Loading...
Minutes-PC 1993/02/22 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993, AT 9:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) 11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. FIELD TRIP: TOUR OF SPORTS ARENA: 9:30 a.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERA2i4, TAIT COMMISSIONEAS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Jonathan Borrego, Selma Mann, Greg Hastings, Alfred Yalda, Melanie Adams, Greg McCafferty, Bruce Freeman, Jan Jensen, Margarita Solorio PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have flue minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration. 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 considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each headng. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will wRhhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The :,ommisslon reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, In its opinion, the ends of fairness to ail concerned will be served. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be avaiiable 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 wfthin the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda Items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. Anyone wishing to speak should fill out the forms available in the rear of the Council Chamber and subm(t them to staff prior to the meeting. AC022293.v~P , Page 1 ~.,; '2ltih Irv J .~C( C~ ~a i^ 1a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3581 Approved Approved Granted in Part OWNER: HUTTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 201 E. Sandpointe, Ste. 300, Santa Ana, CA 92707-8707 AGENT: REEVES ASSOC. ARCHITECTS, INC., Attn: Lawrence C. Reeves, 417 South Hill Street, Ste. 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90013 LOCATION: 8205 E. Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately 3.34 acres located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 1050 Poet west of the centerline of Welr Canyon Road. To permft an automotive repair facility including the retail sale and installation of automobile parts and accessories with waivers of minimum setback adJacent to a freeway, permitted freestanding sign, permitted wail signs and permitted roof-mounted equipment. Continued from the January 11, January 25, and February 8, 1993 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. P •24 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 2 PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Larry Reeves, Reeves Associates, Architects, 417 South Hill Street, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA. He explained this item was continued from 4 weeks ago. A number of comments came up in the meeting and a number of comments were made by staff. He stated, they are deleting WaNer "C" as they just need the one wall sign on the front of the building and they do not need a sign on the east side. He referenced page 10 of the staff report, item ~. He stated they have no problem with requesting that all of thesa items be removed from the property and they will do so. He stated following their last meeting, they met wfth their neighbor (the hospftal) and had several conversations relative to their concerns. They have subsequently met wfth staff and they requested that they turn the building 90 degrees and move h away from tha adJacent hospftal. Following the meetings wfth staff they Page 2 forwarded a complete set of documents to the hospftal several days ago, therefore, they did have a chance to review the documents. He referenced the plans and gave some further details. The loading dock will be enclosed completely so there will bo no noise. They are 120 feet away from the property Ifne and they have added extra landscaping. They tried to mftigate any sound or visual problems. Concern was expressed about the view of the their mechanical equipment. He referenced two sections of the building. The module In front of their building encloses all of the air conditioning unfts and they are down 5-1 /2 to 6-feet below the roof Ifne. They are 100% screened. The second set of unfts are swamp coolers that sit on top of the service bays; this section is looking the other way and they have built a screen completely enclosing the unfts and they are down below the top of the parapet. They are also painting them whfte. OPPOSITION: Floyd Farano, Farano and Kieviet, representing Anaheim Memorial Hospftal, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806. Anaheim Memorial Hospital has made a lot of contributions to the City of Anaheim. They are deeply concerned that the City ought to look at ks land uses in this area. That is the essence of their objection. He gave some background on how Anaheim Memorial acquired their property. Bob Sloan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Anaheim Memorial Hosptal, 1111 W. La Palma, Anaheim, CA. He emphasized that they have been a strong member of the community for 35 years. He gave some background and stated they want to be a good neighbor. They are very sensftNe to the needs of their patients and they wish to maintain this facility as a first class, quality hospftat in all regards. They have won the Anaheim Beautttul Award in the past. He stated people that go to their facilty are sick and are acutely sensftive to the environment. He voiced his concerns regard(ng the smell, sounds and the atmosphere. Regardless as to which way the bays face, ft Is their concern that the patients will be exposed, in the sensftive state they are at, to the parking Ict and to perhaps score changes of oil or parts, etc. There is a great deal that takes glace there, therefore, they ask the Planning Commission to oppose this entire application and the conditional use permft that is being requested. Floyd Farano, asked whether the Cfty of Anaheim wants an 11 bay automobile general full service facility in this location? Pep Boys has an excellent service and is needed, however, ft is not needed and is not appropriate In this place. Pep Boys serve largely those people who are repair and flc ft yourself people. ~/ Page3 REBUTTAL: Savoy Bellavia, Hutton Development, 201 E. Sandpointe, #300, Santa Ana, CA. He explained Hutton Development is the original developers of the entire project. They have sold parcels off individually and they have been developers individually. He stated when Anaheim Memorial bought their property, they knew ft was retail commercial and in fact, several of the usas were already in place and some were in construction. This particular site was the only one that was still vacant. He referenced the CC&R's and the restrictions on petroleum sales. He explained Pep Boys is well aware of the CC&R's on the property and the attorney's on both sides have looked at them Including the attorney's for Shell Oil. Those provisions were put in the CC&R's for the benefit of Shell in order to protect Shell ~o that another gasoline service station did not go on the she. He stated as far as motor oil or petroleum, it does not pose any problem to the CC&R's or to the restrictions they have with Shell Oil. He stated Mr. Farano indicated that the 11 bays are now facing a futures development sfte on the property. 