09/09/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Fregoso provided an overview of the staff report and indicated that since early summer, the Galaxy Theatre had been promoting dancing and consumption of alcoholic beverages as the primary function of the facility on Monday nights. Staff believed that the use was not agreed to per the original approval of the request and would like policy direction from the Commission. Ms. Pena further indicated that there had been an increase in police service calls for the night club venue and it was not considered a bona fide eating establishment. On one evening there had been a total of 18 violations and the owner had been cited. She also informed the Commission that there were no grounds to deny the request but the Commission needed to clarify the issue. Commissioner Mondo asked if the management had been sending in monthly reports to the Police Department for alcoholic sales. Ms. Pena responded that one report had been received and she had recently received another report. Commissioner Doughty reiterated her concerns regarding business operators the ability to willfully operate their businesses in violation with City codes. Madam Chair Brown asked the applicant if he understood the issues of concern. Mr. Jeff Benise, Attorney, indicated that the applicant had operated an upscale concert theater and he did not wish to run a foul business nor run an operation that did not satisfy the City. When the original conditional use permit was approved, the applicant believed this was an approved use. Mr. John Huntington, Club Rubber, indicated that what was being performed on Monday nights was industrial music and it could be viewed as a disc jockey. Food, drinks, and dining still occurred on Monday nights and he believed the operations did promote a nightclub atmosphere. After further discussion regarding occupancy limits and dining room set up, Mr. Gary Folgner, Owner, indicated that his intent was not to just sale alcohol. That he had been operating according to the 50/60 food law. There were nights when alcoholic sales were more than food sales but other nights when food sales exceeded alcohol sales. His operations catered to different crowds with different taste in music. He further stated that he was not in the nightclub business. Madam Chair Brown indicated that a major concern was the number of police service calls which lead to safety issues. The Commission had an obligation to ensure that the issues were being addressed. Mr. Folgner indicated that Monday nights was the only day there was an age limitation. The age limit was due to the ability to control the acholic sales. Commissioner Pedroza asked if the applicant would address the fact that 18 violations had occurred on one night. Mr. Folgner responded that he believed he had been a victim of the Police Department. There had been undercover police officers in the parking lot watching that evening and he believed most of the violations occurred on the adjacent property's parking lot. In addition, Mr. Folger indicated that he believed if the Police Department sat in any parking lot of any business within city limits for a period of time violations would also occur. Commissioner Doughty asked how many police service calls took place and what types of calls were made. Ms. Pena indicated that she did not have with her at the time the amount of calls that took place. But the calls were related to drinking and fighting. Between January through July, there had been approximately 20 police service calls. After further discussion, Ms. Uptegraff suggested to the Commission that the applicant and staff discuss the issues further and try to come to an agreement and staff would bring Conditional Use Permit No. 94-16 back to the Commission. Madam Chair Brown moved to direct staff and the applicant to discuss the issues further. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughty. ' AYES: Brown, Nalle, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver and Segura I. Comments from the Executive Director. (Robyn Uptegraff) Ms. Uptegraff informed the Commission that the approved monopole project (Conditional Use Permit No. 96-17) had been remanded back to the Commission and it would be brought back at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Charles View, Senior Planner, recommended to the Planning Commission to form a subcommittee consisting of staff and Planning Commission members to prepare an ordinance and policies for monopoles as a wireless entity. Other alternative PIANNP7G COMMISSION MINUTES 3 SP.PTP.MRF..R 9, 1996