are about 6" wide and 4"-6" deep and about 4'--4'6" tall. Commissioner Steiner stated that previously he had supported Royal Street applications as he was under the impression the installations were flush to the pole and he asked for clarification if it was just for this particular install that a flush mount was not possible or if under no circumstance a flush mount was possible. The applicant responded "they are pretty much never flush to a pole, they can't be." Ms. Bishop went on to explain the procedure for mounting stating they would be as close as possible and asked if the condition could be left to state the application must be as close as design or engineering possible. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that the photo simulation of Saddleback Plaza, West Elevation is how they will appear. The applicant responded this was the original proposal; however, they will be in closer. Commissioner Steiner asked if there are different types of antennas that can be co-located or if they will all have this same type of appearance. The applicant responded there are different types, depending on the type of coverage they are seeking, the distance they need to cover, etc. Essentially, there are a number of different factors that govern the type of antennas used; however, they generally always use the smallest antenna possible. Ms. Bishop stated the ones in question will be 4'6" tall and can be painted to blend in with the pole and the dish can have a muted grey cover placed over it. Commissioner Steiner stated that is why in previous applications he was under the impression they were less obtrusive because in fact according to the engineering description, the antennas required were much smaller. The applicant responded that the 4' 6" antenna is pretty standard. Chair Bonina asked if they would be installing any additional equipment on the ground. Page 8 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 The applicant responded the existing chain link fencing will be removed and they will be installing wrought iron fencing per Staff s recommendation. Inside the fence they will be installing four (4) additional cabinets. Chair Bonina asked how much the enclosed area would be enlarged to accommodate the new equipment. The applicant responded approximately 250 sq. ft. Chair Bonina asked in what direction it would be expanded. Ms. Bishop responded it would be to the west of the existing enclosure and it would be extended out about 10'. Chair Bonina asked if the extension would impact the parking. Ms. Bishop responded it would not take any existing parking space. Chair Bonina asked, "What is the height of the wrought iron fence?" Ms. Bishop responded it would be 8', which is the height of the existing fence. Furthermore, wood slats could be installed in the fence if that is the preference of the Commission. Chair Bonina asked if there would be any exposed wiring from the antennas to the equipment. Ms. Bishop responded no, the wiring would be inside the monopole, underground to the equipment cabinets. Chair Bonina asked if there was a reason why this wasn't proposed as a non-stealth, Christmas tree or Palm tree. Ms. Bishop responded that since it's an existing structure, it is owned by someone else, they do the most minimal installation as possible. To do a pine they would have to replace the other carrier's antenna, pole and all new footing would be required. Co-locations are not the cheapest way for a carrier to go, putting up a new pole is, but typically the jurisdictions would rather see a co-location then the addition of more new poles. Furthermore, co-locations are quicker. Commissioner Imboden stated none of the Royal Street applications seen to date have been stealth and he asked if they do any stealth installations. Ms. Bishop responded it depends on the Code requirements and they have an application coming in this week for a co-location on an existing stealth monopine installation. They prefer to do seamless installations (on a rooftop); however, if those aren't available they look for a co-locatable pole and if it's stealth that's generally the best solution for all. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification of the proposed antenna height. Ms. Bishop responded, "correction then, it is a 5' antenna". Chair Bonina asked if the microwave dish is new. Ms. Bishop responded: . it is new, · it is 2' in diameter, · that's the smallest one they can use in this type of application, · it is to provide service for another site. No public comment was provided on this item. Commissioner Imboden expressed concern with the visual impact of the installation. Ms. Roseberry responded that the aesthetic issue is with the original pole and arrays; however, with a flush installation it would be less jarring to the eye. Although it may be Page 9 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 visible from the adjacent homes, it would have less impact than a new pole installation. Chair Bonina asked for clarification of the distance cited in Paragraph 3, Section 1 of the Resolution; specifically, is it 100 feet away from the building or the property line? Ms. Roseberry responded it is from the residential dwellings and the existing structure is as far away from the residential area as it could possibly be. Commissioner Steiner asked if the property owners were notified of this hearing. Ms. Roseberry responded affirmatively. Commissioner Steiner noted that the people who would be affected by this installation have not expressed opposition and although the install may be aesthetically hideous he was pleased the carrier is taking measures to install the smallest antennas possible and take caution to conceal the wiring. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he too was concerned with the aesthetics of this installation and he asked Staff if the existing carrier was contacted with a request to upgrade the site. Ms. Roseberry responded no, instead, they spoke with Royal Street about why they chose to co-locate and if there was an opportunity for them to do a new stealth installation. Chair Bonina stated there are some economic benefits being derived from the property owner and the owner of the pole so an upgrade should be viewed from that perspective, instead of strictly from the cost perspective. