Minutes-PC 1992/11/02T J ']
~a ~-.
.~ ~;
!~ .~;,
~~ ~; ACTION AGENDA
.. ~~,~
x y ~' REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~~r~.?
~; MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1992, AT 11:00 A.M.
.~
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
~~~'~~ (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
~~~.:. .
-,
~~ ,` = 11:00 A.M. 1 :30 P.M.
:~ ;
.,
` ~ '`< COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAR, ZEMEL
Fa~'~ '.
;.;~s.,.: , ONE VACANT SEAT
r~' Y ~ STAFF PRESENT: ADAMS, BORREGO, HASTINGS, JENSEN, MANN, ..lC CAFFERTY, SCHULT~,
`~h
~~ PROCEDURE TO EXPEDRE PANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
~a
1. The proponents In appllc;atbns whkh are not contested will Nava flue minutes to preseru their
evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request >f, in the opinion of the Commission,
such addtlonal time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's conskferation.
2. In contested appllcatkxis, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten rnkn~ to
present their case unless additional tkne is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants.
_ ~ ~ Tho Conwnlssion's consider;~;~ons are riot determined by the length of time a partk~parrt speaks,
but rather by whet is saki.
3. Staff Reports air part of the evidence deemed received by the Commisskm in each hearing.
Copies are available to the publk: prkx to tho meeting.
4. The Currtmisslon will withhold questkx>s until the public hearing Is closed.
5. The Cc~nvnission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of
faimesa *r ail cencemed will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with arty hearing,
including photographs a other acceptable visual representations a norr~ocumentary evkfence,
shall be retained by the Commission for the publk: record and shall be available for publk:
inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the publk: will be allowed to speak on items
of Interest whk:h are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda llama.
Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5Z minutes to speak. Anyone wishing to speak
should fill out the fame available in the rear of the Council Giamber and submR them to staff
prkx to the meeting.
AC110292.WP1
~.1
f~l~
&w ~ , .
t: ~~- -
~.~ ~~ _ . _
a~, } ~~'°
~t
,~,
'~
C0rtti18lad t0 ~ '~~;;
December 14, 1992 ~ ".
}lC. ' u~n~n r ~nnlVSrtl[~MC{iUEST NO X2.02
x ~ ' `OWNER: BALDWIN COMPANY ATTN: JEFF WARMOTH, 16811 Hale
t~ ,'_ Avenue, in+lne, CA 92714
` LOCATION: Dsvsboment Arses 104. 105 202 203 204.205 206 and
~,~ 207 of i~ SummK of A_~heim Hills Soeciflc Plan SP88-21
~~,
Petitioner n=auests an amendment to Ordinarx;e No. 4976 In order to amend
_ Development Area 205 and 208 Zoning and Deveioixnera Standards (Code
Section Noa 18.72.070.040 and 18.72.470.050) to treats one Development
Area (Development Area 205) t~ perm!< the development of a 270-unk
_ _ condominium complex
r~s.
To transfer a total of 163 unfts from Development Areas 104, 105, 202, 203,
208 and 207 to Development Areas 204 and 205.
Continued from the June 29, July 13, July 27. August 10, and October 5,
1992 Planning Commission meetings.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
$S,~QJ`j: Subject petition was continued to the December 14, 1992 Planning Commission
menting so that the petftioner may further address Issues related to potential Impacts upon the
existing Community Facilities District. Staff also recommends that Planning Commission not
approve any continuance beyond the December 14, 1992 meeting.
S
Page 2
11/2/92
)tki
~•~'
2&~,a,; CEOA':CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA8311 (~k~ ~p . .
~ VA9iUWCE N0: 41Bti December 1992
Ki .y~~
~3~ . ~ OWNER: AE.DONDO INVESTMENT COMPANY, Attn: C. Robert Langalet,
fir: ~ . C3eneral Partriet, P.O. BOX 14478, LonO beach, CA 90803
' ~ ' AGENT: H.S.W. ASSOCIATES, Attn: Harty S. Wetnroth, P.O. Box 1588,
~ i
:yg.
• n San Juan Capistrano, CA 9269;1
~ s r -, LOCATION: e~3o-83~ E. SANTA ANA CA_~ON ROA9 Property is
~~~ approxirtrately 6.6 acres located at the southwest comer of Santa
~` Ana Carryon Road and Fairmont Boulevard.
rr~ ,' , Waiver of perrtritted type of shopping center Identiflcatia~s sign, maximum
~" , ~~ ~ ~ ~, sign area and perrnKted location of ireestand
1~ , ~~: oars foot, ireestand ~ ~9na to constnad a 24-
~~~ r „ SQ Mg Shopping Center fdentiiication sign.
Y~'iY~
~~~ Contlnued from the August 10, and October 5, 1992 Planning Commlaslon
~ meet<ngs.
VARIANCE RESOWTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFlCIAL MINUTES.
'® AS,cLLQ~: Subject petition was continued tc~ the December 2,1992 Planning Commission meeting
In order for staff to review forthcaning sign plans.
~Y . _
~°
,:i '~;; OWNER: EUCLID STREET BAPTIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM AND BRYAN
CROW ~ EVANGELISTIC ASSO(~ATES, Attn: Rev. Bryan L
;,~~ J Crow, 8712 E. Santa Ana Canyon, Anahekn, CA 92808
Y;~
LOCATION: 8712 East Santa Aire Canvon Road. Property is
~~ approximately 3.3 acres Located on the south side of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and approximately 5.460 feet east of the
~ '; . ~ centerline of Riverview Drh-e.
. ...
~i~ To pem~it the phased development of a 100,000 square foot church fac9lty
Induding a 2,000 seat aarxturay, bible study classrooms, nursery,
;. ; gymrrasitxro, amphitl~eeter and botarx.9al gardens wRh waiver of pennltted
number and size of freestanding fdentificcation signs.
