Minutes-PC 1993/01/11~.
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1993, AT 11:00 A.M.
PRELIMINARY Pi.AN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT
COMMISSIONERS ASSENT: NONE
(N'/0 VACANCIES)
STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hastings, Malcdm Slaughter, Nataile Lockman, Allied
Ysida, Jonathan Borrego, Greg McCafferty, Brucs Freeman,
Margarita Sdorlo, EdRh Harris
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 'The proponents (n applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
evidence. Addftlonal time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commission,
such additional time will prxluce evidence important to the Commission's conskleration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be gNen ten minutes to
present their case unless additlonai 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 evkJence deemed receNed by the Commission in each hearing.
Copies are avaiiable to the public prior to the meeting.
4. Tho Commission wil! withhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any
hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary
evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for
public inspedlons.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of tho public will be allowed to speak on hems
of Interest which are within 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 ffll out the forms available in the rear of the Council Chamber and submft them
to staff prior to the meeting.
`~/ ac011193.wp
ia. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Granted
1 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3571 Granted
OWNER: CITY OF ANAhiEIM, Attn: Jack Kudre~, P.O. Box 3222,
Anaheim, CA 92803
AGENT: ROBERT BALLMAIER, P.O. Box 19707, Irvine, CA 92713-9707
LOCATION: 1527 East Broadway. Property is approximately 0.08 acre
located approximately 520 feet north of the centerllna of
Broadway (a portion of Lincdn Park).
To permit a 75-foot high cellular telephone tower and unmanned equipment
building with waNer of required setback abutting a residential zone.
Continued from the December 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. P 1
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 2 people present
George Tokar, 532 N Janss Way, (Retired Chief Engiraer,Channel 9 Television)
William Boyer, 1603 E. Elm Street
OPPOSITION CONCERNS:
1 locatlc~ shown in the notice of 12-11-92 hearing was Incorrect because the notice
posted had nothing to do with this request and that notice indicated the sfte was
1100 feet north of Broadway and this staff report says 500 feet;
2 appears to be right on property line of Parkview Convalescent Hospital and there is
concern that radio ftequency fields could endanger patients with pacemakers at the
hospital (plus, the Hospital Administrator dkf not know about this headng); (it was
noted the proposed she Is actually on the west side of the park, about 280 feet away
from the hospftal which Is on the east skfe); opposftion continued that the signal
strength 250300 feet from their transm!tter could still affect a pacemaker;
3 massNe antenna structure which acts as reflector could affect television reception;
4 with directional antenna, this sfte could be placed on one of the buildings downtown;
5 strobe lights would be glaring all night;
6 noise from emergency generator,
7 magnet for graffith,
8 Impact on quality of Iffe In reskiential neighborhood;
9 suggested sfte at Lincdn and East;
1-11-93
Page 2
-- 10 safety (particularly the Pdice Department helicopter flight path),
11 applicant should have an agreement guaranteeing to set aside funds to maintain this
ske in perpetuky at no expense to the taxpayer,
12 mature landscaping should be planted to mkigate ks impact.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Presented maps of the ares and explained they worked wkh the Parks Department
and are willing to take this property over, maintain k, and provkle securky lighting as
required by the Parks Department
that they currently have s!x cell skes and they need more cells in order to provkfe
adequate coverage;
explained the ske selection crkeria (distance between cell skes, traffic, etc) ;
that they analyzed the Irxfustrial area to the south but that would not provkle adequate
coverage wkh antenna at 60 feet high and at 100 feet high, k covers too much area
and causes problems wkh reuse and k Is not wkhin their grid area;
that there are tderances wkh every design and they have to accommodate the search
ring;
pointed out the optimum location for this ske would be near Lincdn and East Streets;
that traffic flow is crltical and Uncoln is one of the heaviest traveled;
the proposed tower would bo 60 feet high;