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated he heard the applicant discuss the fact she may be able to have a discussion with the owner of the pole to inquire if they would be willing to upgrade the pole. Mr. Sheatz pointed out that given this fact it would certainly be within the purview of the Commission to continue the application enabling the applicant's representative to pursue this direction. Absent this effort, the Commission would be compelled to render a decision on the project as presented. Chair Bonina re-opened the public hearing and inquired of Ms. Bishop if she would have the opportunity to go back to Royal Street and the owner of the pole to pursue an upgrade of the existing technology. Ms. Bishop responded with a question of Staff, "If we continue, what hearing would it be continued to?" Ms. Roseberry responded if the Planning Commission chose to continue it, they could set it on a date certain where dates are fixed for information to be brought back to Staff and the next hearing date is set, or if there isn't a date certain, it would be continued to a date uncertain where the hearing would have to be re-noticed and a date convenient to the applicant and the City sometime in the future would be selected. Ms. Bishop responded that a tower company now owns the pole and there are T-Mobile antennas on the top of the pole. Royal Street has no control over T-Mobile and in fact, Royal Street would have to pay for the T-Mobile down time if they went in and installed a monopine. Royal Street would incur all costs for the monopine installation and they would like an approval for this site. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Bishop if she was in agreement with a continuance to return to Royal Street and all other involved parties to explore the recommended improvements. Ms. Bishop responded it wouldn't involve T -Mobile other then they would have to give authorization to have their antennas changed out. They would try to get the tower Page 10 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 company to rebate some of the costs as Royal Street pays them significant rent. Ms. Bishop concluded stating they don't want a denial of the application so if the Commission determines they want to explore an monopine upgrade to the site she would ask that the Commission work with Royal Street to obtain expeditious approval. Continuance to a date certain two months out is too long; they would want to build the site this year so they would rather come in and get their building permit to get things going. If an approval is granted for a monopine they would ask that Staff (or Director level) be able approve the site plan. Ms. Roseberry was asked for a date certain if the motion was for a continuance. She responded the date certain could be November 6th or 20th, December 4th or 18th; the applicant could select one of those dates. The applicant interjected that they could do a monopine installation; however, it would require an adjustment to their site plan. Knowing this she asked for an immediate decision (approval) or if the Commission was leaning towards denial she wanted a date certain to come back with information. Ms. Roseberry noted that if they came back with a co-located stealth design it would not take a Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission; it would take a minor site plan review. Mr. Sheatz was asked for clarification on disposition of the subject application. He responded they could continue it to a date certain only for the subject application, to give the applicant time to submit a new application for a new stealth antenna, which would not have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. The discussion ensued about proceeding with the existing application versus opening a new application. Mr. Sheatz concluded advising a non-stealth application could not be conditioned to be stealth. Mr. Knight clarified that if the item were continued, it would come back in one of two ways: (1) The applicant would return and address issues raised by the Commission as it relates to a co-located, non-stealth application with the Commission ultimately rendering a decision. (2) Staff will advise the Conditional Use Permit is no longer valid and the application has been set aside because the applicant has elected to pursue the installation of a co-located, stealth pole at the site and that could be approved by the Director. It was agreed the options presented by Mr. Knight would give the applicant the greatest flexibility. Chair Bonina made a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2606-06 to November 20, 2006. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. Page 11 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2608-06 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4133-06 - THE LAZY DOG CAFE (LDC III, INC.) A proposal to allow the on-site general sale of alcohol in a new, bona-fide public eating establishment (Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 47 license). The applicant is also proposing to remodel the existing tenant space for the new restaurant including exterior alterations and signage. The site is located at 1623 West Katella Avenue, Space 212. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 46-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2608-06 and Design Review Committee No. 4133-06. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry provided a project overview. Commissioner Steiner asked Staff for clarification of Condition #15, "There shall be no "Happy Hours" when alcoholic beverages are offered at a reduced rate. Ms. Roseberry responded stating this is a standard condition requested by the Orange Police Department. Commissioner Steiner suggested the condition be revised to replace the word "when" with "where" as the way it is stated implies alcoholic beverages can be offered at a reduced rate just not at a reduced rate during a happy hour time. Ms. Roseberry indicated Staff had neglected to put in the standard "Ben Pruett" condition that the applicant must cease service of alcoholic beverages one hour prior to closing. Commissioner Imboden asked if the previous tenant had a liquor license and if so what the differences are between that application and the current application. Ms. Roseberry indicated the intent was to reassess the surroundings, the concentration rate, crime rates and the overall conditions of the project. Chair Bonina asked if entrance to the exterior patio was restricted with controlled access. Ms. Roseberry responded affirmatively and added that a host/hostess must accompany guests to a table in the patio area. Chris Simms, the owner/applicant stated: . His father and grandfather started Mimi's Cafe approximately 28 years ago. . He and his father are now starting Lazy Dog Cafe. · This will be the third Lazy Dog. · The restaurant will appeal to families and empty nesters. · They will have a varied menu with emphasis