CONDI71ONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFlCIAL MINUTES.
i ACTION: Subject petition was continued to the January 11,1993 Planning Commission meetlng
. • in osier to allow the petitioner to cancun~ently procazs a parcel map. The Planning Commission
may wish to note that the Planning Department wNl aerx~Ify surrounding property owners prior to
saki meeting date.
i
Page 4
11/2/92
'_
;'< LOCATION: 2t32ti Wost Lincoln Awnuo. Property is approxtrrtiately 1.04
acre loc~tad on the north side of Wxdn Avenue and
apprwdmately 270 feet west of the centerline of Magndia
Avenue.
` WaNer of Improvement of private streets and minimum dimension of garage
~" TM paridng spaces (deleted) to establish a 1-lot, RM3000 condominium
subdivision to constnux:t a 2-story, 15-unft condominium complex.
Syr `+
t ~
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFlGAL MINUTES.
There was no one hrdk~ting their presence in opposition to subJed request and although the staff
report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Ben Agarwal B 8 V Associates, 30032 Avenida Classka, Rarx~~o Palos Verdes, CA 90274. They
submitted a Tentative Trail Map fora 15-un~ condominium complex and they have submitted
some preliminary plans indk~ting that the proposed project wNl meet the standards for the
RM~000. They are requesting that this tentative map be approved so they can submit the plans
for detaAed drawings to the City for approval.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering stated Gralmian Henninger inquired at the mom(ng's
review about the location of the 10-foot easement; that easement is actually located on the
property to the north Tract No. 10437.
Chairman Henninger asked ff Ma Adams had any continents on the requested waiver for tho
engineering standard?
i:~
Ms. Adams explained she was concerned that there are no sidewalks or limited skJewaiks
proposed for the development She asked the applicant for his reasons for the waterer and added
perhaps he has some other proposals that woukJ provide bett.r pedestrian access Into the
ProJ~-
Mr. Agan!val stated this k a relatNely narrow lot, approximately 100 feet wkie. He explained the
property Is a flag lot with a 30-foot wkle access that brings them from Uncdn Blvd. to the
property. This proposed driveway is a 28-foot wide driveway whk:h basically Is not a private
street in their opinion it (s more of an access to the paridng area for the residents.
Page 5
11/2/92
2~'.,_ .
~ ~ ~ ;r ens ~ _ ~ Y`
w^ ~ ° ° 'iz
:, . . . ~ ,
~R1r .S,
He sreted 4 feet on both sides of a 20-foot wkle driveway is rrwre than wftiderd for pedesMar>s
Ito pet~,eately to' there homes. and properties. In order to provide an addkional 8 feet: far. the
{" ,,they would have to cut down at least half of the' unka and atYl be able to. meet afl of the
`" and.aM of the other reyukemerxe. The propeirty was ortgkreNyzoned for RM-120,0
~!~... _
they have elgnffic~ntly reduced the density that was origMapy pem~lted to order to comply
Yv~tli ¢~tfie ,FiM,~000 requirements. He explakied they were told they could use RM 2400
• rsq~Nukerienta, but they, found there was noway they could meet that in order to satisfy all of the
~-, other: Code requlrerrrerws. They worked very harcl to try and meet aN of the other requirements.
ti ' '., He added a 2t3-foot access an s 100-foot wkle lot is a Id to
glue away from the existing property.
1r ` Chalmtarr Hennkrger asked on the existing 28-focR wkJe street, wa~id k be possike *~ create
~; } s `~ something like a sktewalk on one skle, prahaps a textured pavemert that would be marked for
~; pedesularts.
~~~
'~~# Mt Aganival stated they could definitely provide a textured strip whk~t wW kidk~te a pedestrian
;:~'; 'walkway. That can eaewy be accommodated to have a 4-foot textured sMp on ekher skle of the
r ~ ~ , ~ : ifrlveinray.
x~ .; ~ Commlasianer Masse asked k k would be any better if k were 3-foot wkle on ekher skle of the
.street?
;.
s..,
Mr. Aparwal stated 3 or 4-foot would be flue. He added 3 feet is plenty wkfe and that would glue
them 22 feet for the pedesMans.
Commiseloner Bristd asked if he had any overhangs on the second floor that would go over the
street?
,~ Mr. Agan!val stated Trot on the street skis, oNy on the rear path skle.
Ma Adams asked for dariflcation if the appl~ant was going to provide a sidewalk coming from
Uncoln into the development?
Mr. Agarwal stated coming in from Uncdn to the property is part of a 30-foot wkJe strip wh~h
basically comas through a commercial shopplr-g center and other neighbors use that-they have
a right-of-way to drNe over, so to do anything there would not be aervkq the purpose because
they do have the easements to drh~e over that 30-foot strip.
Commissioner Masse stated children wpl be coming out of this development and walking to
. sehod. He asked how he was going to provide for some safety factor-something that shows k
might be a pedestrian walkway from the gate to Urrcoln Avenue?
Mr. Agannral stated they could provkle a strip approximately 3-foot wkis ~n9 all of the way out
to Uncdn Blvd. Indicating than is a walkway and pave k wkh a dflferent kind of material.
Commissioner Zernel stated then the neighbors from the east and west wiq be driving over that?
Mr. Agarwa! stated to the east and west are parking lots. It Is a large cornrnercial shopping center
with a couple of snnall shopping centers on each s!je.
Commissioner Zemel asked >f k was possible to have the sidewalk and have the neighbors
directed to crass in a particular area and then have that area marked or direct k to a lane?
;, ,: ® Page 6
11/2/92
-:;
yComnilea~Oner Zeiotel asked about the flag IOt.
~~ .
Ayervval stared the flag lot Is about 140 feet deep.
+rr~
{ ;~ Curnmissioner Zemel asked does the easerner>: that these other property owners have rights to,
~? ~~r",- cross the wrwre 140 feet or is k Just a portron or the 140 feet at some partrctAar location?