no strobe Ifghts proposed,
securky lighting as requested by the Parks Department;
have not had any problems wkh effect on pacemakers, television or radio reception;
and that they are regulated and will take care of any frequency Issues
analyzed two 30-foot high towers, but they would not provkle necessary coverage;
antenna Is 10 feet above existing trees and they notffy the FAA and dkl not think
safety for PD helicopter is an Issue,
will take care of graffki and put In landscaping;
that they will use permanent power and will not utilize a generator
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
- Peraza - Concerned about antenna in a reskJentlal neighborhood that is going
downhill and noted the applicant Indicated tower to be 60 feet high, but staff report
says 75 feet high (applicant explained pde Is adjustable (30 ft. wkh two 15-foot
extensions) and as the network grows, they could remove height, but Omni antennas
go up to 75 feet);
- Messe concerned about Impact of antenna on the resklential area and thought k
might best be locatxt In the industrial area to the south;
- the City Is currently spending thousands of ddlars to put utilftles underground
- questioned ff directional towers could be ad)usted to compensate for the 'overkill'; and
- asked ff they would still say they have to have an antenna in a particular location ff k
was determined that optimum location was right in the mkldle of a resklential area,
pointing out he was anticipating future requests
- suggested ff they located k in the industrial area, they might have to move other cell
skes
- ff ske was in industrial area, the areas not covered were primarily in resklential areas
and cellular phones are not used In reskfentlal areas;
1-11.93
Page 3
~~
^ - Taft -Questioned why the location at East & Lincdn was not selected
- felt even though this is unsightly, having areas not covered would cause public safety
concerns.
- Henninger -Asked the range of the search ring (noted 1 /8 mile);
- clariflfled the area not covered H she was located In indu:drial area (Sunkist near La
Palma, and North and Anaheim Blvd.);
- felt the sftes should be In the ideal location;
- that this proposed she is probably the best at this time.
- suggested condftions requiring four 24" box trees and no on-sfte emergency
generator, and that graffftl would be removed wfthin 24 hours in accordance wfth Clty
requirements
- Boydstun -Make sure agreement wfth Parks Department covers maintenance at
developer's expense,
- asked for addftional landscaping and trees to help screen the she;
STAFF COMMENTS:
- Pla~,ning -Explained notice showed proper location and the posted notice referenced
was probably for some othzr public hearing; notices were mailed to owners 300 feet
from the park boundary which is beyond the 300 feet required normally and tenants of
the apartment building were also notMied;
- explained waNer is necessary based on the height of the tower;
- security lighting to be installed on the building, rather than the tower
ACTION: Approved NegatNe Dedaratlon
Granted waNer of required setback shutting a resklential zone on the basis
of the size & shape of the property and height of the proposed tower.
Granted Conditional Uso Permft No. 3571 ,subject to the fdlowing
addftional condftions:
a. no emergency on-sfte generator permitted
b. landscaping plan to be approved by Planning Commission (reports &
recommendatlans) which shall Include four mature 24' box trees, and
security lighting to be installed on building, rather than. tower
c. Incorporate anti-gr2Hltl measures and any graffiti shall be removed
wfthin 24 hours in compliance wfth City requirements.
VOTE: (3-2)
AYES: Boydstun, Henninger, Taft
NOES: Messy & Peraza
2 vacancies
1-11-93
Page 4
,~
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Previously Approved) Granted
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3573 (ReadveRlsed) Granted
OWNER: ALVIN LEON WHIPPLE, 13556 Edgefleld, Cerritos, CA 90701
AGENT: TIM BUNDY, 20331 Irvine Avenue, #7, Santa Ana, CA 92707
LOCATION: 201 East Ball Road. Property Is approximately 0.37 acre
located at the northeast comer of Ball Road and Claudine
Place.
To permft 2,070 square-foot car wash facility wfth waiver of minimum
landscape setback and minimum structural setback.
Continued from the December 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ,PC93-02
------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: NONE
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Regarding Condition No. 3 requested that they not be required to submft parking and
landscape plans until the street is improved.
(It was noted Condition No 3 can be eliminated because they dkl submft revised
plans.)
