Loading...
Minutes-PC 1992/12/14g l4 II ¢`F. .-t ~ 1~ .y '~.Si •.~~~~=gyp;; t, ACTION AGENDA ln' S_. ~~ _- - ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION . ~~~ MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992, AT 11:00 A.M. r,:~: n~~:; . "' PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING ~ .; (PUBUC TESTIMONY) j ~"' 11:00 A.M. 1 :30 P.M. a ~}u „~, ;' COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAR, ZEMEL s~ `'.;; COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE -' STAFF PRESENT: BORREGO, B. FREEMAN, HASTINGS, JENSEN, LOCKAAAN, MANN, MC CAFFERTY, - PROCEDURE TO IXPEDRE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBUC HEARINGS ";~~~5' 1. The pn~ponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their '~ ' evidence. Addtional time w(II be granted upon request 1f, in the opinion of the Commission, ~~~ _~ such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. ~,'r; 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to _ present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. '' ~ The Commission's conskferations are not determined by the length of time a partk:ipant speaks, ' , : but rather by what is saki. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withheld questions uniq the public hearing is dosed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing iF, in iW opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, induding photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. ~; :'` 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a max(mum of five (5) minutes to speak. Anyone wishing to speak should fill out the forms available in the rear of the Council Chamber and submit them to staff prior to the meeting. AC121492.WP t k C n ~:~: :;, ~ ; ~i' W Zjti . ~ .:,,} } R. Boydatun iris swum in by Lee Sdhl, City Cleric, as i~`gnnlrp CommhtaYloraer to t~ the ~at_ ~~iir OWNER: BALDWIN COMPANY, ATTN: JEFF WARMOTH, 16811 Hale Avenue, ~°~~ '~ Irvine, CA 82714 ~ _y LCw4TION: D~eloomerrt Areas 104. 105. 202. 203. 204.205. 208 and ~;;;~ `' ~ 207 of the SummR of Anaheim Hills SOecmc Pian SP88-21 ::a' Petftloner requests an amendment to Ordinance No. 4976 in order to amend ~4;" Development Area 205 and 206 Zoning and Development Standards (Cade Section ~`~~ Nos. 18.72.070.04A and 18.72.070.050} to create one Development Area ~ r ' ` (Development Apra 205) to permit the development of a 270-unit condominium .~ complex. =•:; ~~. ~' To transfer a total of 163 unfts from Development Areas 104, 105, 202, 203, 206 aril 207 to Development Areas 204 and 205. Continued from the June 28, July 13, July 27, A~~gust 10, October 5, and November t 2, 1992 Planning Commission meetings. ® AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NUMBER ~2-14,~ •~ Approved Granted Approvjed FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BL` CONSIDERi~ OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indicating their presence In opposftlon to subject request and although the staff report was not i read, ft is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jeff Wamtoth, 16811 Hale, Irvine, CA, Project Manager for the Summft of Anaheim Hills. He gave a trial presentation regarding his request. He stated he brought an aerial photo taken 2 weeks ago of the overall project in the evert that anyone needed any updates as far as what is going on wfth the project THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved Amendment to the Summft of Anaheim HGis SpecfBc Plan (98-2} -Granted Density Transfer Request No. 92.02 -Approved Page 2 12/14/'82 r+ ~S*~ _ - o ~ - ~ _w ,~ ~ ~+ ~: "l~INGVAd II App<OV6d Granted OWN1R: DANIEL, AMAUA, REFUGIO AND AUCIA RUBALCABA, ~~;; ~ Attn: Daniel Rubalcaba, 510 N. East Street Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: JAMES RAMO, 1004 S. Hathaway, Unit'P', Sar>ta Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 1f00.530 North East Street. Property is approximately 1.16 acres located at the northeast comer of Sycamore Street and East Street. ~: , To permit the addition of a 780-square foot storage area to an existing commercial center wfth waiver of minimum number of parking spacers and mztdmum structural height within 150 feet of asingle-family resklential :_one boundary. n . ~ Continued from the October 5, October 19, and November 2, 1992 Planning ~,:;;= Commisskxt meetings. ~ : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION P 2-1 c>; +.N: FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT T4 BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indicating their presence in opposftion to subject requost and aithocgh the staff report was not S read, h Is referred to and mPde a part of the minutes. Jim Rama, 1004 S. ~lathaway, Unit'P', Santa Ana, CA. He stated they had a couple of Code Enforcement issues that needed to be resolved and they have now resolved those. t' THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement. He stated his inspection of December 9, 1992, revealed that all of the vitiations that were outstanding previously had been corrected. Commissioner Bristd asked about food preparation in the back area of the restaurant and wanted to know ff that was a Code vitiation? Mr. Freeman indk~ted that was correct, that ail uses shall be conducted whdiy within the building. Commissloner Bristd stated he was out there at 10:45a.m. yesterday and he spoke with a young gentleman over the fence who was ddng exactly that, so he believed that what Code Enforcement thought was not happening was in fact happening. Mr. Freeman explained he tries to inspect the property between the hours of 7:OOa.m. and 10:OOa.m. because he found that this was a time that he had always seen the operation being conducted. Page 3 12/14/92 ',~ _ - .