E a}VI
P ~~~, .. ~...
T~ '` Mr Agerwal; indk;ated they oould crass anywhere they ;rant to. He s~lained they do have a gato
„x ~ ;: `for purposes where the condomWtun compleuc Is going to start so the ch~dren would know
}2 F~ . they are going out onto the male street and to be careful.
,` Commissioner zernel asked for darifk:ation M this was the only access.
,~~~ ` _~~~` ~Mr Agarvvdi Indk;ated this was the only access they have to the property.
~r^Y
Ma Adams referenced the walkway leading out to tJrrcdn and stated they are requesting that k
be a mk>rmum of 4 feet wide.
Chaimiam Fierudnger asked kf they had a ske plan for this Commercial area so they could see how
me clrcuiatlon works?
Mr. Borrego stated they could get an aerial photo that would show the buAding layout
Mr. Yalds left to get the aerial photo.
Commissioner Zemel stated they have a very unique lot He e~ressed his concern regarding the
pedestrian traffic In relation to the chAdren. We asked if there was some way that the neighbors
would cooperate in directing traffic to a specified drive area to cross?
Mr Agarwai stated there Is a Commercial center to the west of them whose parking lot uses this
area for the cars to back out, so in order for them to give up thsl right, that would mean
efiminating that much pdrking.
Commissioner Tak asked k k was a parking easement or an access easement?
Mr. Agarwal stated k is an access easement and that allows them to back out their car for
whatever purpose they need the acx~s tor.
They continued to wak fG the aerial photo.
Chaim~an Henninger asked about some sort of walkway out to Lincoln.
Mr. AganMal stated that would be ftne with him; as long as the cars can have access to k and be
able to get across k, and as long as k does na cause any problems wkh easement rights for thek
neighbors, they wtu do whatever is requked.
:. .~ Page 7
11/2/92
„~~s
'~;:~;,
>~
~y4~
~ ~ ' ~ ~
,~ :. 4.4
n'p • •
~b~~'~
tMarn. Deputy, City Attorney, stated she took a look at the Title Report on this and k looks
dpi aro~ a, twirnber of eaeerrrsnts an the .property. and k , Is not completely deer. She
y ~° ~ 1there.is ~a 30-foot eeserr~er~. She stated k would probady be appropriate to take a look ~`
.e< ttre;esserrrerit agreerner~t in 2 of those krstances and then the third one just has the page
. x This Is just to make sure that the CarNnlssian is-not knpoetrrg a condkiors that la really
~~, ~ t0 the extstklg ea5enlerfl rights that have been granted On the property. Sf18
?she cari see k the sidewalk that is betrp proposed k not raised in arty way and does not
~ ~„intertere, wkh ks use as an axes drNeway, that, that might arguably be within the scope of most
~, sg' easernente that would be granted for krgress and egress. However, M there is a raised skiewaik,
9t E'! ~ 1a'ed then she can understand the r~rrcems that are being eogrressed by the
s kauit's
r ~~ ~ ~ aPPI ~•
~~~:~ . ~
~ r, 4 ' grairrrren Henninger stated the sidewalk requirements should be consistent wkh the easement
Commissioner Zen>ei stated a sklewalk with a curb would be preferable, and of course k must go
ak~ip wkh the easement.
k' Chairman Hennkper stated they could condkkxr k that way, i.e., that for a sklewalk wfth a raised
txsb.~ that is consistend wkh the easement rights. H not, then wkh whh some sort of texture at
. grade.
Cornmisskxrer Zerrrd stated N you do k that way, k would decrease the motivation of the applicant
to work wkh the neighbor to amend the easement. He again eomressed corrcem about not having
a curbed sidewalk for safely reasons. He would have to have chidren walk through the parking
lot and have cars back up because there was rro curb.
S Conxniasloner Bristd asked about the west skis?
Mk AganNal stated the west skis is the dairy and the east skis fs where the tie place is. The one
on the east side is ~e one they are concerned with. He explakred they are the ones whose
parking layout calls out for them to back kKo that area.
Commissioner Bristd asked what his gut feeling was with the owner on both sides, i.e., would
they do somettang Uke Commissioner Zemel suggested for the safety of the chidren?
f+ik Agarvval stated he would deflnftely try hard for 'mem to agree, but they do not have to. He
explained that puts him at thek mercy to do anything wkh the property IF he cannot do that. Witls
the safety of the r~dldren in mind, and also the beauty of the development in mind, k would be
h his beat Interest to try and convince them to allow him to put the skdewalk there. That wit
matte this piece of property useless because they would not be able to do anything with k
Cormriealoner Bristol stated, knowing what you know about the ekes on both steles, the traffic and
the turn-around. do you think what Commissionwr Zemel proposed could benefit both parties If
you could get the:n to agree?
I~ Aganival stated them could probably be some sort of benefit because k would separate the
twu property owners anal k wit make the site look better. It would also be a benefk for the
rrei~bors to have a tom Alex becauue there wit be more business--there is deflnkeiy a benefit W
them to see the eke ds~relop. He explained the motivation of the property owners may be
dkferere as opposed to the mootfvadon for the tenants who currently oxupy the property.
Page 8
11/2/92
5 a ni
~ fa .. ,
'~- s
Y.I..
- ,i•:1
... -,~
id`chldren walk on the stress where there !8 a striped vralkway provided, There Is also
creasing caning out d their property, so tfrarefcre, the csridren are aware they are going
xnrnerr~ai arse and know to be careful. They could provide pavkp on bosh skies d this
y ii`tlre side~welk on are skis does not work, they could provide peykp on both sides
Ihein an extra wamkp to be careful. He stated those are die optkxw avalable to them
added they do not have the option to raise it because thek easemer><s do not allow them
k ~ r
"~. , ~' Comriileelonar Tak stated he was conceme~d about dig something halfway. He explained you
~ s :might have d,~dren walking ors whkh" .,uld gwe them a false sense d secxuity that they aro safe
~, ~ ` trt~ tl>eC area. For exam~i. you could h nre a sbiped walk era, however, k might even be better
twit : to have nothing at all because when someone k exit(ng, they w~ need to watch out for traffic
` ; ' ~ ' rather than somethng cars regularly dfire over.