Condition No. 5 (no automobile detailing permitted on site) and explained the owner
d:>es not Intend to provkie detailing but might find in the future detailing is something
the customers require.
(Staff explained the City's experience has been that auto detailing is an unsightly
actNfty and the parking on the sfte is at maximum and detailing would be over-
intensiflcatlon of the property, but that the applicant could come back later and
request that modification.)
Condition No. 4 -regarding the monument sign and asked if they would be gNen
credft for removing the pde sign.
(Engineering staff explained when Ball Road is wklened to fts ultimate wklth, the
sign would be relocated and the City would offer money to the applicant for that
relocation.)
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Condftlon No. 2 should read "handicapped access ramp'
1-11-9.9
Page 5
,~
STAFF COMMENTS: Planning - Condftion No. 8 can be eliminated
ACTION: Approved Negative Dedaratlon
Granted waiver of minimum structural setback
Granted Conditional Use PermR No. 3573, subject to deletion
of Condftion Nos. 3 and 8 and modification to Condition No. 2
to read 'handicapped access ramp'
VOTE: (5-0)
2 vacancies
1-11-93
Page 6
t~
3a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2-8-93
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3538
OWNER: EUCLID STREET BAPTIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM AND BR"AN
CROW & EVANGEIJSTIC ASSOCIATES, Attn: Rev. Bryan L Crow,
8712 E. Santa Ana Canyon, Anaheim, CA 92El08
LOCATION: 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is
approximately 3.3 acres located on the south skle of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and approximately 5,460 feet east of the
centerline of Riverview Drive.
To permit the phased development of a 100,000 square foot church facility
including a 2,000 seat sanctuary, bible study classrooms, nursery,
gymnasium, amphkheater and botanical gardens with waiver of permrited
number and size of freestanding klentiBcation signs.
Continued from the November 2, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
------------------------------------------------------------
Continued to meeting of 2.8.93 - Petitioner to concurrently process a parcel map -
Surrounding property owners to be renotiFled of meeting date..
1-11-93
Page 7
,~
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Granted
4c. ['ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3568 Granted
OWNER: THRIFTY OIL CO., 10000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, CA
90240
AGENT: BILL BADI GAMMON, 3101 E. La Palma Ave., #B-1, Anaheim, CA
92806
LOCATION: 3107 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.7
acre located at the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and
Kraemer Boulevard.
To retain an automobile repair facility in conJunction wfth an existing gasoline
sales faciltty with waiver of minimum landscaping abutting interior property
line and required improvement of parking areas.
Continued from the December 2, 1992 Planning Commission mr9ting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC 93-03
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
- The operator of the mechanical repair facility explained an dd car referred to at the
last meeting was not on their property and that the trash and toxic waste material has
been remo~~ed ftom tine property;
- The owner stated the tenant is operating a mechanical repair faci!tty in the tube bay
and that they operate the gasoine sales faciltty and m(ncr mini-mart and are provkling
a service to the community; that they acquired the property in December 1981 atxf
there was a mechanical repair tenant on the site from 1982 to 1989, so they feel the
precedent for having two operations on a single property has been set;
- that Condttlon No. 4 requires payment of a traffic signal assessment tee and asked the
amount of that tee;
- Condtticr. No. 5 requires closing drNeways and No. 8 requires dedication of 12 feet of
frontage on both skies of the ixoperty and complying wfth those two condttlons would
negatively Impact the viability of the gas station and they could not agree to those
conditions;
- Condftlon No. 6 refers to the parking standards and he thought the facility was in
confomwnce;
1-11-93
Page 8
'r~
- Condrilon No. 7 gods along wkh No. 8;
- that the mechanical repair facllriy is Headed and the operator is a good tenant.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Henninger - Asked k Thrfty Oil would be allowed to hire a mechanic as an employee
and operate a mechanical repair business on this she in ks present configu;atlon
(Planning staff responded that would be allowed).