~ k on the 9th he conducted the inspection before 10:OOa.m.; there was equipment ea.Jng outside.. but ea;was dean; no operating was being conducted outskle d the building at that time. He further explained ~ej-:. had ratified the owners of the property to cease all such operations and all other violations had been fed. nlssbner Bristd stated It was a ~m of his. ~~ :;Commissioner Masse asked the applicant N he knew this was going on? ~' _ -. Mr. Remo explained at the present time he was not aware of this adivity. ~,-. , . ~~_~; Y Commisskxrer Peraza asked Code Enforcement how they could make sure that kind of acttviry does not continue? ~~~ '~~~ ~ Mr. Freeman stated they could continually monitor the location and tho property owner as well as the occupant. They can cfte the business owner. ~` ~~~rt Chalrrrtert Henninger indk~ted K was his understanding that there are at least 2 unfulfilled condtiionaa of the r-?~;rtc`;<"'previously approved CUP relating to the closure of a drivoway and restriping of the parMng lot. ~5 ~~ ~ . , Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated that Is correct. Under a previous conditional use permft, those were conditions of approval and they were not compiled with. This was under CUP 2315. Because of the nature of that ,approval, (which was for the sale of beer and wine), N. dkl not require any type of a building permft which would typically trigger their irnestigation into making sure ttiat the caxlitions had been compiled with. They were operating without complying wfth those conditions. He explained they are now conditions of this application as wail and would need to be completed before occupancy. He added the final sign off was given on the addftion to the retail center. Commissioner Masse asked if they could condition this based on the approval of the building permit rather than based on occupancy, so that the striping rnd the driveway closure would take place before the building permR was issued? Mr. Borrego explained it is not something that they typically would do, but h would be passible to monitor K. Chairman Henninger stated another way is to Insist that they bring their existing CUP into conformance prior to Implementing this new activity. Mr. Borrego explained that the striping plan under the previous CUP would not conform to the striping plan that they have before the Commission today, but they could restripe it as shown on the current plan. Chairman Henninger asked the applicant about the urgency they have regarding this improvement. There is an activYq going on in this area and this is to enclose that activity. Mc Ramo stated they have agreed to dose off those two driveways and to restripe per the dd CUP, so before they obtain the building permit, they ~n provkle that for them. ~.~~_ _. Page 4 12/14/92 ~~ :~ h ~:./~ CEQA Negative Declaration.- Approved ~k ~''~ . The restriping of the parking lot and the dosure of the two driveways shall be completed prior to the ;' issuance of a building permit ~`~ Condltlonal U Permit No. 3547No. 3547 -Granted `No outside storage and no outside food preparation shall be perrnftted. na,Mann, Deputy City Attorney asked for dartfication that these are not stipulations; that these are to be made ~'condkbns and Commissbner Messy tndkated that was correct. j, ;< <,,, `~ :' 7-0 ~~Y ,~~ $~.: ~~ ,, ,~ . ~~, ~'~>;' ~; i• ;`~ a~ ,: :,~ ,: ;' . Page 5 12/14/y2 t ~~ A~. M4 ,• J - ~ L~ ;~~CEOAIAITI(;iATED NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREY. APPROVED) No Adbn 3b.;' WO:'VER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 3c~- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3570 Granted for 3 ~;, year~;~~expire ~. OWNER: THE LADES FAMILY REVOCABLE LMNG TRUST, JAY RICHARD LADES AND ELAN J. LADES 'TRUSTEES, 829 Jade Way, Anaheim, CA "'`` 02805 a.M=~ -. ~~~~'~` ' AGENT: MICHAEL AGUILAR, 847 S. East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 847 South East Street. Property >s approximately 3.7 acres located on the west skle of East Street and approa~mately 591 feet south of the centerline of South Street To retain the outdoor storage of chemicals wRh vlalver of minimum number of perking spars. ~ !I CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. P - 1 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read K is referred to and made a part of the minutes. i Mike Aguilar, representing Dtxco Diversffied Chemical Sales Inc., 847 S. East Street, Anaheim, CA. He gave a brief presentation of their request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they owned or leased the property and the Mr. Aguilar indk~ted the property was owned by the Lades Family Revocable t.lving Trust and the property (s operated as Dtxco Diversffied Chemical Sales Inc. The same people that own the property also own Dbcco. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff there was a lease involved? Mr. Aguilar stated there is, but ft is all the same entity. Commissioner Masse asked on the southeast portion of the property, there Is a small landscape area with no landscaping e^cept for a rock and uncared for greenery. He asked ff they could get a nice looking tree and some irrigation? Mr. Aguilar indicated they could manage that. Page 6 ® 12/14/92 ~~ ;~1::; ,;.: ,,. ~ ~ `~^, '~~' `i' -~~C::. Page 7 12/14/92 ~F~. ,` ~~;, z LOCATION: 1527 East Broadwav. Property is approximately 0.08 acre located approximately 520 feet north of the centerline of Broadway (a portion of Lincoln Park). To permit a 75-foot high cellular telephone tower and unmanned equipment building wfth waiver of required setback abutting a residential zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. Thera were 3 persons Indicating their presence in opposRion to subject request and although the staff report was not read, h is referred to and made a part of the minutes. O Bob Ballmler, representative for Pac Te! Cellular, 3 Park Plaza, Irvlre, CA 92714. George Tokar (name not spelled for the record) 532 N. Janss Way. He named several multi story buildings that seemed to be a more economical and more desirable site for a cellular telephone antenna installation rather than another unsightly tower. lie has been In the radio industry for many years and works with the City in the emergency