~>
Alfred Yalda explained tltet is true, l.e., peo'le usuafiy are more carcfi~l In r~.reas that there is no
Ilrie or arrythlrrg. He stated fl k is possible, on ane side they could provide 4 feet that would be
~'~E . atric;tly etrown as a City sidewalk, and then have the opeMng for the drveway. He added that
", . would be the best sdutkxr. He stated the t~h9dren rrra not
ti~ , . ,~ Y paY att9ntion and Just walk
rr -~~~°1°'7^1p1°•
.. ~.::.
Corrxrrlesbner Masse asked ~ he meant wkh the curb and Mr. Yalda stated Y possible.
Commissioner Zemel stated he would Tike the applicant to get that amendment to the easement.
Mr. Yaida stated they would work wPth him as far as the design of the parking spaces and/or how
the backup would be.
Commissioner Masse asked wf>are the trash p~k up would be for this development?
Mr. Agarvval stated Inside of the project
Commissioner Massa asked N there was a tum-around?
Mr Yalda explained that 1s why they have the 28-foot tum-around.
ACT10N: CEQA NegaWe Declaration -Approved
Variance No. 4204 - WIThIDkiAWN
Waiver'A' regarding Improvement d Private Streets -Approved
Tentative Tract Man No. 14733 -Approved
Add the following condition:
fiat prkx to Tract Map approves, a private avast plan be submitted to the
Subdivision Section and that these Improvements be complete prior to final
building and zoning Inspection. Said plan shall include a 3-foot wide stamped
concrete skJewslk on both sides deast/west driveway and a 4-foot wkle
' stamped concrete walkway (mined ff possible) on one side d the north/south
driveway.
Vf1TE: fi~0 (One vacant seat)
:® Page 9
11/2/92
~~~ ~~~
;~~ ~
N.
)',
~FC
-e ~,5tp4
~, ~ ~CEDA,NEGAiiVE DECLARA710N A
tom;:;;.
WAVER OF,CODE REOUIREIAENT APP~~
~~,~•;
z~~.; CONDITIONAL U3E PERMIT N0.96E9 Granted
:~y~` ~,
~~r` ` .OWNER: WOODBRIDGE VILLAGE, LTD., Attn: V.W. Tom Bode,
''~: ~ P.O. BOX 348, ANAHEIM, CA 92805
~'{'
~,
LOCATION: zo South Aruhs~m Boulevard. Property >s appro~dmately
~; s, 1.3 acxes la~ated at the southeaat comer d Lincoln Avenue
~ r and Anaheim Boulevard.
[~5
~Y
,~~~` To pemdt a semi~endosed restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption
4~ ., of alcohdk; beverages with waiver d minimum number d parkng spaces.
;~~t~ s ;',- CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC212-130
~F~
~~ r
~,~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
~ ,. CONSIDERED OFFIG'AL MINUTES.
t~ ..
There was no one ktdir~Ung their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff
report wau nr : ead, k is referred to and made a part d the minutes.
Tam Bode, Managing Genera( Partner d Woodbridge Viliaage, 50 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim,
' CA 92805. He stated he is here In connection wfth the request fcr a Condftkxral Use Perms for
a semi-enclosed restaurant with sale d alcolydk; beverages The space was previously used for
the same purpose.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF:J.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated for the record he walled to correct page 1 d staff report
under paragraph no. 2, the minimum number d parMng spaces should be 172 existing spaces as
opposed to 173. That number refers to the number d parking spaces whk:h do meet Code. He
explained there are an additkxrat 60 spaces on the property that are located on-site, however, he
believed 43 on-alts mat Code.
Chairman Henninger asked the Traffic Engineer iF the parking was adequate for this use?
Alfred YakJa, Traffk; Engineering, staged ax this point ~ k adequate, however, they would request
180 days after the opening d this site, that there be arwther parking study be done to determine
wfai. the real nae~Js are for this use.
Cfrairrrran Henninger stated he understands that they are leasing some property off-site and
Mr. Yalda indk:ated that was correct, appro~dmately 129.
Chairman Henninger asked ff the IrrteM was to adjust the amount that is leased off-sfte in the future
to Socommadate the real needs?
e Page 10
11/2/92
4y
~
i '
~
~~
s••i~
~..~ .~ S
~ Indksited that Mlae COrfACt, Ml case they'need t0 k~crease Or decrease k. Where hays
~ of changes takktg place In the last taw weeks VYktllrt that areH end they feel cortdOrtable
dayt aRer,theg are open. He eorplakted a lot of Cry olf>cea ha\re moved and, tlteretore,
~ more,parkkp'spatres avaflaWe on the first floor of that petkkrg stnx~txe then the second
e iuirther e~lalned that people do not tend to drove to the turd Aoor of the paridn~
and walk to the restaurant
n Henrwtger asked ff they should adjust the parking that they have now or did he want to
180 days?
~~ ~ ,
E ~ ~+ ~'` Mr Yslda stated he though they should leave k the way k Is.
~~
~; ~.. CFieim~an Henninger asked ff he was specifically changing his recommendation on paragraph 16,
~, ~ papa b of the staff report, the last sentence?
` ' Mr. Yalda stated that k correct. He stated they woukl delete that
L
~~' ~ "~`~
~ ~7~~, ; ' Commissioner Masse stated that paragraph really desk wkh the 83 spaces, that being what the
,~ ;,, preserd perking study shows.
:>,H.