1) They are not sure what will go there; and 2) they do not have a problem wfth that. If something were to go in and they did not want to look at service bays, obviously they would not go in. He Mated he did not think it was of the hospftai's concern whether those bays are facing onto an undeveloped site ff it is not their sfte. Archftect for Pep Boys. Name not stated for the record. He stated Pep Boys delivers wfth a 55•foot truck 3 times a week during business hours. There are not a number of trucks; ft is controlled by the corporation and by computer at the main distribution in the Cfty of Commerce. He added the truck is there for about 20 minutes and then ft Is gone. He stated 2 years ago they started a process whereby they have their own trash compactors wfthin the building. Most of the hems are broken down and are delivered in containers from the main warehouse, but those items de came with boxes. They compact all of their packing materials and send ft out in bails. they do not use the trash enclosure to stack a lot of packing materials, ft is strictly for day tc day trash. He stated filters have to be recycled. Pep Boys recycles everything they use or take out. He stated he has worked for Pep Boys for 9 years and maybe once in a while something is delivered wfth a tow truck, but they do not do the kind of work that people get towed in on. They install light service and they do not pull engines ur transmissions. The Insurance requires that if any vehicle is on•sfte in the care of Pep boys, the insurance will not cover a vehicle unless ft is taken inside the service bays and locked up over night. He did not think Pep Boys generated anymore cars then anyone else and if anyone has visfted the sfte, frankly the smell from the fast-food is much more of problem then the smell from automobiles and traffic. If the hospftal has a real concern, they have a filter system that they can install on the cars that are bs~ng worked on and the air that comes out of that is cleaner then the air that they sow breathe. 2/?2/9(i ~,,,,~ Page 4 He stated they will install ballards at 6 feet on center along the parking area so the ~ truck cannot get Into any of the parking areas. They have a computer program as tar as the truck being able to circulate on and off the site. The people in Pep Boys who are responsible for deliveries have no problem with the way the site fs setup. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Borrego stated ff the Planning Commission does approve this project, there are some modificat(ons to the condftions that they would like to make. 1. Add condtlon which would require that the pad area for the future phase of the development be landscaped with a permanent IMgation system and maintained by Pep Boys. 2. Add conditlon which would require that the roof-mounted equipment be painted to match the color of the roof and that the roof-mounted equipment not be visible from any public right-of-way or at ground level. He asked that ft be Inserted Just to tighten up the provisions for the roof-mounted equipment. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement had some language to be added. 'T'hat the inffial operation of subject facility shall be subject to one inspection every otherweek by the Code Enforcement Division in orderto discourage <,utdoor repair and to monitor outdoor storage in trash disposal areas. Tha cost of each inspection will be subject to existing fees at the time the inspections are made. These inspections will commence upon inrilal opening and ~~:~II extend for 3 months unless otherwise addftional violatluns are found on the property and then request that addftional Inspections be made past the 3 month period.' Chairman Henninger asked ff at any time a problem came up, would they have a series of inspections that they would have to pay for? Mr. Freeman indicated they could da that. Commissioner Messe asked ff 3 months was a long enough time? Mr. Freeman stated what they have found in the past, is that management practices are set up and ff their practices are to monitor the parking lot on a daily or hourly t•,as(s, then those methods will continue. They are proposing 3 months initially as a time frame, but ff they find they are having problems and the owners are not maintaining the property then the inspections would continue and the owners/operators would be subject to tt~e fees for each one of those Inspections. Chairman Henninger asked ff they did a random inspection after one-year and there was a problem, could they start fire inspectiuns again? Mr. Freeman indicated they could. 2/71/93 ~~ Page 5 Chairman Henninger stated he understands, but he did not hear that additional !"` language. He asked that he include that language. Commissioner Messe asked ff ft was possible that trash be picked up on a dally basis? Mr. Barrego stated the frequency of trash pickup is negotiable wfth Anaheim Disposal. Commissioner Messe asked the applicant ff he would be willing to have a condftion that says that he would contract wfth Anaheim Disposal to pick up trash on a dally basis. The applicant indicated he would. Mr. Borrego stated prior to issuance of a building permft, their sanftatlon plans will be reviewed by the Sanftation Division to make sure ft meets thnir standards as well. Commissioner Boydstun asked that a condition be added that no cars can be parked on the lot ovemight. Commissioner Messe asked about the future sfte. Mr. Reeves asked what the Planning Commission would Ilke to see? Commissioner Messe stated they would like ft to be fully landscaped wfth some bushes, trees and lawn. Mr. Reeves stated they would Tike to accommodate the Commission to an eMent, however, iF ft is only going to be In there for a few months and they would hate to go through the expense of fully landscaping ft only to remove ft. However, they can work wfth staff to come up wfth some alternative. They have had sftuations in the past where they have planted box trees and left them in the box so they can be maintained, and they can also be removed. They will try to come up wfth a plan that is acceptable to staff and the Commission. They will be happy to have something more then Just a lawn area. He stated there are probably 2 or 3 pages that specifically address the issue of parking cars ovemight (n the lease. He explained being the land owner, they do not want any type of vehicles stored o.. the lot over night. Commissioner Messe stated ft does not hurt to condftlon ft. Commissioner Messe referenced page 9 of the staff report where they discuss parking light standards. He asked ff they could be more specfflc about the height requirements. Mr. Reeve, stated he would have no problem coming up wfth signs In different languages. 