communications system. He asked what type of tower it would be and what is the antenna design? He voiced his concems regarding multi- . path distortion for television signets. Bruce Chambers, 222 Wayskle Place, Anaheim, CA. Ho stated he looked at the site. Ho explained he is against the tower for many reasons and he does not think ft adds to the community. William Boyer (last name not spelled for the rec:ord), 1603 E. Elm St., Anaheim, CA. He expressed his concerns regarding the tower and the impact on the quality of Iffe in his neighborhood. He was also ~ncemed about the notice requirements for the public hearing and voiced his concems regarding the location of the antenna. He explained he was in favor of putting the antenna loser to the intersection of East and Lincoln where Commercial property and business already exists, rather than placing ft in a reskential neighborhood next door to their homes, schod and park. He stated ff ft does have to go In the location under consideration, then there needs to be extremely heavy landscaping with full grown mature plants and other bushes to help mitigate the impact on the immediate neighbors. He added this should be done at the developer's expense. Page 8 12/14/92 ~, + ~ ~~ ~Y 'J s` r ~, t ,, ~l ~~~~ '"i ~`~.. 'lie'~vould also like to see soma anti-graffiti measures addressed or indudad in this proposal to protect the d~~and the neighborhood from vandalism and graflitl. Their neighborhood has experienced an .extreme rash eirr and graifRi lately. He feels tltis w91 be a big magnet for these grafftt bandits to scale the tower and K spray paint their name on the antenna or the microwave dishes. They should be required to set aside t of fund to pay for the graffiti cxx;ts rather than the tax payers having to pay for this. RF=BIJTIAL: .~ .i <~e ~~ Bob,Bollmater explained that Pac Tel Cellular Is a Public UtRtty company which is Ilcer,ed by the FCC and regulated '~r~~F by the Calltomia` PuMtc Utility Ca-nmisston. As part of their regulation, they need to provide customers wfth ,~ ~ adequate servtoe. If titers is an emergency situation in this area, they would not be able to provide the coverage. ~„' ~' .~ ' ~ He explained they are given a search ring. He dkl research all of the areas to sae what was avaAable and then ~~~ ` worked with the Planning Department to try to fled what was the best location. He further explained they have over x~~ . ~ ' 300 Dell sites. Many of these sites are at schools and parks. When they found the location of the park, they came ~~, , to the Planning DepartmoM and they felt that this would be the bast location. They dkf some line-of-sfte drewings; ` ': they looked at the trees; tt is a single monopole wtth no gukle wires and tt is painted in such a way that R blends in :. ~wNh the community. lr ., s ti~ ~ He stated they are not opposed to putting in some landscaping or doing some graffiti measures and they believe this is the best location. They must be in this area in order to provide the coverage that Is needed. He discussed - frequencies and wattage. Thsy have over 300 sites and they do not intertere wfth T.V. or redio and they are safe. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Henninger asked staff if thoy would review the requirements they place on new development regarding graffiti. Jonathan Bon'ego, Savior Planner, stated thoy would Head to add conditions in this particular case. The only anti graffiti measures that they would enact in any construction would be on block wails which are visible to public view. In this case they wail be enclosing tt wfth a chain link fence. It should be specifically listed as a condition of the CUP. Mr. Borrego stated there is a condition in reganis to relocating the security lighting as tt is illustrated on the plan. {t could cause a problem as far as IigM glare goes to the apartment resktertts to the north. Commissioner Messe stated there is an industrial area to the south that by right they could put up an antenna up 100 feet. Ms. Vargas, Radio Frequency Engineer, 3 Park Plaza. She had some maps that reflect why they need the 50-foot monopde. She explained they need the sfte in this specific area for the 'hand ofP to be able to roach onto their other sites that are built surrounding this area and that is why they have chosen this location. Ms. Vargas went to the exhibft board and explained their position. A discussion took place between Ms.Vargas, Mr. Ballmaler and the Planning Commissioners. She explained that the height would not help them becasue then they would start fn<ertering with their other cell sftes. Further discussion took place regarding the searoh ring. Commisioner Masse suggested that they continue this hem in order to notify the neighbors and for the applicant to go back and see if they can accommodate additional antennas and high antennas some place else. He does not feel that they look at tt the same way the Commission looks at it. A N: Continued to January 11, 1993 in order for applicant to conduct other studies and find other alternatives. Page 9 ,,~'~ 12/14/92 .;F 4 1 ~~ s .~~~'y3~~ 1 4 r ~4 YY~ yj~~ t ,~ Va ':. - x.~ ...u ~~ne•'NECATIVE DECLspsTiON Approved 6b a~e~R'OF`CODE REQUIREMENT APPraved ` r~eiTIONAL USE PERMIT N0.35T4 Granted ~~~, s~ ~'~ .-OWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS, INC., C/0 TCW REALTY `~, ADVISORS, 865 S. Figueroa Street, Ste 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90017- ~~ 2543 ky ' AGENT: ROBERT GIFFIN, C/0 TL 3ROUP, 249 Ocean Boulevard, Ste. 300, t~ ,s4^~w ' Long Beach, CA 90802 ~~ '~' . LOCATION: 191 South Imoerial Hichwav. Property is approxirnt?tely 10.63 acres '' located on the southwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and ,.~;:~.