Asked about the nexus bebveen these condrilons and the fact that this actN'riy would
be allowed as a matter of right k the owner hired their own mechanic;
that the reason for a CUP wrih the sub-lease skuation is to prevent the Code
Enforcement problems curcently being experienced on this she.
concerned about the way this business has been operating in the past which Is really
unacceptable and he would like to see that corcected.
(the owner explained curcently the island on La Palma is 17 feet from the
property line and wkh the 12-foot dedication, there is no room between the curb
and drhreway to get in and out; and that on Kraemer, tho island Is 12'6" from the
property line and the 12-foot dedication will put the Island wrihin 6 Inches of the
new property line and there is noway to continue operating on this property).
Asked about repair of vehides outskle;
(owner responded he would address that Issue wkh the operator)
Masse -asked who is responsible for the Code Enforcement problems and
compliance ;
(the owner stated he is responsible for management of the property and the
Operations Section is responsible for the operation of the gasdine station, and
that he is responsible for the tenant's behavior on their property; that the banners
are probably signs their operations people have put up which he was not aware
of;
that regarding the hazard waste, there is an ongoing irnestigation on the property
for contamination and as a result of the drilling, soma hazardous waste is stored
in the 55 gallon drums, but they are removed and the only other hazandous
material would be the used oil, and that operator has an agreement for removal
of that ofl periodically.)
Concerned about driveway dosest to intersection on Kraemer and asked k Traffic
Engineer would agree to only dosing that one
Traffic Engineering -that would be acceptable and that intersection has been
approved for crkical !ntersection Improvements, sr. 'here would be a median
island and no lek turns would be pennkted
STAFF COMMENTS:
C,xle Enforcement - visrieri the property today (12:30 p.m.) and noted the trash
ern~losure area has been gleaned up and Is no longer being used for storage; vehicles
are still being repaired outskie the building; there are two advertising banners on the
property wrihout a Special Events Pernik; two unpermkted signs on the building; and
two portable signs standing in the open bay doors. all 55-gallon drums have been
cleaned up, as wail as the driveway.
The vacant 20-foot strip of property adJacent to the north was previously being
maintained by Thrifty Oil per an agreement (owner was not aware of any agreement,
but would rosearch the matter aril agreed to maintain that area "there was an agreement.)
1-11-93
Page 9
`•~
Traffic Engineering -Gave the owner a copy of the traffic signal assessment fee
schedule - $184 per 1000 gross square footage. AppllcaM can verify wkh Building
department if fees have been paid and fl so, wnl not be required. Clarified fee is
lased on 1000 sq. ft. of bufiding area.
~~rNeways close to intersections for gas stations at any busy intersection create
conflicts, Kraemer and LaPalma is busy, approx. 45,000 on Kraemer and 26,000 on
LaPalma, and that is the reason for the request for closure.
That the curb return radius condklon can be eliminated since this she has been
approved for crkical intersection Improvements.
Attorney -explained the Cky is requesting that an irrevocable offer of dedication be
given to the Cky at this time, and at such time as the City decides to actually widen
the street and accept that offer, they would be willing to pay relocation costs of
moving the bays, etc., N that is possible.
Engineering -Dedication is required for the critical intersection at this location and
there have been studies done on this she and the Redevelopment Agency feels the
gas station can still operate after the dedications are made and the street Is widened
and that any relocation costs would be paid by the Cky at the time the street is
widened.
ACTION: Granted, subject to Condklon Nos. 3 and 7 being deleted, Condkion No. 5
modified io read Kraemer Blvd. only, (eliminating la Palma Avenue); Condkion
No. 2 modified to read that no banners shall be displayed unless proper
permks are obtained; Condkion No. 12, modified to include Condkion Nos.
and 10, thereby eliminating Condkion No. 13.
VOTE: (4.0)
AYES: Boydstun, Henninger, Messe, Peraza
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Tak (Conflict of Interest)
Twe vacancies
(22-day appeal period)
1-11-93
Page 10
Sa. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to
Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NC. 3579 1-25-93
OWNER: CANYON ACRES RESIDENTIAL CENTER, Attn: Dan McQuaid,
233 S. QulMana Road, Anaheim, CA 92817
LOCATION: a33 Sot.~th Quintana Road. Property Is approximately 4.6
acres located on the west skis cf a private access road from
Quintana Road and approximately 300 feet south of the
centerline of Arboretum Road.