2/a2/sa l„~ Page 6 Commissioner Baydstun suggested they post signs Inside the store by the cash registers and outside that there be no working on cars in the lot. Mr. Reeves stated they agreed to that last time and that would be fine. Commissioner Boydstun suggested intematlonal signage. Mr. Reeves stated ff they have about a 2096 minority, they try to match that language. Commissioner Taft stated he would like the filtration system to be a condftion and Mr. Reeves agreed. Chairman Henninger asked where In the building were they planning on storing used tires? Mr. Reeves explained there is a used tiro coral outside that is totally enclosed wfth a roof. They are stored away from the building due to safety reasons and they are picked up every week.* Commissioner Messe stated there is concern regarding the truck dock and the visibility from Santa Ana Canyon Road. He referenced the landscape plan (the road section past Roosevelt) which shows one large tree on efther side of the corridor. He asked ff they could make those trees large crown trees? Mr. Reeves stated they were going to rework the lot and add 2 more planters in order to screen that one side. He explained ft does have an overhead door and k is closed except when they are using ft. Trucks are there for less then one hour a week as they just make the 3 deliveries. It will be closed 9996 of the time. Signs are also posted asking the truck drivers to shut their motors off and they have installed a door bell by the back door. Commissioner Messe stated he was happy to hear that the Corporation was taking some steps to Improve these conditions. He stated he does have some worcies about this development, but wfth the precautions they are taking, ft appears as though ft will be operated successfully wfth a goad deal of caution to the surcounding area. ACTION: CE~A Negative Declaration -Approved Waiver of Code requirement -Approved in Part GRANTED Waivers A, B and D and DENIED 'C'. Condftional Use Permft No. 3581 -Granted Wfth added condftlons as follows: 1. That a landscaping plan, including Ircigation facilities for the area that is subject to future development, shall be submftted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval. Said landscaping shall be installed and maintained thereafter. Page 7 ~ 2. That the roof-mounted equipment shall be painted to match the color of the roof and that the roof-mounted equipment shall not be visible from any public right-of-way and/or at grc;;nd Level. 3. "That the initial operation of subject facility shalt be subject to one inspection every other week by the Code Enforcement Division In order to discourage outdoor repair and to monitor outdoor storage in trash disposal areas. The cost of each inspection wiii be subject to existing fees at the time the inspections are made. These inspections will commence upon Initial opening and will extend for 3 months unless otherwise additional violations are found on the property and then request that addftional inspections be made past the 3 month period. If problems reoccur after the initial 3 month period, the required inspections shall again be required and will continue until the violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Division. That the owners of the operation are subject to the costs at that time. 4. That the height of all proposed parking lot light standards shail not exceed twenty (20) feet and that said lighting standards shall be pointed downwards. 5. That the :Ire storage area shall be fully enclosed. 6. That no cars shall be parked aver night. 7. That the owner of subject property shail contract with Anaheim Disposal to pick-up trash on a dally basis. 8. That a filtration system shali be installed and operated while cars are being operated during servicing. 9. That international signage shall be permanently posted both ins(de and outside the prPmises prohibiting the servicing of cars by individuals. VOTE: fi-1 (Chairman Henn(nger voting NO) E,.J 2/22/93 Page 8 Approved Approved Approved OWNER: M. SMITH/CORY ROBERTS, P.O. Box 54029, Term. Annex., Los Angeles, CA 90054; DARRYL SNYDER TRUSTEE, PATRICIA MC CLURE TRUST, C/0 EDWARD GOLDSTEIN, 110 E. Wilshire Ave., Ste. 305, Fullerton, CA 92632 AGENT: FARANO AND KIEVIET, Attn: Thomas G. Kieviet, 2100 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 ANAHEIM COACH AND TRAILER CO Attn: Sherman Baird, P.O. Box 8129, Anaheim, CA 9281? LOCATION: 2222 East Howell Avenue. Property is approximately 3.3 acres located on the southwesterly side of Howell Avenue and approximately 520 feet northwesterly of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Request for an amendment to or deletion to conditions of approval to retain a recreation vehicle storage yard and on-site caretaker's unft (including on-premises sales and Installation of recreational vehicle parts and accessories) with waiver of permitted accessory uses and structures. Continued from the January 11, and February 8, 1993 Planning Commission meetings. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-25 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Tom Kleviet, Farano and Kieviet, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA, representing the current occupant of the property In question. This matter has been continued twice. They have submitted the landscape plan as requested and does comply with curcent landscaping requirements; and they have submitted Information to the City Attorney in regard to their authorization to proceed with this request and they believe h is authorized. They have reviewed the current staff report and find that the recommendation and the condtions being proposed would b3 acceptable as set forth presuming that the landscaping will be installed according to landscape plan, and that the condtlons they have requested to be modified will be so modfied as requested. ,~ 2/22/50 Page 9 n THE PUBLii, HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Henninger asked if there were some condftions in the staff report that he would amended? Mr. Kieviet stated as far as the condhlons proposed by staff in regard to their request, they find them acceptable as drafted. Chairman Henninger asked in those areas where they are going to remove the asphalt pads, wilt some of those be turf grass and then other areas are going to be planters? Mr. Kieviet stated they are going to have roses with decorative bark underneath the roses and they will be planted in the ground. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the only concern they had was they were still a little unclear as to whether the asphalt was going to be removed totally (the asphalt pads) including the area in which the planters are going to be located. It was clarHied by the Commission that the asphalt pads would be removed. ACTION: CEQA NegatNe Declaration -Approved WaNer of Code Requirement -Approved Conditional Use Pernik No. 1623 (Read.) -Approved VOTE: 7-0 ~~ 2/71/93 Page 10 Continued to March 22, 1993 OWNER: DVAN-SONG LEE and HUI-DING CHEN, Et. AL, 2121 W. Mission Road, Alhambra, CA 91603 AGENT: AMER EL-ROUSAN, 1275 N. Gilbert Avenue, #100, Fullerton, CA 92633 LOCATION: 1210 South State College BoulevaM. Unit'C'. Property is approximately 1.36 acres located on the east side of State College Boulevard and approximately 200 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. To permft a cabaret within an existing sports theater wfth waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PL:INNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 4 (Letters and petftions received in opposftion) PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Roger Diamond, speaking on behalf of the applicant Amer EI-Rousan, 1275 N. Gilbert Avenue, #100, Fullerton, CA 92633. He stated this matter was originally before the Commission in July. Mr. EI Rousan inftlally applied for a condftlonal use permit to operate a sports bar wfth alcohol at the location. He had the approval of the owner of the shopping center. He stated they approved the project wfth the parking that is available. The Commission did not want alcohol served, therefore, the Commission granted the permft wfth the provision that the alcohol be deleted. Mr. EI-Rousan started his business in November of 1992 and soon found out that his business could not survive wfthout alcohol. He wanted to change and add to a sports theater a cabaret type entertainment, but the City would not allow ft and Issued him a stop notice saying ft was not part of the condftional use permft. Mr. Diamond filed a law suit on behalf of Mr. EI-Rousan in the Orange County Superior Court on December 1, 1992 challenging the constftutlonalfty of the Anaheim Municipal Cade that required a condftlonal use permit in which allowed the Commission and the City Council discretionary anproval. ~,.~ x/93 They contended In the lawsuk that to the extent the ordinance allowed this Commission ~ or City officials discretion to decide whether or not to grant the necessary permit, the ordinance was unconstitutional. Shortly before the hearing on the injunction was set in the Orange County Superior Court, the Anaheim City Council amended ffs ordinance to correct tho defect !~ the ordinance to save'; from constitutional attack. Therefore, the Judge felt that the ordinance they were attackinL for being unconsttutional was no longer the operative ordinance, the City Council having changed h prior to the hearing and the Judge said they should come back and apply for modification of the ~~ conditional use permit to allow the business they Intended. Mr. Diamond told the judge that they did not trust the City because they felt for polftical reasons the City would try to do something to stop the business because historically these kinds of businesses have not been popular and they did not believe that City officials would treat them fairly, but the judge felt they would and, therefore, he said to go back and seek a condffional use permit. He stated under the current staff report, there are actually less parking spaces required then were required previously. He elaborated. He stated his client was required as a condklon to getting the conditional use permit, to repair the City curbs and sidewalks in the area. He did that at a $3,000 expense. The land lord has approved the proposed use that he wishes to pursue d. He stated ff he satisfied the parking requirement as a sports theater and this particular business will not generate any additional customers because of thu occupancy load of the establishment and because of the Ilmit on the number of patrons, they find ff hard to believe that since all they are doing is changing the nature of the entertainment, that suddenly more parking is required. They think that is something that cannot be Justified logically, but is evidence that someone is attempting to find some basis upon which to deny the application. They noticed that staff has recommended that there be further studies. He stated under a case called Ubrary One, Inc. vs. Superior Court and People vs. Ubrary One, it would be unconstftutionalfor a Iicens(ng body or permft body to delay the consideration of the application. His client feels that would be unfair. If there is concern about parking, the most logical thing to do would be to allow the business to go forward and ff h turns out parking is not adequate, this Commission would have the authority to revoke the CUP or Impose conditions. He stated rather then follow staff's recommendation to study other businesses at other locations to see how they are doing, why not study the very business In question by allowing K to operate and ff h causes a problem, revoke the CUP. They reviewed a number of letters from opposing groups and they know that those letters are basically dated before the public notice went out from the staff of the Planning Department notffying the public of this public meeting. They have evidence that certain public officials went out to the community and solicited opposition letters before the official notice went out announcing the public meeting. They do r;ot believe that is an appropriate thing for people to do in the City of Anaheim. 2/22/93 L,,~ Page 12 He stated the Anaheim Municipal Code speciflcally recogidzes, as it is constitutionally !~` required to do that adult businesses have to be able to operate somewere in the City. He explained a number of years ago the United States Supreme Court said that cfties could regulate where in their City adult businesses could be located, but they had no power to totally ban such businesses. Given that directive, the Anaheim City Council passed a zoning ordinance declaring where in the City one could Iegaily operate such a business. Given the restrictions of the ordinance, there are very few places where this kind of business would be lawful. He stated h is presumed that anyone who buys or leases property in a particular area knows what the zoning is. Under the City's Adult Zoning Ordinance, an adult business was allowed at this location, so anyone who bought or leased property or moved into the area took notice that such a use would be possible. They are in full agreement with ail of the condftions. Thoy will provide security; they will provide parking; and no signs advertising the business will be posted. They do not see