_ Mr. Yalda stated they could take that paragraph completely off and add 'That 180 days after Uva
opening of the restaurant a parkng study shall be done to deterrntne the actual need of the parking
for the ske.' He stated there woukf be another reataurent and they may canplimertt each other
and there may be more people coming krto the aka, so there is a possib8ky of an Increase In the
parking demand.
Mr. Bode stated the Redevelopment Agency evidently contmiasloned a study by Barton-Ashman
A8s<ivletea for the parking requirement and in their shared parMng analysis they kidk~te that the
peak requirement is 143 spaces. The combinatbn of their on-ske parking and the lea;~e space in
the Center Street parking structure totals appn~ximately 190 spaces so they feel ~rontkfent that they
have more parking then what is required. They are agreeable to having a parking study lane in
6 months to determine If that is sWl the case.
ACTION CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE
® Page 11
11/2/92
~_.~~
~~;
r S'
s~ ~~s
.~,~+~'-
i~ _ .:
f
` Walver~'of Code Renulrerneot ApprfNed: ,
F'~. ;. ;.
r.. ~ . , MWrrwin' No`d parking spaces should be 172 as opposed to 173.
~.~
T x Coed &Itkxisl Use Pennlt No.~ - G18tlted
~~T ' 'i`Add`the fdlowkq condition:
x ~~ T~h~enl~i~8~0~,1days after the opening d the restaurant, a new parking study shah be
r K, conducted t0 deteRnklB the actual needs d the perking for the site.
Nde: Delete test sentence d paragraph 16, papa 5 d the staff report wh~h reads as
''~:.
~ fogows:
:~ ~~~,
~' j. 'rhe City TratBc Engineer's Otflce has reviewed said study and has indk~ted the
', eoa>agng perking is adequate and that the existing lease may be reduced to 83 spaces
with the adjacent parMng stnxxure.'
~~~, ,.
_>,~~ ,,:~; Y9g: t3~o (One vacant seat)
i
i
1
i~
Page 12
11/2/92
1
a•~ y
`,[[ ~~
~ ,CENEGATIVE'DECLARATION Cortkuied to`
"a' ~VApI~NCE=N01202' Decertiber'2,1992
,'~ ; OWNERc RICHARD HELD, 284 North Sakair Avenue, Los Angeles, CA
s 90049
~ / LOCATION: 64Q•ti4a Soulh' Roar 8freat Property Is apprwdmetely ,56 acre
~' ` - ~' located on the east side of Rose Street and appraodmately 180
~ feet north of the centerline of Water Street.
,;~~
~' WaNef. of mkrirrrum landscape requkemerrts and minimum number of required
~ ~•~ ;~~,' perking spec;es to perrnk the cornrerston of a 4-unk, 14,000 square foot
*~~r~°"~,a;~ Irrdustrtel buNd to a 4-unk Industrial condomWum ex.
~~~ ~
,'
r ~ VARIANCE RESOLlDTiON N0. -
r
a
,~... -, _
r 1~+,~,.~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
.-~„~ ~" CONSIDERED OFFlCIAL MINUTES.
,~~~,~
{:-
` ~,Qb: SubJect petkion was continued to the December 2,1992 Flanning Commission meeting
~: ~ ~ ;: , . h order for the petkloner to request an addkkxtei waiver pertaining to refuse storage requirements.
s~
~,•.,.4 ,
~.:, ':
Page 13
11 /2/~
:Z%~ 4 ^R.
i~`OWNER: WILSHIRE-SELBY EAST, LTD., Attn: Ar1c Browne. 11440 San
~;? ,; Vka~rte Boulevard, Ste. 200, Los Angeles, CA 90049
LOCATION: 222 North Bsarh Boulevard. Property k apprcodmately 0.56
acre locreted on the east side d Beach Boulevard and
epprcodrtretely 770 feet north d the crerrterline d Uradn Avenue.
To permit an automotive service and tke tnatagatlon facgky.
4 ~~ri
i ~~~
;r
4$
i
/. 't.,i
Granted
1 ~ ~ , - `
$s CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC92-131
4 ;
z~,t`
;;°~:~ ': - FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY Of THE P'~iUVNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
a _ CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
aka .
~4 ' `
There was ra one Mdkreting their presence in opposkion to subJed request and akhough the staff
~~ report was not read, k Is referred to and made a part d the minutes.
;,. :Ton: Davis, archkect for the proJed. He stated they do concur wkh the staff report except for the
-; fegcest that they move the overhead door to the rear d the bugdfrrg. He referenced a letter from
Wkreton and indkreted that they stated that the stnu;ture just does rat lend kself to putting these
avertread doors to the rear d the bugding. All d the utgkies, I.e., the bathroom, electrical,
medrankrel, etc. are all along the rear waA d this bugding; this is a concrete tqt up bugding and
.the front wall is store irord. It is impractksl and econornk;ally rat feasible to cut big hdes in the
rear d this bugding.
TAY ~99~ larrdscreping in the front along the street 20 ageviate any problems that the staff might
have. If the doors are placed at the rear d the bugding, chancres are the protect wqi be dropped
because k Is Just too Impracticrel to do q:
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Plar-ner, stated k has been the City's pd~y not to approve and to
discourage this type d skuation where there is automotive repair occurring in pubilc view and h
ie for this reason that they recommend that the bugding be redesigned in order to accommodate
aA d the vehkxdar traffic off d the rear d the bugding. This Sias done with the adJacrent tenant
which is a stereo shop.
ff the Planning Commission d(d approve the request as k was proposed, they would request that
the landscaping wkhin the front setback area be upgraded and that there be some compromise
skae they would be afforded the visibgky d having the bays opening up onto Beach Blvd. He
asked for a compromise on the existing freestanding sign on the property wh~tr does not conform
to the Plannirp Commission's pd~y.
Chaimnan Henninger asked M signage Is ever placed on the interior d the bugding that can be seen
i room the street?
