RES-10272 Upholding Denial of Conditional Use Permit 347 E. Grove Ave.RESOLUTION NO. 10272
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE DENYING APPEAL NO. 0524-
07 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO.2618-06 TO ALLOW A
DANCE SCHOOL,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2635-07 TO ALLOW A BANQUET HALL
WITH A DANCE FLOOR AS AN ACCESSORY
USE, AND VARIANCE NO. 2184-07 FOR
A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED PARKING
FOR THE BANQUET HALL USE, IN
AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING UPON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT
347 EAST GROVE AVENUE.APPELLANTS: ALVIN &
GRACE HENSON (DANCE PARTNER)WHEREAS, Orange Municipal Code Section 17.08.050 (
F) authorizes the City Council to review and take action on appeals of actions taken
by
the Planning Commission ;and WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2618-06,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2635-07 and Variance No. 2184-07 were filed by Alvin and
Grace Henson in accordance with the provisions of the
City of Orange Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No.
2618-06, Conditional Use Permit No. 2635-07 and Variance No. 2184-07 were processed in
the time and
manner prescribed by state and local law; and WHEREAS, Conditional
Use Permit No. 2618-06, Conditional Use Permit 2635-07 and Variance No.
2184-07 are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act per
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted one duly advertised public hearing on December 17, 2007,
for the purpose of considering Conditional Use Permit No. 2618-
06,Conditional Use Permit No. 2635-07 and Variance No. 2187-07;
and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission could not make the required findings to grant
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2618-06
and 2635-07 or Variance 2635-07, and thereby denied each of
the aforementioned entitlements; and WHEREAS, the Appellants filed a timely appeal, Appeal
No. 0524-07, seeking to overturn the Planning Commission
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orange conducted one duly advertised
public hearing on December 17, 2007, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support of, or opposition to, the proposal and for the purpose of considering
Appeal No. 0524-07 upon property described as
follows:SEE ATTACHED LEGAL
DESCRIPTION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Orange hereby denies Appeal No. 0524-07, denying Conditional Use Permit
No. 2618-06,Conditional Use Permit No. 2635-07 and Variance No. 2184-07 for a
4,800 square foot dance school, banquet hall with a 1,400 square foot accessory dance
floor, and reduction in required parking
based on the following
findings:SECTION 1 - FINDINGS 1. The project must be consistent with the goals and policies stated
within the
City's General Plan.The property is zoned C-l for Limited Business and has
a General Plan Designation of LMDR. The subject site is located within a commercial
center that was constructed in 1964. The building is approximately 43 years old.
Upon researching the City's Records, it is not apparent what General Plan
designation was applicable when the commercial center was constructed. Current City records
indicate that the center has had a General Plan Designation of Low
Density Medium Residential (LMDR) since 1975. Staff was unable to find the General Plan designation
for this parcel, located on the northeast corner of Orange-Olive Road and
Grove Avenue, in 1964, when the center was constructed. City Records do not
indicate that a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change has occurred on this property. In
1988, CUP 1700-88 was approved to re-stripe/redevelop the commercial
center's parking lot, in conjunction with the remodeling and expansion of the center.
At this time the General Plan Designation was also LMDR. While the zoning and
land use designations are not in conformance with one another, because the commercial
center has operated from this location for 43
years, it is considered to be legal non-conforming.Notwithstanding the
legal non-conforming status, the granting of the conditional use permits would not be
based upon sound principles of land use. The proposed dance school and banquet
hall with accessory dance floor has the potential to adversely impact
the surrounding neighborhoods. The large number of guests, loud music,dancing, and loitering
outside of the building that is generally associated with these events, are likely to create
a noise nuisance and traffic impacts to the nearby residential uses. The proposed
dance school, banquet hall and accessory dance floor intensifies the use of this commercial tenant
space. The subject tenant space is required to provide 23 spaces for its
share of parking in the commercial shopping center. However, the proposed dance school, banquet
hall and accessory dance floor intensifies the use and at minimum would require 157
parking spaces as a union hall/assembly use, as reflected in the Staff Report. 306 spaces may also
be
using the assembly and dance floor areas separately, as contained within the Staff
Report. A majority of the commercial center's 174 total parking spaces would be used
by the guests of the banquet hall. This in turn would likely result in banquet hall guests
and/or patrons of the commercial center, parking in the nearby residential neighborhood
i.e. Shaffer Street). The City's Land Use Element discusses the need to preserve and
maintain the existing character of the neighborhoods that comprise the City. The
proposed use intensifies the development in the commercial center, which in turn
creates negative externalities, such as overflow parking, noise, crime and other
nuisances that would invade and erode the nearby residential neighborhood.
This finding cannot be made.
2. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted upon sound principles of land use and in
response to services required by the community.