~ Imperial Highway ., ~4 To pennft a 8,750 square foot semi-enclosed restaurant wfth on-premise sale and ~ "c consumptk~rr of beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces ~, _ and permitted roof mounted equipment. ~:~µ ,~._ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC92-152 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL ~' MINUTES. There was no one indicting their presence In opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, h is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Robert Giffin, representing Endowment Realty Ir"_astors, Inc., 249 East Ocean Bivd., Suite 300, Long Beach, CA. He explained the reason they are cornerting an existing Security Pacific Bank building at the Rancho Yobra. shopping center intc+ a family style restaurant is because of the merger between Bank ~f America and Security Pacific National Bank. Bank of America has the preferred location at the comer of Rancho Yorba acrd Imperial and they want to maintain operations In the Bank of America building. He explained the archftectural details of the conversion. They ara also asking for a variance on the roof-mounted equipment. He explained the existing Security Pacfffc National Bank building has roof-mounted equipment in 3 of the comers of the building. He enclosed photographs of tha equipment In his presentation to staff and gave a brief explanation on the screening of the restaurant equipment. He also was requesting a parking variance and explained this parking variance was contingent upon a parking layout that they developed with the Block Buster Video building which is currently being completed. He stated all of the site improvements are complete and Block Buster is planning on opening in the next 2 weeks. He added they have completed all of the site Improvements that would support the parking waiver. Page 10 1;:,114/92 ~' ~ ~ ~; dplens;shafl Ylustrate the pact type and location of equipment and shall Include Ilne-of-sight drawings from the klettces to the 'south and southwesC as opposed to north and northwest He would also add language to that ne`conditlorr "ttrEd the @~Ioment be r~alnted to match the roof.' rg.w _ ,~ Comi~lsstoner Zemel asked ff they had a tenant? a _ - ~ Mr. GHfln stated they cun~-aptly do not have a tenant. They have contacted a number of potential users; they are all famAy style aft down restaurants. -,r;~-~;.: -, Commissioner Zemel asked if they would object to b furcating the alcohd Issue from this applirat on ~'f I `;;; '.' Mr. (iNfln stated they are only asking for beer and wine and most restaurants, as a minimum, sere beer and wine. -;V° He prefers to keep the beer and wine !n the application because It will make ft much easier to market the property. ~,q~Y3 :~ ' Commissioner Messe explained they are asking for semi-enclosed and that is where the problem is. Mr. Giffin explained they have an outskJe dining area and there is no exit from the outskle dining area to the street anti the only way you can get to the outskle dining area is from the interior of the restaurant. Commissbner Zemel explained they would be more comfortable ff they knew who the tenant was. Chalrnrarr Henninger stated there is the issue of them having to market this space Ir, the current economy, therefore, he suggested bringing something back through the R&R process and asked what issues would they be Interested in talking to the actual op9retor of this restaurant about? Mr. Borrego asked if there was an intent on the operator to provkle any hype of entertainment within this facility. He stated the floor plan that was submitted was somewhat conceptual and probably subfect to change once they lock in another tenant and that is something else they would be inter8sted in as far as the setup ~ a separate bar area or something of chat nature. Chairman Henninger suggested that they not be allowed to begin this until they came through on an R&R Item with the adual operator discussing a detailed finalized floor plan and haure of operation. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Managar, stated with the R&R you cannot add condftions of approval. That is usuafly the controlling factor of various types of alcohd related uses and typically the Pdice Department wants to get involved witFa adding condftions of apFravai to make sure that activities ar3 contained wRtrin that outdoor area. There cotdd be several other conditions of approval that other departments may want tc add as well. Chairman Henninger darHled then h would ~e better for this to come through as a public hearing format. Mr. Hastings Indicated that was correct and they could readvertise this CUP rather than having a separate CUP. Mr. Giffin indicated they tried to contrd that by presenting a floor plan that doss not have s bar area that would be condudve to a social encounter type of restaurant and any floor plan that they would bring in for the staff would have to conform with the same type of floor plan that they already presented. The floor plan that they presented does not have a bar arcs. where there fs dancing. y ~i ~ ~ :~ Nonef Meese stated staff gets the feeling that the floor plans are n;R as finite as the applicant Is indicating eoq~lah~eti,.they are not finite, but the intent of the floor plan was not to put in a floor plan that had a social tvoe"of restaurant. fined they did not want to spend a lot of money and effort marketing a piece of property and then not in a food use and most food uses require a minimum of a beer and wine Ikrense. mmissloner Meese indicated that they have found a way of getting the applicant to where they want to go. ~• ~`~ > Commissioner Zemel stated they aro not opposed to the type of use but they want to know what K is for final staff ~. ~ approval and though that was a reasonable request. ~~ Mtr. hlastings stated for dariflcatbn he though the applicant was Interested in entitlement today regarding the ,~~r„• ,, concept of beer and wine on the property and the Commission is asking that a condition be Imposed that would ~' _? ~ require the applicant to come back before the Commission under a public hearing to further exercise the beer and ~~ '` wine.poition of the appl~atlon. In other wards, a restaurant could go in there and ff the beer and wine