on quality. . The bar is a compliment to the menu with sales being 17% bar, 83% food. . They will keep the layout pretty much the same as Gordon Biersch. Commissioner Steiner extended his compliments to the applicant for the thoroughness of his proposal. Page 12 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 Chair Bonina asked if the gates to the patio area are locked. The applicant responded they would have panic locks enabling them to be opened from the inside but not from the outside. Commissioner Bilodeau expressed satisfaction with the proposal as submitted. Chair confirmed to the applicant a condition would be added requiring alcoholic beverage service to be stopped one hour prior to closure. The applicant responded that they had discussed this restriction with Staff and were of the impression that since the ABC doesn't impose it and Lazy Dog is not a bar, that it would not be a requirement. They would like to be able to sell liquor until the time they close. Chair responded it is a standard condition but he would leave it to the Commissioners to deviate if they felt there was a compelling reason. Commissioner Steiner asked if there was any analysis done with respect to the fact this applicant will have a comparatively small percentage of alcohol sales to food sales. Ms. Roseberry responded that different Police Department representatives have been consistent with the request. Commissioner Steiner asked if the Police Department had reviewed this application and the Conditions attached. Ms. Roseberry responded the Police Department has instead put in the sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverage hours and that the hours of operation have not been included as a condition at the request of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bilodeau pointed out that there are a number of other restaurants along a row at this location and asked if all of those restaurants have this Condition on their Conditional Use Permits. Ms. Roseberry responded she would have to look into it. The applicant interjected that he knows the other restaurants have happy hour. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz interjected that the other establishments probably didn't have that particular Condition as they were opened prior to adoption of the two Conditions in discussion---no happy hour and cessation of service. Commissioner Imboden acknowledged appreciation to the applicant for the quality of the application and completeness of the plans. The applicant responded that his father built Mimi's on doing things right and thanked Commissioner Imboden for the recognition. Commissioner Steiner stated he felt to render a decision that was the most business friendly it was relevant whether the applicant's competitors were bound to the same conditions. Staff was asked to provide this information. Commissioner Imboden stated he understood the applicant's desire to have the same set of rules; however, the other businesses had their Conditional Use Permit's in place prior to these two conditions being imposed and he wanted to support that the Commission continue with enforcement of both conditions. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he could go either way on this particular application considering: . There have been a series of businesses that have somewhat struggled in the Promenade area. . The City is trying to encourage a mixture of businesses that will do well and thrive. Page 13 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 · The City wants to be as business friendly as possible while keeping in mind the safety of the citizens. Commissioner Steiner stated he didn't disagree at all with respect to the consistency rejoinder but instead offered that consistency could be broadly interpreted as regional and he reinforced his desire was to help the applicant be successful with this endeavor by allowing him to be competitive. The applicant interjected that there will be heavy emphasis on being responsible with the service of alcohol and the reason he brought up these two conditions was so he could be competitive as without happy hour he thought customers would be more inclined to frequent other establishments. When asked by Chair Bonina if the applicant was primarily concerned with the absence of happy hours versus the non service of alcohol one hour prior to closure the applicant responded that they both affect a customer's decision whether to come into the restaurant and they will both ultimately negatively impact his sales. Commissioner Imboden stated he understood the concerns expressed by Commissioner Steiner; however, he reiterated that he felt it was imperative to look at what the thought processes were that caused the conditions being discussed to be put in place initially. He stated he was in agreement with them and consequently has been enforcing them since he has been on the Commission. Recognizing that this item is categorically exempt from CEQA, Chair Bonina made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2608-06 and Design Review Committee No. 4133-06 with the addition of a condition that alcoholic beverages should cease to be served one hour prior to closure. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Bilodeau interjected that he is very willing to waive both conditions for this particular application. Commissioner Steiner asked if he could make a substitute motion to continue the project to Nov. 6, 2006, for the purpose of determining what conditions the competing businesses are subjected to. The competing businesses are identified on the PC Evaluation Map as those businesses with ABC licenses. Inasmuch as the applicant is anxious to start doing additional work on the building itself, Ms. Roseberry asked Mr. Sheatz if there was a possibility of bifurcating the motion between the DRC item and the Conditional Use Permit to give the applicant an opportunity to move forward with the work on the building. Mr. Sheatz responded affirmatively. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve DRC No. 4133-06 and continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2608-06 to November 6,2006 for the purpose of determining what conditions the competing businesses are subjected to. Page 14 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 2006 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn to an adjourned regular meeting on Thursday, November 2,2006 beginning at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers for ajoint Planning Commission/Design Review Committee Workshop. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:42 p.m. Page 15 of 15 Pages