To expand a boarding and IxJging home for 30 dependent children,
iroluding an 880-square foot addftion to a bunkhouse and a proposed 6,469
square-foot multi-purpose buiiding.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: Approximately 6 people prasent, letter containing 19 signatures of people
who are opposed and could not attend hearin4i was submitted.
Barbara Wallbrick, 145 Bonnie Gene Lane, (property'mmediately adjacent)
Beth Smith, 175 S. Bonnie Gene
Peggy Vamer, 165 Bonnie Gene
Debbie Strand, 185 Bonnie Gene
Steve ~iwrpy, 155 Bonnie Gene
Sheri Gobovlch, 195 Bonnie Gene
OPPOSITION CONCERNS:
Maintain integrity of resklential neighborhood; changes to this facility have long-
t~rc~ ~ Impacts on the neighborhood and ft is permanent;
wfth expansion, facility Is going away from the o~fginal residential center Intent to
an institution;
that this Is the 7th CUP request, in 1992 when CUP 3526 was originally heard,
neighbors felt it was the beginning of a larger project and felt the CEQA
standards should be reviewed then because h was only part of a larger Intended
project ;
that since approval of CUP 3526 was only in September 1992, they don't feel that
Is enough time to evaluate the program and make it penmanent;
that the building s(ze is disproportionate to the temporary trailer size which It Is to
replace; that it is proposed for 30 students and the size of the building is unlike
any surcounding structures in the neighborhood; setting precedent for larger
1-11-93
Page 11
;. _s
~- buildings and narking lots;
continued growth requires more staff, more programs and Increases traffic,
teal this expansion will allow future Increase in the number of children; in January
1988, the applicant Indicated they dkl not desire to have an Institution and that
they try to provkle a homelike setting, and in July 1992, he st::~ed they would
continue to come before the Commission with requests;
a trailer which was not pertnkted was placed on the property and is a visual
Intrusion,
they are roquesting 20-foot high Ilght standards, well beyond restrictions
previously set by the Commission in 1988 and they are concerned the applicant
will stretch any limits set ff this request is granted
facility has grown to aseven-structure institution for 30 children (originally 15);
surcounding property zoned for single-family reskJentlal uses;
there was been little disturbance from the children at this facility between 6 p.m.
and 8 a.m. during the a years before 1988, but since 1988 when the facility was
expanded for 30 children, there has been cont!nual disruption to their INes; every
time a new request is submitted, the neighbors attend neighborhood and
Commission meetings, schedule carpooling and babysftting, miss hours from
work, etc.; and they fell this facility will continue to grow;
the neighbors recognize the need for this type facility but would Ilke to see Yc
maintained as a small rural home for 30 children;
massive parking area not compatible with the neighborhood and the single-family
homes and clarified the concem is the parking Issue in general and not just the
latest revision; questioned the number of parking spaces at 32 staff members per
shHt, which is one staff member per child; parking Increases the noise, including
noise from car alarms, Increases fumes;
safety because access is a private access road and ff there was an emergenc;~,
others would be affected;
lighting is a cer~cem, in 1988 there was a restriction placed on the height of the
light standards at 3 feet, and th(s plan shows 20-foot high standards;
concem that multi-purpose room of this size Is premature;
having shhod on-she is against the curcent thinking to mainstream special nead
childron; public schools already have ail the needed facilities; suggested putting
temporary trailers at the public schools, having all the facilkies available and still
Isolate the children and have the op~lon of mainstreaming;
se~~eral Counciimembers previously suggested the applicant look outside a
residential neighborhood for their schod site;
the multi-purpose room would be operating ^.4 hours a day, as opposed to 8
a.m. to 3 p.m. regular shhod hours and will facilitate outside care and family
counseling;
swimrt:ing pod would require around the clock protection or policing;
felt environmental Impact report should be required in order to construct and
operate this type facility in their neighborhood;
applicant Indicated to en original homeowner (Sharpy) that he was concerned
that the ranch-like atmosphere d that property be maintained, but wfth added
structures and increase In number of children, there are addftional problems,
previously children attended regular public schoos and fewer staff members were
required, but with children on sfte for 24 hours a day, increased number of staff,
more people coming and going, Increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and
1-11-93
Page 12
`...A
^ there is an Increase In noise; when staff leaves at night, they have extended
conversations and neighbors can hear them clearly from their homes, and the car
securriy systems are noisy;
people coming to facilriy are in highly emotional state and there is a lot of
yelling, etc., easily heard and seen from second story of single-family; unpleasant
inckJents wrih a child being restrained arxf yelling, and causing emotional stress
to neighbors.