is used, then ~,} ~~ they wql need to come back before the Commission for one further hearing to find out what the particulars are of that beer and wine sale. ,~,~ Commissioner Meese asked about floor plans and time of operation and things of that nature and Mr. Hastings w ;;- indk~ted that was crorrect. Commissioner Zemel asked leaving ft open for further condit(ons and Mr. Hastings indicated that was correct. Commissioner Zemel stated they spoke with Mr. Yalda this morning about the drNeway size and number of spaces wfthout landscaping and asked Mr. Yalda to elaborate. Thera are now 12 spaces where there use to be 10. Mr. Yalda stated In one area there use to be 10 parking spaces-they are showing 12 and they usually require every 10 parking spaces to have a landscaped area. Discussion took place between Mr. Yalda and Mr. Giffin regarding the parking spaces. ACTION: CEQA NegatNe Declaration -Approved Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved Conditional Use Perrnft No. 3574 -Granted Change Condition No. 1. Last sentence shall read: 'the residences to the south and southwest.' Add language to Condition No. 1 that states: 'That the eauloment be oainted to match the roof." • ' Added condition: 'that detaBed floor plans and proposed hours of operation shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing.' For clarification Chairman Hen+iinger stated they are approving the beer and wine subject to the approvals of the details of the operation. VOTE: 7-0 ," w~t 7 f,S r Yza y Page 12 12/14/92 ~~ _ .~,r ~,p ~ ~~ { r;r ,t-sy~' 9~ {f~ ~ Y r 4.; ~ 6e,R~,CEGAf~EGATIVE DECLARATION To be advertised `~"`~:WANER~OF CODE iiEOUIREIIAENT for the 1-11-93- . 8c,~;;CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3573 PC meeting ~ :; ~ ..'.' .. OWNER: ALVIN LEON WHIPPLE, 13550 Edgeflekf, Cerritos, CA 90701 ~ , y,,.~~: !, ,~~, ~` AGENT: TIM BUNDY, 20331 Irvine Avenue, ~7, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 201 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.37 acre located at ~' the northeast comer of Ball Road and Claudine Place. ~~. ' To permlt 2,070 square-foot car wash facility with waiver of minimum structural ' ~ setback. 1 ~ ~ ^ ,;~.~r ` ~ ~ COND111ONAL USE PERMIT P.ESOLUTiON N0. ~~~,, FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it Is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Tim Bundy, Bundy, F1nMe An;hitects, 20331 Irvine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana Heights. He stated they are requesting a CUP for a full service and small car wash on the comer of Claudine and Ball. They had some questions regarding some of the conditions. He had a concern reganiing Condition No. 1 regarding dedication of the property. Raymond Boardman past name not spelled for the record), one of the developers, 13550 Edgefield, Cerritos, CA. He stated this may not appDy to them. They have the Standard Detail No. 138 for the Critical Intersection layout. He explained they wanted to come back 600 feet from the Intersection, wklen the Intersection so that cars could pull into a stacking lane and turn right. He dkl not think it was anticipated that there would be an intersection interceding in between the beginning of the wklening of the street and the Critical Intersection itseH. He gave some further detaAs. Mc Bundy referenced the pde sign. With the requirement of the dedication being made, the pde would be in the way and wouk have to be relocated. The condition is that it be replaced by a monument sign. The concern they have, Is not only visual, but also it's modifying what Is a specific type of sign relatively unique to the area. It would be upgraded to the point where it would still be a very attractive sign. Condition No. 9 states the design of the car wash tunnel shall be subject to review and approval by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. They have had several discussions regarding this concern which was the fuming radius oorning out of the tunnel. The concern was that it did not, in appearances, meet soma of the standards and fuming radii that the City determined was required. He explained that the owner made some very specific case studies out on the site using some hoses and cones Page 13 12/14/92 ,~,...: ~~, - !~ _~', rveral dNferent types of cars in order to make a fuming radius-the same type of movement yet would make 'the car:wasfi,tgnrel the way. h is shown ri~±M now. In their estimation 9096 of the rst[s would make that, 'wN~i, rr =r .. . T1tey were wiling to Ova with a few cars that wow+d have to make a 3 point turn in order to get out of the Viand;come around to the dry off area. He referenced the plans. ~er'enced Candhbn No. 5 that states that no automobie detaiing would be permitted on she. The owner at iirit`does rwt intend to provide a detaiing setvk:e, but there Is the posslbihy at a later date that may be fitrip that his cwstomere do desire. The major concern seems to be that they provide some sort of screening `the detaiing area. They have one extra parking stall that could possibly end of being used for that type of ~;, , - He is requesting that this conditbn be modffied to state that h would be permitted as long as h meets Char requirements for screening. ~' THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. S€~~~ Jonathan Borrego, Senkx Planner, stated regarding the sutomobie detaiing, their only concern is that the site is fairly tight and typksrlly when they have an automobie detaiing operation, thero are also things such as canopies '.and shade stntctures that are installed as well. Thera have been some problems in the past in terms of the visual 'aspect. He suggested that this condhion remain. Commissioner Masse asked about the Critical Intersection. Mr. Yakla explained they have simiar intersections throughout the City. The Importance of the Critical Intersection is to move the traffic through freely. Discussion took place regarding the Critical Intersection between the Commission, Natalie Lockman, Public