_~
I
Page 14
11/2/92
}
~'rl 7A . ~ ,..
~ e~
Ihdk~ed, thatahey do and,ahat:was the redeon.they added cotrdltlon no 4 which
I< any type of advaAleMtg being dlaplayed wlthNt the bays whkh would be v~ible from
Syr
~ ..
rniesluner Meese asked the applicant if there were arty plOblerrl8 WNh ddptratkrg to condRton
_i,
Iavle krdlcated there Wd~d ba fl0 problem. He stated ae far ee elterktg the eXIBNfIg monument
;Ile thought Wfrreton would tie happy to do someRldng, although he was rat sure as to how
i control they have over that.
t~ ..; . Corrunissbner Masse stated the buYding Ia being shared with another tenant and Mr. Davis
~, r ~ answered that was correct.
~~~ .,,
~:~ ; . ° Commiealoner Masse asked for daritir;ation Y that tenarrt Would be on the existing pde sign rud
`~' Mr. Davh Stated he believed so.
~.
a Chaim~an Hennkger asked what he had in mind regarding the dense larxiscapir>d!
x~ .~,
~~ Mr. Davie referenced the eke plan and stated the front of the iwpding is approximately 60 to 70 feet
'~~y away from the crrt and this ~ ~ ~ skuation where the doors are right up on the sidewalk. There
,:;~, . ~ a Iarrder;apirp strip in front of the parMng and they woukf work With staff to come up with some
'~}': type of landscaped plan that could address their conc~tna.
-:~h'
Commissioner Masse pointed out that the landscaped strip on the south side of the buRding
narrows down drestk;alry.
Mr. Davis stated they are stuck wkh k.
Chairman Henninger and Commissioner Mesas concurred that they would plant some heavy crown
trees and Mr. Davis also suggested some high shrubs.
Commissioner Zemel asked for dariflcation as to how Mr. Davis felt about the sign?
Mr. Davis stated he thought VVlnstorr would be happy to reduce the sign size, eta, but he does not
know how much cantrd they have over that because they are not the properly owner.
Mr. Borrego stated >t has been the Planning Commission's pdky to Iimit the sign to a monument
sign rat exceeding 8 fast in height.
Chairman Henninger darNied h is rat a matter of pd~y, k le a matter of Code.
Mr. Borrego stated he was rat sure about the existing planter, f.e., h does narrow down
slgniNr:antiy.
Some discussion took place that the other tenant (the stereo shop) is going on the sign.
Commissbner Meese stated he woukJ Tike to see the new landscape plan in the form of a Reports
and Recommendation.
tr ~,
,..
rc\
~:; ,,k
f,
Page 15
11/2/92
~ t -
;f =
~ L
~LR`NJ°1ciOlllp a~ he AYY1/ llke t0 see 1fIB eign,k>M-ered~.the ~tetlark may f1aV8 t0;
t
h
t
` ~
but the should be per
of R.
ff t
ey are polrq
o ccriw bad%
k andmaybe they wN have ,~
,
~,
the.oNart~ead door to lace Beach Bwd. than approrlrq then has to co>trdde wRh IowerMp
,a a trade ofi
• ..
~y:'
w.
~: CEOA Negath+e Dscteratlon -Approved
- CondRionel Uee PermR Na 3559 -Granted
`~
vf~~.
,~ { 1. Freestanding pde sbn to be reduced to a monument sign
} ~ not to exceed 8 feet In height; and
"
2. Bring .bads Landscape plan and sign plan as a Report and
'.
Rec~mrnendatlon Rem.
~~
~~
-
~.~~
Mr eorrego stated they could bring back a sign plan and a landscape plan concurrently as a
ti~,
~
~:.
r ;Report and Rel~anmendadon Remand then at that point they can deterrNne whether or nat what
wRh the sign is appropriate based on any negotiations that they have had wRh the
~~~
~
~
_
r ter>ant.
a
~ !L ~ % ,.
f~akman Hennkrger stated tf they fled that they cannot redesign the sign, he does nat want to get
4 ; ~ irtto:a akudion where they have to readverdse for a publk: hearing. He asked staff to wrRe the
cxsldRbn In that manner.
'
ACTION CONTINUED:
3. Dkeded staff to wrRe a condRion R sign cannot be redesigned, that they
do not readvertise for a publk: hearing.
t)
VOTE
t
t3-0 (On
:
e vacan
sea
Page 16
11/2/92
t
IQN1L t13E PEAti11T t~10.316ti P13ee wed
'' , rS,,3iRt t~ ~
I; QWNER: THE VANDERBILT GROUP,. 27M01 Los Altos, Sfe. ~QO, Missbn
~y,~ ~. Viejo, CAA 92®81
Y:.4~ '.
?.., AGENT: STEVEN DUNBAR, D.V.M., 8285 Sancta Ana Canyon Rosd,
a `~ Anaheim, CA 92808
,~
EJ .Q.•i, _
Property Is apprwdmately
LOCATION:
1.96 acres kx~ted at the northwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Weir Canyon Road.
. I. To pem~t a 2300-square foot socpanslon to an eodsting animal hospital to
krdude a kennel facYity.
I CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO PC92-132 I
~„s~
h,,,,y, .,,~f
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
OONSIDERED OFFlCIAL MINUTES.
There was no one Indk~Wrg their presence in opposition to subject request and althr.;~gh the staff
sport was not read, k is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Steve Dunbar, Veterkrarfen, 5125 Avenida De Amor,Yorba Linda, CA. He stated he read the staff
report and he agrees with all of the conditions of approval.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
There wcs no further discussion from staff.
gq~Q~J: CEQA NegatNe Dedaratlon (Prey. Approved) -Approved
Condttkx~al Use Permit No. 3166 (Readvertised) -Approved
(This k a permitted use M the area)
yQIla: 6-0 (One varmint seat)
Page 17
,, 11/2/92
~~~ ~ -;
er `.
i'AND RECOAAMENDA71ON3
i .....