on what basis the Commission could delay consideration and they do not see any basis on which the Commission could deny the application other than improper considerations. OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS: Dr. Denise M. Martin, 1210 S. State College Blvd., Suites D and F, Anaheim, Ca. Located next door to the proposed Sierra Theater. She stated they collected ti0 signatures from the business community to the proposed she as well as family community members and clients to the business area. She stated they are deflnftely in opposition to the parking situation and the cabaret. They feel that the use and the increased use of the parking area would be Inappropriate ::cause ft is over used as ft is. They are running very short on parking and there have ism variances in the past that have allowed other occupants to come Into the area. r;ow the parking lot is overflowing and people are beginning to park in the street and In another plaza located across the street. She expressed further concerns for her patient's safety, their families, eldedy and severely disabled people. She is deflnftely opposed to the parking and having the Sierra Theater there would cause more problems. They were never notflfed by their landdord that this company would be open(ng up. They have had to ask for assistance from the Anaheim Police Department to come and help them with the homeless and people drinking in the parking lot and have them removed. These people were harassing mostly female clients for money, etc. She stated she did have a conversation with the owner of the theater about this problem and he assured her that he would have some type of security wfthin his facility. He will not have someone outside and that is where the problem Is. The owner can only control what is happening inside his place of business. She feared the Police Department will not be able to controi the problem. She was overall against this potential undesirable element. She asked that the Commission help stop this problem from escalating. She submitted the letters to the Commission and read a letter from Dennis Johnson from the Pizza Parlor opposing the cabaret. She clarifled that oppostion was not provoked. 2/22/93 ~„~ Page 13 Bob Whaler, 1240 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA. He is the Building Manager for ~ the Sand Dollar Flnancial Plaza and he Is also responsible for all of the parking for all of the properties. He stated the Computer Learning Center has over 300 students. Most of them dfire their own vehicles; they fill up the whole back and the sides of the lot. They do not have a full building (66,00 square feet) and ff the building ever does fill up to its potential, the parking would be devastating. He stated he has submitted a letter stipulating that they do have minors in attendance at the Computer Learning Center. He has a Real Estate school. He voiced his concerns regarding the transients. He stated he was very c~ncemed about the property devaluating wkh these kinds of uses coming in. He is having a difficult time getting te:iants to look at the buiiding because of word of a nude bar. Several of his terznts ~,re on a month-to-month lease right now and they are eMremely upset. Mr. Diamond brought up a good point. He rented this to these people because the landlord needed rents. Anaheim hbs a 2196 office vacancy and k is tough out there. It makes it tougher when a tenant comes in that is not right for this particular area. Rick Roshan, 1240 S. State Coilege Blvd., Anaheim, CA. He stated he is a part owner in the Sand Dollar Flnancial Plaza. He stated he was very concerned about the devaluation of this property. He stated there is an abundance of office space In Anaheim. The addition of this all nude bar is a concern because people who have a professional business do not want their business in the proximity of one of these eye soars. Parking is a big problem. A theater requires much more parking then a sports bar. He referenced page 4, item no. 16 of the staff report. He stated he was shocked to see that they had no intention of opening up as a sports bar. Mansour Roshan,1240 S. State College Blvd.,Suffe 220, Anaheim, CA. He is a licensed physician and opened his office in 1960. He is deeply concerned about having a nude bar where there are professional people and where there is a school with young people attending. There is also a liquor store next to the theater. The nude dancers have no income from the club, therefore, they have to be a prostitutes. He stated 7 out 10 nude dancers that are tested for the AIDS virus test posftive for the virus. He asked that the Planning Commission consider rejecting this. REBUTTAL: Mr. Diamond stated there have been some misconceptions presented about the nature of the business. There is a similar business already operat(ng at Century Cfry in Los Angeles. Century City is a very upscale Cfty. He elaborated. He stated the people who go to these establishments are high income, high spending people-they are typically business executives and professional people, they are not low lives. He stated h is inaccurate to portray this as some sort of evil disease ridden business when h Is simply not true. He elaborated further. Page 14 He stated his client wants to improve the situation. He will provide security on the ~ outside and ff someone is approached by a trans(ent the security guard can step in. He asked why not give them a chance? The Planning Commission has the power at their disposal to terminate the CUP ff ft does not work out. It will employ people, ft will pay taxes and ft will be an economic boom to the community. He offered an exhibit, an addendum signed by the landlord. The landlord would be concerned about losing tenants. Th(s is not a store in an area where every store is owned by someone else. It is in a shopping center and the landlord has made a determinatlon that ft is in the landlord's economy Interest to rent out the spac9 and obviously the Iandiorrl does not want to lose other tenants. The parking was approved previously and there will be no additional customers at the location then what was considered last time. They hired a Traffic Engineer to conduct a traffic study and submitted a report to staff. Staff has all the information ft needs. To continue this to another time to allow further studies would not accomplish anything and they would oppose that. The Planning Commission has enough Information to make a decision; they believe that the law would require a favorable decision s!nce the ordinance that gave them discretion has been replaced under compulsion of the U.S. Constitution. They urge them to act honestly and ethically and treat this matter under the law considertng the Zoning laws in the City of Anaheim. The City can attach as many conditions as they