Works- Engineering and Allred Yalda, Traffic Engineering. Chairman Henninger brought up the Issue of the sign. Traditionally they have asked people to install monument signs aril they are trying to remove pde signs in the City where they can. Commissioner Masse pointed out that this would not necessariy have to occur unlit such time as the Critical Intersection went Into effect or when the actual dedication transpired. Ms. Lockman explained under the Critical Intersection program, the City wAl go in and wklen the intersection and relocate Improvements that they have within that area. At that time, h would have to be discussed or negotiated whether or not the existing sign got relocated or a new sign was constructed behind the right-of-way. If they change the sign then the condhion states that they w!!I put fn a monument sign. In general they relocate their improvements whenever possible to lessen the impact on the property. Commissioner 2eme1 stated th(s is going to be a tight project and one of the mitigating factors of that could be less sign intrusion..;a hoped this would be something they could agree to, i.e., once that does happen a monument sign could be put there in its place as a future mitigation for a decision that they make now. Mr. Bundy stated one of the concerns he had was the way the wording of the conditions where h dkl not look Ilke that was an option. Chairman Henninger stated Cor~ditlon No. 4 is not enumerated on 14 hers. Page 14 ., . 12/14/92 _^^; .'~.,. • ,~; xrf~:iY~':-i. ~ ~... - ~ .. ~~ ~~ stated he,thought he was referring to corrditign no. 11 whk:fr is in regards to some of the other ignege ttiat.they weld 4ypk,~art'y see with a tx~r wash. T~~ere always is the option of including the car pole sign or r:tonumert sign. ~ ~-~~ < } ~,Commissloner, Zemel asked N that was something that might be able to them, l.e., should that sign be "moved later and no matter who moves ft, that their Company would install a monument sign? «. s~~ t: ; ,, ~"'Mr. Bundy stated obvlottsly that would fft within the City standards for the monumert sign. ".,ttY"~ ''''' Chairman Henninger asked rf they had room there to put in a sign to meet the efts distance utremerts? 1~ _.~ ~ ,4* , ~ - Mr. Yelda explained there is a T X 50' triangle from the driveway and anywhere beyond that he is not sure of the ~~ _ exact location of their new property line, so they would have to took at it and see where the exact location would ~c Y be. He added he was sure there would be some room to put ft there. ~r Ch~alnnan Henninger stated the way they are discussing it, ft sounds like the cost ofi the sign would be home by '~°'~•~;` ' the City. fit k ': r ~ ` Ms: Lockman eucplalned that the cost of the relocation of the sign would be home by the Cfty, but a new sign Is not part of their Critical Intersection program. ~i; ~~~~` Commissioner Masse stated normally, the City would remove the sign and place it In a new position. If that sign is moved, and ff they do put in a new mnnumert sign, would the City pay for its normal removal and relocation txxtts? Ms. Lockman Indicated that was correct. They would credit the property owner the cost. Commissbner Zemel stated what he tried to suggest was that they would be more apt to approve something Ilke • this ff they agree to pay for the monument sign with their credit upon the Critical intersection going through, so as soon as the sign is moved they would go ahead and pay for the monumert sign and he would personally consider that as a future mitigatbn for an approval of something today. Commissbner Bristol asked then remove the one-year stipulation on here? Commissional Zemel explained ft has nothing to du with time, it is whenever the Critical intersection happens and whenever that; sign Is moved, they would have to, at that time, irnest in a monument sign given the fact that they would be given a credit from the Cfty for whatever the City's normal cost would be to move the sign. Chairman Henninger asked Mr. Bundy ff he understood that the Commission was asking him to amend his plans to show the dedication and then to construct their landscape according to the setbacks of the new property line? Mr. Bundy stated he understood, however, one of the concerns he has fs that some of the landscape curbs, H you took the straight 10-foot setback, would end up impinging on access Into the site which would make it even more tight. If they were mandated to dedicate the property for approval, is there a way they could come up with a negotiated settlement on the actual setback of the landscaped area? He added he dki have a plan that shows what they could propose as tar as a revised setback area. Chairman Henninger stated they would have to advertisr~ an additional waiver and that would require a cxx>tinuance and new advertisemert. :4; ~~ti Page 15 12/14/92 rr: ~ _ 5 S{ h~ .. !Y 'f ~~~~~.,Y stated the setbadr.of.46 feet does not include the dimension as measured from the ultimate right-of- ''' matlter~than 46 feet proposed, it ie achrally more like 36 feet and that needs to be darifled ff they were . ito proceed today .If the epplk~nt dk! request a continuance, K would. be to. the January 11,1993, meeting. In=order~to reduce the landscape planter area they cotdd have them submR a revised plan that would dariy that. Henninger stated car washes typically tend not to be the most pretty structures and the 10 feet of landscape Is fairly minimal when you. take Into account there is a fairly wkfe drlveway that covers most of that ~irordage He added he woukl not care to waive the landscaping. 