'~
. ~ ~ • ~
j
r.
S,9y
.. .. -.~
THE BROADWAY-MANCHESTER CoriUnued to
November 16, 1992
CoitttrNred from the Octotrer 19, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
~~,~,'
~~~ r .
L ~ ,
~~rr7 i
'Y~
.,,* 'k
~~~
S
Y
I
~I.
t~s , ~ `.
B.
p(TENSION OF TIME: Peter Hahm requests Planning Commission
IrKiterpretation regarding subordination requirement and further requests
180-day retroadfve extension of time for Conditional Use Permft No. 3476
(to pem~lt motorcyde sales In conJurxxion v~th a motorcyde repair
facNfty). Property is located at 818 E. Bali Road.
Commissioner Taft dedanYJ a confl(ct of interest.
Commissioner Masse stated due to tn91r InabUfty to obraln the
subordinated document, they should pad this off for more then 90 days N
possft~le and ft might dear itself up.
Chairman Henninger asked if they shoed extend this for 1-year and
Commissioner Meese agreed.
Commissioner Meese darifled that on the first part of the
recommendation, they wAl approve a 180 day extension to comply vvfth
the conditions of approval and on the second part, the subordinated
requirement, condftion no. 10, they wpl give an addftional one-year In
order to get that streightened out.
gt~,Q(~: Approved a 180•day extension for CUP 3476 (to expire
1/13/93) and a one-year time extensbn for Conditbn No. 10;
subordination requirements to expire 11 /2/93.
Approved a 180-day
extension for CUP
3476 t0 expire
1/13/93 and aone-
year tkne extension
for CondfUan No.
10; Subordir~atlon
requtremer>is to
expire 11 /2/93.
Page 18
11/2/92
4 ~ t
}+r ~ .
~~QQ _*S
7
~~
C~iCONDt110NAL"USE PERMIT NO $489 - REt]UEST.FOR`DRENSION OF
TiME:~+O COMPLY WITH'CONDITION3 OF APPROVAL .Howard LBO to eocpire 11/18/93
~,~,'' requ~,~t a om;year Y.me:eodei~Jlon.for Conditlond.Use Permlt Na 3!t69 Ro
° pern>It
~
e d~hrs-through Iene addkion to an:eodstkp is~t food restewrant) to
{
;
,, ' expke' Nriverrrber 18,19®0. Property IB located et 2144 S. Harbor BIMd.
HY -
i
,~~ _
~)
~x''
~~
;ash ~
~ •; D: RECLASSIFlCATION N0.91-92.05 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. Approved
~~
?
;~~.;;`. - ~ To expire 9/23/93
~
;;:.
r
,~
~~~L;
,
•
t
~4 ' WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL• Mark Bauch requests a o~'~e-year
'
r r9troactNe extenelOn Of time t0 comply Wkh Condk10r1a Of approval for
RedassiBCaUon No. 91-92-05 aril Conditkxral Use Pernik Na. 3458 (to permft
a 10~unk deck type condomWum complex) to expke on
.; `~`f .' September 23,1990. Property Is located at 2886 W. Lkrcoln Avenue.
r.,x~
~ f,
,; ~~;~
_ ;',~~
r~
L.J
Page 19
11/2/92
1 h p N .t W 'lf'a
l BCc~S ;'j~ ~ • ~.i
~+ i
r ~ .ter .,
.. n.. ..
'FCONDRIONAI USE PERMR'NO.3430 - R QUEST FOR RETROACTIVE Approved 90<!ay ..
~'~Q~ ON OF TIME TO'COMPLY tMTH'CONDTTIONS OF'APPROVAL tkne sderralon to
Uf ;,iflLrLa1L '{
RobattSdh.regt~sts a.90~day time e~det~efon ol.tkne.to comply wkh expine:2J1%93
°' . ~ Xconditkxa~ of approval for Condltlor~al Uae Perrnk No. 3430 (to permk an
'Y vehk~e repetr today to eog9re on July 15,19®3. Property !e
kxxted at 323 E l3eN Road.
~:a;,_~>
+' C.ommiesioner Mesas asked for darificatlon regarding the date.
;~3 ~ Mr. Borrego stated apparently there was a dispute between the person who
:"~ _ .. k. leasing the property and the property owner whk;h resulted In that
`;= _; ~~ c~ndalon not being complied wah. He added that is the correct date in the
stefr report The krdk~tlons they have now k that they are going to try and
~. .
~`_ work to got that condaion completed (Condalon No. 7).
.a;
Commisskxrer Meese stated the letter Indicates they are worMng wah the
City to get a variance from that corrdalon.
Mr. Borrego stated they were going to try to negotiate something in order to
get the condalon waned, however, he dkl not think they have heard anything
forrnaNy froth them.
Commisaloner Masse stated this request, N approved, woukJ take them to
February, 1993.
Mr. Borrego explained they woukl have to do the sklewalk wahtn that time
frame and Y they wanted to waive that, they would have to bring a b^~c as a
publk: hearing hem to seek weber of that ~xxrdafon.
,g~JjQ~: Approved 90-day time extension, in orcler to comply wah
coredakxrs of approval (to expire 2/1 /93).
Page 20
11/2/92
~ ~f ;
' M r~ ~; u~
i~~74J f~ ~~'
~ ~~ ~
• ..
.