choose to make sure it operates propedy. His client is willing to start his business later on in the day to avoid any possible parking conflict. He will start at 3:OOp.m. when the other businesses are wrapping up. If there is a problem, they can further restrict the hours. He added it is simply not fair to totally ban the business because of some perceived moral situatio~i because someone does not like the nature of the business. He stated these kinds of businesses are allowed under certain conditions so long as zoning is complied with and zoning is complied with here. There are no additional traffic or parking problems here. Amer EI•Rousan, 1275 N. Gilbort, Fullerton, CA. He stated Dr. Martin and the others tried to oppose the parking. He wanted to know why they did not oppose his parking waNer when he applied for it in July of 1992? They do not seem to have a problem with his parking waiver but they seem to have a problem with the nature of the business. No alcohol will be served and they will have a security guard to make sure no alcohol is brought in. He stated there will be signage placed in the hall stating no alcohol will be allowed at anytime in the establishment. He stated he d(d not see where it makes any dffference whether ft Is bikini, topless or bottomless. He has attended some of these places-they watched the show and left. He stated a security guard will be outside monftoring the parking lot. There are 4 or 5 people who drink next to the dumpster. He went out and cleaned behind the dumpster. He called the Police on the people and the Police did not do the right thing about k. The Police arrested them and the next day they were back laying around the dumpster drinking wine and harassing the people. 2/7L/90 Page 15 i I ~I f i He stated they will work closely wfth the police and law enforcement agencies. He ~ urged them to give him the chance to operate. He will accept a probation period and will give the Commission full nermisslon to terminate his CUP. He added any condition that they Impose he will accept as long as they can always work together along with his neighbors and everyone else. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jonathan Borrego circulated file letter that was referenced earlier from the Computer Leaning Center regarding the fact that they do have m(nors enrolled at their facility. Mr. Borrego stated ff that is the case, the petition would have to be readvertised in order to Include an addftlonal waiver from Code, i.e., minimum distance requirements ~f an adult entertainment use from an educational instftution. Chairman Henninger stated one of the hen+s they heard in the public hearing wes the fear that this sort of use could be a catalyst for blight. He asked ff the Cfty has had oily experience wfth this type of use? Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated there is one area where there is a saturation Ilmft on the number of alcoholic establishments, but he cannot think of an area specifically relating to this Issue. Commissioner Messe asked about the area of Ball and Knott? Mr. Freeman stated the area of Ball and Knot is very run down specifically because of the vacant buildings and the strip center for the last 9 or 10 years has not been occupied and the transients have moved in and ft has continually been going down. Chairman Henninger asked ff the CEQA Negative Declaration is appropriate here. He knows a number of areas in the City that seem to be in danger of blight. There are a number of Redevelopment projects in the City that have been put in place to address that problem. The fear that people have that this may lead to blight could possibly be correct. He wondered H perhaps ft should be the subject of some study. He suggested a focused EIR. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated CEQA does allow the analysis of economic and social impacts when the results of a project would to some degree promote blight. In other words, economic and social impacts can be considered, per CEQA, when the project may result in the physical change in the environment and, therefore, deterioration of property values, etc. He stated there have also been some comments on the parking situation and comments received during the public review process which certainly merfts further discussion in the CEQA analysis and quite possibly a focused EIR would be appropriate in this case. Chairman Henninger stated he heard some things at the previous hearing and he would like to review his memory. He asked ft their was a request for alcohol and then voluntarily withdrawn? 1„j 2/~~ Page 16 Mr. Borrego indicated that was correct and to clarify one point, the previously advertised ~"` parking waiver which went along with the inftial application was parked at the cocktail lounge parking calculation. However, because the request for alcohol was wfthdrawn by the applicant, he did not think ft would be accurate to say that there was a parking waiver granted based on that higher parking calculation which was referred to earlier because it could no longer be considered a cocktail lounge for the purposes of parking. He statod there eras a parking waiver granted along with the original application, however, based on previous conversations, and testimony given at the previous public heariny, the Planning Commission specHically authorized the application to have uniimfted kftchen area !vfthin the establishment and as such in approving the parking waNer previously and review of the minutes, one of the basis for granting the parking waiver was the fact that alcohol was not going to be served. For the purposes of coming up with the parking calculation for the existing use, ft would be probably more appropriate to look at the existing use as more of a restaurent than a cocktail lounge for the purposes of the existing parking demand. Chairman Henninger stated the other think he recalls is that there were people that Came and protested the parking at that time and Mr. Borrego Indicated that was correct. Commissioner Messe stated they know there is another place in Century City and one in Stanton as wail. The parking study did not address the actual counts of these places. He thought they needed more information on the potential parking problem that may occur. He agrees with Chairman Henninger that the tear of blight is there and he does not feel comfortable in granting a CEQA Negative Declaration. He stated they do need to look at these types of operations and what type of parking problems do occur. Commissioner Caldwell stated he was familiar w';h that comer and there are parking problems and he would like to have further studies as well. Mr. Yalda stated this is a special(zed use. If the Commission would Tike, they would ask them to do two addftlonai studies and the numbers should be taken