6~ line the have an additional 3 or 4 feet in wkfth and 25.35 feet deep ,i 5 NIr Btrndy stated along the eastern property y `,_ that is:latrdscaped. RIgM now there is some existing shrubs that would be pruned and added, so there is ~f ;: _ addaforiai larlscaping provided at that comer of the sfte. They are requesting a very minor adJustment to what tFie'settack requirement would be. They would be provicifng more square footage of landscaped area then Just what`etrlct adherence to that landscaped setback would require. Chairman Henninger stated the Issue has not been advertised and, therefore, they should not be discussing h ~'~'~~: today, He asked if they would like a continuance In order to discuss ft? '. ACTION; Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTION CARRIED that " '' consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 11, 1993, ~~~~ ' in crcler for an additional wager to be advertised. ..,'y ~~Si(n~... ,...,. ~.. . Page 1S 12/14/92 ~~~jt~~~T. ~ _ _ l _ Lk ~,^ `ma'r F; ~ - 'xe {• .. ~ ~ - `~ l.•. _ e.ti~,>CEQA NEGATNE DECL~11iATION 7b~° ~ANER`OF CODE REOUIREAAENT Approved ~,.,, . s ~.7c-: CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT NO.3572 Gn~nted ~ ~s • ~;i, . OWNER: WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER ANAHEIM, 1025 S. Anaheim Boulevard, k~ ~ Anaheim, CA 92805 z~~,',, t,f ~~~ AGENT: NOBLES and ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, 1600 Dove, Ste. 111, Newport ~~v``~.:~~R ~ Beach CA 92660 tj~) •' ~ ~,? LOCATION: 1025 South Anaheim BoufevaM. Property is approximately 6.71 r "~ acres located on the west skle of Anaheim Boulevard and on the east a,~.;;> side of Lemon Street and being located appn~odmatety 340 and 470 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. y ~` To permit a mobile medical unit (trailer) vrith waiver of minimum number of parking ~.~,~~;;'° spaces. COND111ONAL USE PERMR RESOLUTION N0. PC92-153 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one Indicating their presence in opposftion to subJect request; one interested person was present 'Sand although the staff report was not read, ft is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Carolyn Patton, Chief Operating Officer at Western Medical Center Hospital, 1025 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA. She stated since this protect wa: originally; submitted, they have completed construction on their location which has relieved temporary parking Issues. They have installed valet parking servit~s which are pem~anent to support and assist their visftore. They have also acquired a Commercial property Just north of their location which wnl give them an additional 41 new parking spaces. They will be restriping the north parking lot which will give them an addltlorral 20 parking spaces. They feel this has Increased their parking sufficiently to accommodate their needs. Their MRI unit bf~ contraced out to other hospitals; it Is at their facility on one day a week and is contracted out the other 6 days fa' servir~s at other locations. She is aware there has been an Issue about the location of the MRI unit to the south which they feel is a better location. The south parking lot is near to emergency services including the radiology department which K needs for support. _ Having the MRI to the north would Increase the distance from the hospital to the unit and would also necessitate taking patients from the facilities through the emergency entrance and driveway which does have ambulances and ftre vehicles that use that area which would Increase potential concern to the patient's safety. Therefore, they feel this request for the MRI unit on the south skle of the facility is the best and safest location. With the changes they have made in the parking, they feel that will adequately substantiate and support their parking needs at the facility. Page 17 `, . -~ 12/14/92 ,k ~' ... , + iSk S7 r . 1 '~ pp~~i i) - 1. ~ .. .~7 Oeo-Qs~Tokar,,532,Nortlr Jarrss Way. He owns property at 950 South Ar>aheim l3NM., Anaheim. CA. He asked if trader wip be temporary or a penrrenent installation? He had ra concerns regaorling the trader, however, he ire ~h eicf 'several rumors in connection with the hospital and asked what the future plans for t!>e hospital were. P~attor 8stated there, have been no comrersat(ons about selling the hospital or making arty change p• ~Sheteoq~lainecJ it is,owned by United Western Medk~l Center whkh is anon-profit corporation and they are corn fitted to :staying in Anaheim and serving the community. She added that they are a flnandally soutxl ..,~> ~. r~;,organizatiort and would Iik.e the Planning Commission to grant their request. . ;~ '' THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,' Jonathan Borrego, Senkir Planner, stated there shoukf be an additional condition which would require that the ~ `' trader be connected to a pemnanent power source. In addition, the Planting Commission may want to conskler the proposed hours of operation and determine whether or not they are appropriately based due to the fact that there are some residential properties immediately to the west of either location that is proposed. Y'. ~~. y = Commissioner Boydstun asked on the southern part of the parking lot, ff they move the trader to that location, Is "" there' an access that they can go out rather than through the resklential? She stated she drove through there f ~~r~-Y' - yesterday and ft appears if they put ft on the south skle ft looks like there is plenty of room. ti ~ ~, F Commlasloner Meese stated they would than have to come in off of Lemon. Ms. Patton explained that the traitor is able to access to Anaheim Blvd. and that is what they are requested to do as opposed to going back to Lemon Street which would take them through the reskleMial apartment area. Commissioner Zemel asked if they were willing to stipulate to that as a condition and Ms. Patton indicated they would. Discussion took place reganifng the pick up, delNery and the noise of the diesel trucks relaWe to the MRI unit and . the parking. Commissioner Masse suggested that they change Conditior~ No. 1. it states no later than 6:OOa.m. on Monday mornings. Change that to read no later than 7:30a.m. Monday mornings. Ms. Patton explained they would need to leave prior to 7:30a.m. because of traffic concerns. Commissioner Masse suggested moving the MRI unit no later than 10:OOp.m. Sunday