The subject site would not be an appropriate location for the type of land uses proposed,
in light of the nature of the events that would be held in the hall. While the subject site
is located at the end of a multi-tenant building in a commercial center, it is
located within 50 feet of a residential use. The hours that the dance school and banquet
hall will be used, along with the noise generated from the music/speakers, and volume
of people at the event will impact the proximate residential community. Parking
demands generated by such uses could impact the commercial center's parking lot and lead
to spillover parking in the proximate residential neighborhood. Past incidents of
crime and weapons possession that have been documented by the City's Police
Department,Code Enforcement Division, and have been discussed in the Staff report, are likely
to
continue.This finding cannot be
made.3. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be granted if it will cause deterioration of
bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is
located.The City Council finds that the dance school and banquet hall with an accessory
dance floor will result in deteriorating the bordering residential and commercial uses.
The applicants have communicated their inability to solely operate an instructional
dance school; a banquet hall with accessory dance floor is needed to generate enough
money to pay the rent on the facility. Dance schools and banquet halls are generally rented
out to host various events, such as parties, weddings, birthdays, seminars, fundraisers,
etc.because they accommodate a large amount of people/guests in the hall. Some form
of entertainment, such as music, dancing, or speeches is often associated with such
events.The banquet hall is proposed to operate on Saturday from 5:00 pm until midnight.
The City Council believes that the residential uses within 50 feet of the subject space will
be greatly impacted by much of the noise from the amplified music/speakers, as well as
the volume of guests in the hall and those who may loiter outside the banquet hall.
The City Council is also concerned that hosting such events with alcohol, large amounts
of people, etc. has the potential to increase the amount of crime in the
surrounding
neighborhood due to past reported incidents of crime and weapons possessions, etc, as
discussed within the Staff Report and presented at the public hearing.
As discussed and contained within the attachments to the Staff Report, the City's Police
Code Enforcement Department has already dealt with instances where guests of past
events possessed guns and were disturbing the peace of the surrounding community.
The City Council finds that the approval of a CUP for this banquet hall will increase the
potential for crime in the area. The combination of large masses of people, alcohol,
music, etc. will be problematic.
This finding cannot be made.
4. A Conditional Use Permit must be considered in relationship to its effect on the
community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located.
As discussed in required finding 3, events held in a banquet hall have are generally
associated with a large number of people, loud music/speakers, alcohol, and noise.
This will adversely affect the residential uses locate within 50 feet of the subject site.
Parking demands of the shopping center will also be increased if a banquet hall is
approved, thus resulting in the potential spillover of parking into the residential
neighborhoods. The Appellants have admitted they cannot operate a dance school
without the accompanying banquet hall use. The City Council finds that the proposed
uses are not appropriate at the subject location, and will result in negatively impacting
the surrounding community by creating excessive noise and parking impacts in the
commercial center and surrounding neighborhood.
This finding cannot be made.
5. A Conditional Use Permit, if granted, shall be made subject to those conditions
necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular
applicant.
The City Council finds that approval of the proposed dance school and banquet hall will
not preserve the general welfare of the community, but rather has more potential to
adversely affect the surrounding residential and commercial uses. The noise generated
from the people/music/speakers, the serving and consumption of alcohol, the
occupied/required parking demands, and the potential for crime will be increased with
such uses. The City Council believes that this is an inappropriate location for the uses
proposed.
This finding cannot be made.
6. Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is
found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under identical zone classification.
4
The subject property is located within a 37,000 square foot commercial shopping center
comprised of various retail and service uses. The subject property does not possess any
special circumstances that deprive it from being used or enjoyed like any other
properties in the vicinity or with the identical zone classification. A dance school or
banquet hall use is too intense of a use for this location, in that it demands a lot of
parking and will generate too much noise that will impact the residential uses that are
located within 50 feet of the site.
This finding cannot be made.
7. The variance granted shall be subject to such conditions which will assure that the
authorized adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property
is located.
The requested variance for parking would in fact constitute a grant of special privilege
that would be inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties in the area. If
calculated entirely at the union hall (assembly area) parking ratio, and a maximum of
117 parking spaces were being utilized by the patrons and tenants of the other
establishments in the center, as was found in the AMPCO System Parking survey
attached to the Staff Report, 40 additional parking spaces would be required. If the
banquet hall were calculated at the dance hall and union hall ratios, a total of 306
parking spaces would be required. Based on the aforementioned parking assumptions,
the Appellants would need to provide 189 additional spaces for the combined union and
dance hall use.
Both parking ratio calculations require a substantial amount of additional parking,
which cannot be accommodated by the commercial center. The City Council believes
that parking would spillover to the surrounding residential neighborhoods during a
banquet event, thus negatively impacting the residential uses located within 50 feet of
the site.
This finding cannot be made.
ADOPTED this 11 th
day of March, 2008.
of Orange
5
ATTEST:
I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 11th day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith, Murphy, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
L
Mary E.
6