• asked how many children would a building of this size accommodate
• asked how many children would be allowed to INe there
would 24-hour use allow adult education classes for the abusers of these children
• changing a very well-respected board and care facilty for abused children to an
educational facllriy on srie
will ri become a school for special need children, other than those residing there
suggested the school be located in a Ilght industrial area
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Explained this request follows a CUP approved in July for temporary portable
classrooms, and is to provkJe permanent buildings; presented photographs of
Improvements; this would allow a permanent building for a schod, facilkies for
the therapeutic program and the existing bunkhouse would be remodeled; the
schod would help overburdening the public schod syaKem; allow expanded days
of education and Instruction from 180 to 245 days, and would allow anon-
stigmatizing, non-threatening ernironment, Immediate assessment for education
support, Integrated educational program Into reskJentlal services so the youth will
have a successful adjustment into their program; that 25 of their 34 children have
attended the on-srie schod, and when they are capable, they attend the local
public schod; the building proposed is only 10% of the land use (4.6 acres)
20,472 sq. ft. wrih 4.6 acres equals 2,225 sq. ft. per 1/2 acre.
Concerns have been expressed about parking lot abutting resklences so he
presented an altamatNe plan wrih a 65-toot setback and relocating the parking to
the front of their property and added this is not what he wants because ri is not
best for the children (ri ~:as clarriled that the Planning staff hay not reviewed this
alternative plan);
that they planted eighteen 24' box trees requested by the Commission, and
located them In accordance with neighbor's Individual requests;
Responding to opposrilon -
the request is not for addrilonal children at the facilty, CUP now is restricted to
30 children and the Intent is to maintain that level; Intent is not to keep coming
bank for approval for further expansions, that the Board of Directors have talked
about expansion of this facility and ri was suggested they make a commitment
not to expand past the 30 children and they would be willing to make that
commtment
the building will conform wrih the existing ranch house, aril neighbors above
them have no objection;
plans retain the 3-loot high Ilght standards, the portion facing Bonnie Gene will
have 3-foot high lights, and In the front there is a 12-ft. high standard and that he
1-11-93
Page 13
l._..~
is willing to remove ft;
^ that the expansion will provkfe proper storage enabling them to buy larger
quantities, plus, they need a larger kitchen, and by having the activity room on
the first floor, K can be used on rainy days, and be used for Boy Scouts and Girl
Scout meetings;
^ he acknowledged that on occasion one of the children might get quRe upset and
that is distressing for the neighbors to see or hear but that is rare, and that most
play activity takes plaao !~ front,
^ the reason for the 24-hour operation is that a staff member may need to be at the
facility later than their regular hours, but the Intent is not to have people working
late Into the night and h is far away from the Bonnie Gene neighborhood and the
neighbors up the hill do not have any concems about it;
^ since 1960 there have been families who have visited to see the program and
also to receive some counseling on the site, not ail the children have parents
who are involved in visfting or counseling, some families may be coming there
weeMy for counseling, and there may be 1 or 2 per day.
average length of stay is about 14 months.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Peraza - (A) Asked how many children could be accommodate in the proposed
space, noting Education Board requires a certain amount of space per child, 35
sq. ft. indoors per child for pre-school (applicant responded legally they can
only accommodate the 30 allowed by the CUP, and that the Ucensing
Department has to authorize the number; that the Board of Directors Is willing to
commit itself not to come back wfth additional requests);
(B) Asked ff there may be out-patient type chlldren who might come there for
counseling and then leave (applicant responded at this point they are looking at
servicin:~ the chlldren they currently have in their care).