probably around noon to 11:OOp.m. on both weekdays and Friday and Saturday as well. Selma Mann, stated there is going to be a certain amount of del?y that is going to be required in this Instance since ft is during the public hearing that the Commission and staff have become aware that there is an educational facility that is utilized by minors- not exclusively by minors, but is utilized by minors. The Anaheim Municipal Code at Section 18.89.030, Subsection .020b indicates that no condftional use permit for an adult entertainment business can be granted if the premises upon which such business is proposed to be located is wfthin 1,000 feet of any lot upon which there is located a church or educational instftution utilized by minors. Since that is the case, ft would be Impossible for the Commission to proceed upon this application today. It would be necessary to advertise the addftlonal waiver. Chairman Henninger stated that sounds like ft is stronger then that, i.e., ft sounds Tike prohibftlon. He asked if they should find that there Is a school wfth minors wfthin that distance and deny this today? Ms. Mann stated If that is the Commission's decision, yes. Page 17 Ms. Mann stated upon discussion wfth Mr. Borrego and Mr. Hastings, past practice has ~ been to permit application for a waiver which certainly does not mean that a waver needs to be granted and the findings will still need to be made for a waiver from any provision of Title 18, so that even though this Subsection is stated in prohibitory terms, that ff the applicant wishes to apply for a waiver and requests that, that past practice has been to go zhead and process that type of a waiver. if the applicant does wish to go ahead and process a waiver since k does appear there are minors at that educational instftution, ft would be her recommendation, that at the same t(me the original conditional use permft be readvertised so that H any clarifications are necessary with regard to the original approval, they can be made and the specific findings made witl! regard to what the parking waver that was granted was intended to cover. Mr. diamond stated they do not agree that there is an educational institution for minors. They believe there is no evidence before this Commission upon which such a finding could be made. They have a copy of a letter dated February 22, 1993, Initialed by someone that says they have a few students enrolled that are 17 years of age. This is not a sworn statement and they do not know who this is and they do not recognize this as being any evidence upon which the Commission could make a finding and they think the ordinance would not ar!ply to this particular situation. They oppose this and they think apparently ft Is a situation where people are scrambling around trying to find some rationalization for denying the application. Chairman Henninger stated what the applicant thinks of the letter and what the Commission thinks of the letter are two different things. Mr. Diamond stated staff has already stated that they comply with ail of the zoning. Commissioner Henninger reminded Mr. Diamond that tho public hearing was closed. Mr. Borrego stated for ciartticatlon, what they had in the staff report was information they had before them up to the point the report was prepared. Staff did not have knowledge that the Computer Learning Center had minors as a part of their student population until this letter was presented to him just before the public hearing began. Chairman Henninger asked if the staff report recommendation indicated that ih~y might change their opinion when they hear the public testimony? Mr. Borrego indicated that is correct. Chairman Henninger asked staff, after hearing the testimony, what is their thought on the need for a focused environmental study on this? Mr. McCafferty stated the comme;l~s receved during the public review would merft at least additional traffic and parking analysis comparing ft to 11ke uses in other cfties, and ~Isa whether the physical change is going to create some economic and social impacts in the area, therefore, most likely, a focused EIR would be appropriate In this case unless the Commission can make a finding to the contrary on the CEQA Chairman Henninger asked Ms. Mann how to proceed. 2/22/93 ~~ Page 18 Ms. Mann stated k would be her recommendation that staff proceed wkh advertising the r-~ addkional waiver, that in view of the infonnatlon that has been presented here, this is not subject to evidentiary requirements of having sworn testimony that they do have sufficient information to suggest that there is an educational factlky that is utilized by minors-k does not indicate that k would be utilked axclusNely by minors, but simply that minors would be at the facnky. If k is discovered by staff that that is not the case upon contacting the establishment, they can proceed according, I.e., k is not applicable and that no waiver is necessary. Chairman Henninger asked ff the environmental study was something they should direct staff in order to to begin the process of doing a focused environmental review or should they take a vote today on the Negative Declaration? Ms. Mann stated they should diroct staff to possibly review the Inkiai study and see ff addkional information is indicated and then come back to the Commission wkh a further recommendation. It may be that there are changes to the protect that can be made that would satisfy the environmental concerns and k may be a completely unnecessary thing to have a focused EIR under the circumstances, but in any event, that would be impossible to know until the requested information was provided. It would be premature to be acting in one way or another at this point. Mr. Borrego stated ff they do determine that an addkional waiver is necessary, they would need a minimum of 4 weeks in order to proceed with their advertising requirements and that would be the March 22nd meeting. ACTION: Continued to March 22, 1993 ~/~ Page 19 OWNER: NEVADA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., C/0 Sunbelt Management Co., 220 Congress Park Drive, Ste. 215, Delray Beach, FL 93445 AGENT: RICHARD HALL, 5405 Morehouse Drive, Ste 310, San Diego, CA 92121 and David R. Prochnow, 9528 Walker St., Apt. 8, Cypress, CA 90630 LOCATION: 1891-1899 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 10.46 acres located at the northeast comer of Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street. To reclassify subject property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limfted) Zone. To permft an automotive repair and parts installation facility. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC93-26 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-27 Approved Granted Granted for 5 yrs. & 10 mos. (to expire Dec. 22, 199E) FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Arthur R. Proctnow, 4962 San Benito, Los Alamftos, Ca. He stated he generally agrees wfth them, however, there are a few items that will be discussed by the landlord'b:..agent. He gave a brief history of his operation. Richard Hall, 5405 Morehouse Drive, Sufte 310, San Diego, CA. He is the agent for the owners of the property, Nevada Holding Company. He stated they have a major problem wfth Condftion No. 4. They asked the engineer to go to the location and survey ft with the perspective tenant. He Is a small tenant and they did give him a very favorable lease. He stated the sidewalk that was marked out was roughly 6096 to 7096 of the entire sidewalk around the facility and he is only leasing a 7,000 square-foot building. The average cost of fixing this is in the $8,000 to $9,000 bracket. He stated they would like to work out a compromise wfth the Cfty. 2/22/93 ~,~,, page 20 He referenced Condition No. 8 regarding the closure of the two most westerly driveways !'~ on Uncoln Avenue and most southerly drhraways on Muffler Street. He stated as much as they would like to do a lease with the perspective tenant, they have a tenant already there at the gas station with 5 years and 5 months to go and he cannot violate his lease by dosing the entrances to his station. Commissioner Messe asked ff they were e~erating now? Mr. Hail stated he is not operating at this point in time, however, he has the opportunity to start operating anytime he wants to. Chairman Henninger asked for clarification as to when his lease expires and Mr. Hall stated July, 1998. He stated at that time, the owners would be more then happy to consider closing the entrances. Their only objection now is that they cannot break that lease. Commissioner Messe asked how much of the Lincoln frontage is in need of repaiR Mr. Hall stated he did not have it broken down that way. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated if the gas station is still operating, they will withdraw that condftlon. Chairman Henninger suggested that they leave ft in there, however, just change the . timing. Perhaps December , 1998. Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, stated thelrcorcem is primarily removing any hazardous condftlans, and that they have a full sidewalk on Lincoln Avenue. She stated this was reviewed by the F7eld Inspector. They could take it one step further and have ft rEViewed by the Field Engineer to have his determination on the amounts and Just take out any hazardous condftions. Ms. Adams stated if this Is approved today, and the applicant would leave his business card, theywould make further arrangements to have this reviewed bythe Field Engineer. Commissioner Messe asked where are they gong to store the used tires? David Prodnow, 3962 San Benfto, Los Alamftos, CA. He referenced an exhibit he had and explained that ft was inside the building and fully enclosed. Chalmian Henninger suggested that they add a condftion that states that any used tires will be stored fully inside the building. Mr. Borrego asked to modify Condtion No. 12. The first sentence should read: 'That prior to the commencement of the activfty authorized by the this resolution or within a period of one year and then the continuation of the rest of the condition. Chairman Henning;+r stated on Condition No. 12, strike no. 8, then Condition No. 8 is to be changed with the timing to be completed by December of 1998. 2/22/93 '~,,,,~ Page 21 ACTION: CE~A Negative Dedaration -Approved ('~ ReclassHiration No. 92-93-04 -Granted Condkional Use Permk No. 3589 -Granted for 5 years and 10 months . 1. Modify Condkfon No. 12 to read as follows: 'That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by the this resolution or wkh(n a period of one year, Condkion Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,10 and t t, above•mentioned, shall be complied wkh. Extensions for further time to complete said condklons may be granted in accordance wkh Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. Added condkion: That any used tires shall be stored inside the building. Ms. Mann stated wkh regard to Condkion No. 8 that requires improvements by December of 1998. She was wondering what the Incentive would be to have that done if the CUP is granted? If k is going to be a condklon, k does not seem 11ke there Is any consequences to not doing k. Commissioner Messe stated they could Iimk this CUP to that time. It was determined that they would Iimk the time of the CUP to December, 1998. Note: Condklon No. 8 is to remain the same. No changes as indicated earner In the minutes. ~ VOTE: 7-0 2/22/Si L./ Page 22 ,.-. 5. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2649 -REQUEST FOR Continued to TERMINATION: Inftiated by the City of Anaheim. Request for termination of March 22, 1993 Condftlonal Use Permit No. 2649 (to permft on-sale alcoholic beverages in a restaurant) Property is located at 518 South Brookhurst Street, Unft 7. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. B. RECLASSIFICATION NO.89.80-30 -RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME Approved (to expire TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: January 3, 1994) John C. Petry requests one-year retroactive time extension to comply with condftlans of approval for Reclassification No. 89-900 (rezoning property from the ML to CL Zone) to expire on January 3, 1994. Property is located at 1320 South Sanderson Avenue. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3456 -REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF Approved PLANS FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FINDING: Mark Botlch requests review of plans for substantial conformance for Condftlonal Use Pernik No. 3456 (to permft a 10•unft, 29-foot high, deck-type condominium complex). Property Is located at 2865 W. Lincoln Avenue. D. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12685 -REQUEST EXTENSION OF TIME: The Approved (to expire Presley Companies requests extension of time to comply wfth condftions of February 25, 1994) approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 12685. Property location is Development Area 4 within the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP67-1). Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interst as he may live wthin 1,000 feet of the tract in question. E. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO BUSINESS I Directed Cfty SIGNS PERMITTED IN THE CL-Hf; ZONE. Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UTILITIES UNDERGROUND SUBCOMMITTEE (REPLACEMENT FOR STEVE BRISTOL). Continued from February e, 1993. Julie Mayer was appointed to the Underground Subcommittee. ADJOURNMENT: 4:OOP.M. Note: The Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for March 1, 1993 was cancelled. 1, ' 2/22/93 ~~