night. He asked about the 41 parking spaces. . Chairman Henninger suggested that they include the 41 si~aces as a condition. Jonathan Borrego suggested that rather than stipulate that they leave no later than 10:OOp.m. on Sunday, they should give a range of hours they would be willing to accept in case Ms. Patton Is not able to coordinate with the entity that uses the trailer on Monday. If they are not able to pul! the trader out by 10:OOp.m. on Sunday, then Ms. Patton would have to come back to the Planning Commission as a Public 'nearing item. Commissioner Zemel suggested 7:OOa.m. Mr. Borrego darffied then no later than 10:OOp.m. on Sunday or any earlier then 7:OOa.m. on Monday? ~~, Page 18 .:. ~ 12/14/92 ~ r ~'' r '`f1 a ~~ ~; 2 ~ Y~a ~k' ~,," _ stetpd k.would make h sealer. ff the traQer c~tdd leave of 7:OOa.m. because h may, take up to another r~ the,other location and the other teas plt4ls do Ilke to start their patient's scheduling as dose to ~ passible. fenrifnger stated she ie asking for 6:30a.m. rather than 7:OOa:m. rrer Masse suggested, they leave it at 10:OOp.m. Sunday evening and ff there is a problem then they ~ to come back and ask for a revision. CEQA NegattVe Dedaratton -Approved Waterer of Code Requirement -Approved CoMftional Use Permft No. S_572 -Granted ~,': ~.; ~° ~~~ ~ .. ~'' Condffion No. 1 to read: 'and shall leave no later than 10:OOp.m. on Sunday evenings.' Added condftions: 1) That the trager shall enter and exit the premises through Anaheim Bivd. 2) That subject unR shall be connected to a permanent power source (no generator). 3) That 41 new parking spaces shall be provided far on the additional lot. Page 19 i2/1~4/92 ~2~.'~ aa k ~ i~ f. ~J .. .. g8;~; CEaA NEGATIVE DECi:ARATION (Previously Approved) No Ac~lon 8b;r~ CONDITIONAL USE PERRAIT N0.36fs2 (Readvertised) Granted for 7 yrs.; =~,. ~ ~re `' OWNER: CHIEN TSU LU/CHIEN-MIN LU, 13812 Gddenwest, X200, Westminster, 10/5/99) ~r •': CA 92683 AQENT: Clark Hgis, 626 Chapman Ave., Orange, CA 92666 ~'~ LOCATION: 2211 East Ora ewood Avenue. P ng roperty is approximately 3.82 ~,.:~:,. ~ti"~.: acres located on the north skle of Orangewood Avenue and approximately 1300 feet east of the centerline of State Cdlege Boulevard. k c Request fior an amendment to a condltion of approval pertaining to a time Iimltation ':«~~'.;~ for a previously approved vdleyball dub. - r x ;~'~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-154 ;s~=.> '£ FOLLO'-MNG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE ,' ; ";: "' ,CONSIDERED OFFlCIAL MINUTES. Y There was no one indicating their presence in opposltion to subject request and although the staff report was not read, lt is referred to and made a part cf the minutes. Clark Hills, agent for VB Cl~sb inc., 626 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, Ca. He stated they would like to change that portion of the condltional use permit that requires them to renew their :: t~ condltional use permit at the end of 2 years. They would like that changed to 7 years. He explained they went back to the owners and irnestors fn the facility and they expressed their concerns regarding the 2 years. In osier for them to put their money Into the facility (three million ddlars) they wanted a longer length of time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. There were no questions or comments from staff. ~: CEOA Negative Declaration (Prev. Approved) - No Action Conditional Use Permit No. 3552 (Readvertised) -Approved (Approved for 7 years; to expire October 5, 1999 with possibility for further extensions of time). VOTE: 7-0 ~ '- ~.: ,~ Page 20 12/14/92 ~ ~ ,n ~ _.Y ~ t~~ 9 r -; ». _ sr c~~ x ~~~ ~ as>- ,,y , i `% _ q,?~,~-~ryur 1 rIJIWL ua~ renml ~ ..V IG10Y - ~1GYYG~7 1 rain roc ~ nw..v ~ ~ s .... ~ r.--~..+^ ~• ~~ ~,~ut:~Tn rt~tutat_Y wmi CerrDmONS OF APPROVAL: R. Court Hulsh requests a ons-year ~~~ ' , retro~gtWe'extension of tiros to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permft ,r,~'z,;. ` No ,1564 (to permit a kid's camivaq to expire Apra S, 1994. Property Is located at 1041 North 3heptirrJ Street. air ~ < ' Cornir.ted trom the December 2, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Yom. ~i ;~ ~: Withdrawn at petitioner's request. .:_ ; ;rr; ~ ,~ VOTE: 7-0 .~' ~~ ~, `' , , ,. B. ~nelnnyntuet Uco ~~RMIT NO 3084 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Melissa Arrabaca requests aone- ~ r t~ year retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval for Condftional Use ~ Pemnft No. 1084 (to permit conversion of a 4-unit apartment complex to a 13-room senior citizen's board and care facntty) to expire on November 21, 1993. Property is located at 1314 ' ~ South iris Street . , • tr ~ .., gQjQ~: Approved (to expire November 21, 1993) C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3480 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Song-Shyong Hsu Ikok Investment Co. requests eons-year retroactive extension of time to comply wfth condftions of approval for Condtional Use Permft No. 3460 (to permft a 4-unft, 3200 square foot addition to an existing commercial retail center) to expire on November 4, t993. Property is located at 2658 W. La Palma Avenue. ACTION: Approved (To expire November 4, 1993) 1IQ F: 7-0 D. ^ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3467 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TiME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION~QF APPROVAL- Wihok Patanarapelors requests a one-year retroactive extension of time t~ comply ::ith conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3467 (to permit commercial use of a rssklential structure) to expire on November 4, 1993. Property is located at 431 N. State Cdlege Boulevard. GA TION: Approved (To expire November 4, 1993) yoTE: 7-0 Page 21 12/14/92 ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting adJoumed at 3:30P.M. There wAl be no Planning Commfsslon ;~Lyx~.:~ . ~ "meeting on December 28, 1992 due to a lack of a quorum. 7'..?Y !~ 4