Taft -clarified the schod is only for the resklents.
wanted more time to review the plans and dki not want to penalize the facility,
but agreed wRh concems of the homeowners
Henninger -realized when something good Is being done, h is easy to think that
the means Justify the ends; but that is not the case here and that he is invoved
on the Board of Directors on a couple of charitable foundations and realizes that
the state does have square footage requirements per child, plus sink and
bathroom requirements, etc. and the applicant is saying they are at maximum
right now, but this request Is to allow expansion, and there Is an answer as to
how many children could be accommodated. (applicant responded -they are
restricted in size by the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc., and no more than
2 children per bedroom would be allowed, and each bedroom must have a
certain square footage; that there are 3 existing living units)
Request is for enlarging the schod to 4 times its s(ze, and asked what the plans
are for that area, noting the trailers were for 1440 sq. ft., and this is for over 6000
sq. ft. and h could accommodate approximately 200 children (applicant
responded -planning to have 3 classrooms, one for up to 15 children and two for
up to 8 children); (archftect, Bert Elliott, explained there are Education Board
requirements, but this private, non-public schod has different crnerla than public
1-11-93
Page 14
schods, and this is more related to a special education type use and these
classrooms are smaller than standard public classrooms; and that the Iimfting
criteria is bedrooms and state licensing only allows 2 children per bedroom; and
that they are not Intending to add bedrooms)
Understands neighbors concerns because there has been a consistent pattern of
growth at this faclliry and there have been 7 or 8 CUPs approved on this she
since 1975; when questioned about number of children that could be
accommodated, the answer was that with their conFlguration, they could only
accommodate 30 children and were limited by number of bedrooms; and that
schod size out of proportionate. He explained to reassure the neighbors that a
time Iimft could be added to any approval the Commiss(on might give
He refereed to revised aitemative parking plan and stated they have added a
couple of spaces closer to Oulntana and ff there are any changes to these
plans, he would like that parking area left alone and ali the parking located further
into the she;
Masse -asked the purpose of the 840 sq. ft. expansion of the bunk house
(applicant responded -that curcently they have 4 bedrooms on one skfe, a 5th
bedroom In th:e back, a kkchen area, bathrooms, laundry area and then a central
area and tha dNficuity is that the wkJth of that central area Is restrictive and needs
to be expanded, and these plans will relocate the two mkJdle bedrooms to a
wing, allowing them to enlarge the mkidle area, plus it will allow a infirmary room
for any youngster who might be III)
Asked the number of children which are mainstreamed Into public schools
currently. (applicant -responded average of 5)
Question xl need for 35 parking spaces and asked how many staff members are
there at one time (applicant responded -they have administration, executive
direc4or, clinical staff (therapist, etc. 6 spaces) chnd care counselors (3 per bldg.),
2 recreation people, and 2 support people them during evening shfft; so there is
an average of 24 staff members present at one time for the reskfential
component, with a spaces allocated for the school);
would be more comfortable ff there was some assurance that they would not be
coming back requesting more children and that he knows attitudes of Boards of
Directors change very rapidly;
Asked ff staff was comfortable wfth the alternative plans Just submitted and
suggested a continuance In order for staff to analyze the plans;
asked about the temporary trailers (applicant explained they dkJ get permits for
the electrical)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Planning - altematNe plan has not been reviewed by staff, but thought they are
an Improvement over the ones previously submitted.