~ Y
t
NAL: USE PERMIT N0.3526'= REQUEST FOR PlANNINd' Coeakrued to ~ ~.,
,
' ~;
ION
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING November 16, 1992
N McQuaid requests Plarrrrtpg Comrntselon review and approval d
Isndecapkig plen;for Condttkxrel Use Perrnk No. 3526. Property k -
233 Qulraa<ra Road.
~~ ~ CheMtnen,Flerrnkrger asked what corr>ttxrr>kations h9ve they had from the
>~~~0 icy owners?
r:-'' ' step Hastirps, Zoning Division Manager, stated he thought someone wa8
suppose to be here from Mr. McQuaki's office. Apparently Mr. McQuakf is
out. d town. One d the staff did Hotly one d the penwns who is
krunediateiy adjace,~t to the property and they indk~ded they could not make
k down here today, however. k was their understanding in the meeting that
Mr. Md]ueid had with the property owners that au property owners were
epreeeble to the plan that was preserded.
Chakman Henninger suggested that they continue this and contact some d
;. the people who were here at the public hearing and Independently verify
thek understanding on this.
Cor2lnued to November 16, 1992
G. ,~IOPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF ROOF-
MOUNTED EQUIPMENT/ANTENNAS AND GROUND-MOUNTI?D ANTENNAE
IN COMMERdAL ZONES.
Chalmran Henninger stated he had a concern over rod-mounted equipment
requirements being different from the ground mourned equipment
requirements in terms d their visibYity not being related to a line-of-sight.
Greg Hastkrgs, Zoning Division Manager, stated this wNl come bads as an
ordinance. He stated under the first section regarding rod-mounted
rrrectranical equipment, a would be required that the equipment not be vlsll~le
from arty publk: street or any publk: or private property at the Ilne-of-sight 6
feet above the ground level measured at ti>e property Ilne which would be
consiaterR with the ground mounted.
ACTION: The City Attorney's Office was directed to drag an ordinance;
Zoning Division to present draft ordinance to the Commission for
recommendation to City Counce.
City Attorney's
Office was directed
to draft an
ordinance
., •
~*~ -;
-r~fi~7
j~ ~t1~4~s y. ~~... _...
Page 21
11/2/92
5 .y
i ~~ 3 jr
~'
' ~ ;,
-J
• ~ ., t ~,
,~y~
~ ^~ CONDITIONPERTAININGTOREOUIREDACCESSF.ASEMENT3: KaiserFlospitalrequea<s
~~~ .~PbnrrNq;Comrr~esion tnterpretetion d txxrdltlon Pq to required access easements
r ~ , far Variance Na 4113 (waiver d mk>imum number d parking spaces, ma~dmum strtrcturel
~~~ Freight and riltnknrrrn requiredsetback adjakxrnt to aresidentialzone to constnxt a 5-story,
'~~ 140,000 equate fod medk~ll/mufti-spek~- bu6ding wkh 2 levels d subterranean parking
V ,- ~Y`° and a detached 5devel parsing structure). Property is located at 3050 W. Orange Avenue.
.Selma Mann, fyeputy Cky Attorney, asked iF anyone was present from Kaiser? No one was
„ preaerd.
~~
T
:c F,,
,•
t~,
~s~'
She stated the conditions d approval for Variance No. 4113 on the Kaiser hospital
ccnsauctbn Included a requirement that an easerent be in place as approved by the
Traffic Engk-eer and the City Attorney's Office for tt~e driveway on the eastern portion d
the property; the southerly portion d the property where the parMng structure k to be
constructed, there is en existing easement and h Is unsubordinated. She referenced the
exhibk and stated and that Is between Parcels q B and C.
She explained there is a remote possib0lty that since Parcel C has merged with Parcel D
for the carretrukxlar d the Kaiser facBity, that there might be an argument down the Ilne
that it Ia beyond the scope d the original grant d easement that It burdens the properties
to the east to a greater extent then what was originally contemple^ed.
After review by the City Attorney's Office, the City Attorney's Office Is recommerxlkng
approval or acceptance d the easenrent that was presented; a appears that there ere
mutual benefits to both sides for txxrttnukng the existing easement and in addition to some
further benefits, that Parcel B and Parcel A receive from crossing the Kaiser property &t
the northerly portlons d Parcel B. In any event, this is purety an infonnatbnal hem. The
Traffic Engineer has indicated that even if, in a worse lose scenario, that easement were
to disappear, that the existing 22-foot slake on the Kaiser property itself between the
stnidure and the property Iine would issue sufficient room for a feasible driveway.
In addition, the Kaiser reprasentaWes ind~ated that the primary access to the parking
structure is an the northwest portion d Parcel C on the exhibit that they have. That
access could also be expanded with modifk:atlon d the ckculation in the event ft needed
to be.
Under these t:kcumstant:es, the City Attorney's Office is recommendkng approval and is
ready to approve the easement. h was brought to the Planning Commission for
Irrfom~atkon to determkne ff the Planning Commission has any very strong feelings in
opposklon to accepting the easement.
There were no of~Jectbns from the Planning Commission.
Page 22
11/2/92
.~
` t1
;•"~1
x ~ '.ors `~ 7T 1T. ~~~..~,:-•
~-~ ~F~ ,r
~dTHER.OtS~t7lJ3Si rN;: `;
~~~s~~!~
~~ <z ll~ ~~;~,,f3or!'!Do shad tlwre, was ,a Plaming CAmmissfon ;Work 3esebn scheduled far
~ , Ido~rerrrber 9.1992. CormNxrNy Drweloprnent Is lirfereeted in dlscuasMig a pdiyy
~ ~..condomMrMim "oonverelon since they hav%3 condonik~Nxn canvwsbt~s that wfM be conYrp
up h 4hs~rwv: future:.. Fla asked, ifs they. defer the Work Session from Nowerrrber 9,196¢
~' to Novertd~er~23;1962 h ordector aN of the staff niertibers to be.present.
~ ~.
4 ` h was determkred that the neod Work Session beheld on Mcr>day, November 23,1992 at
~: 3:tlop.m.
The Plamkp Commission meeting adJoumed at 2:36p.m. to the regularly scheduled
Commission meeNnp of November 16, 1992.
~~
,~1~
~r
i ~
i~
i
.~
Page 23
11 /2/92
r
~;
~~
~3