Regarding the trailers -permits for the electrical is not permits to allow the trailers
and ff they do want to keep the trailers, they should immediately apply for a
conditional use permit, but they were not permitted odginally
ACTION: Continued to 1-25-93 for staff review of aitematNe plans submitted at public
hearing and for appiicant to conskfer making changes. (Revised puns have to
be submitted to staff by Frklay of this week.
1-11-93
Page 15
6a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECIJtRATION Approved
6b. VARIANCE N0.4215 Granted
6c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N .147 ApPr~~
OWNER: HABITAT I, LTD., 1875 Century Park East., Ste. 1880, Los
Angeles, CA 90067
AGENT: ARTHUR McCAUL, 1875 Century Park East, Ste. 1880, Los
Angeles, CA 90067
LOCATION: 1925 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 5.7
acres located at the northwest comer of lJncdn Avenue
and Muller Street.
Waiver of permitted residential structures, maximum structural height wfthin
150-feet of asingle-family resktentfal zone boundary minimum structural
setback abutting single-family resklential zone boundary and minimum
distance between parallel walls to construct a 2-story, 74-unit detached
condominium complex.
To establish a 1-lot, 74-unit, RM~000 condominium subdivision.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. P 4
FOLLOWING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: I Interested person (Rose Kirsch, 310 N. Mueller, was concerned about the
traffic on Mueller, and the one entrance on Mueller.
1 person (Charles Dahl, 216 N. Carroll Drive) spoke In favor of proposal, but
felt a traffic signal is deflnftely needed at Uncdn and Aladdin, before
construction is even started.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
In 1988 they were granted approval for a 58-ft. high, 184-unft apartment complex wRh
basically the same waivers being requested today and an extension of time was
denied by the City Council in 1992 because of opposition from neighbors; and that
Council Instructed that they revise the plans changing the project from apartments to
ownership unfts and to lower the density; that this Is a redesign fora 74-unit
ownership project; and the problems were because of the configuration and location
of the she in a transftlonal area wfth various land uses an all skJes; and that the
waivers requested are due to the unique shape and locat(on of the property adjacent
to single family residences, a large store (Target) and other commercial uses, and
apartments, and that it is a long narrow property, adjacent to major street. They did
1-11-93
Page 16
~..4
meet wfth the neighbors and they were f>appy wfth this project; landscaping is
designed to buffer the visual Impact to resklences; 11 windows will face the 8 homes
abutting the complex; property is zoned RM-1200; that they have cleansrJ up the she
and will maintain ft
Slides were presented of the previously approved project and the proposed project
wfth 4 unfts visible from Uncon, that ft is single-family detached condominiums, with
the main protect entry off Mueller, that they are consklering a securfty gated entry, 16
unfts abut the single-family residences to the west, 7 of those 16 have windows on the
second floor which would look towards those neighbors, there Is a 20-toot wkfe
landscaped buffer between them; that Dianne Way which is currently being used by
the reskJents will be closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Henninger -asked about vacation of that IftOe portion of Dianne Way (Engineering staff
explained there is a condftlon regarding vacation of that portion of Dianne Way, and
condftlons would be attached to the abandonment); that he is Impressed by the
landscape and elevation plans and particularly the qualfty of the finish on these
buildings and suggested Condftion No. 7 be amended to refer to the specific details of
the landscape plan and the exterior finish as shown on the exhibfts; (applicant stated
they would Ilke some flexibilfty); and added he would like to tie approval to those
exhibfts
Masse -clarified all the garages will have garage door openers
Peraza -felt project is 100% better than previously approved project
STAFF COMMENTS:
Engineering added condftlons based on a field report received late last week:
(1) owner shall Irrevocably offer to dedicate to the Cfty a 25-foot comer
cutoff at Uncoln and Mueller on the final tract map and construct a
handicap access ramp in conformance with Cfty standards prior to
occupancy;
(2) skfewalks on Mueller shall be removed and reconstructed prior to
occupancy
Traffic Engineering -1991 traffic counts at Mueller Street was 4900 which Is
substantially lower than other streets in that area; that the new design eliminates
access on Uncon Avenue and no traffic signal Is warranted; Increase in traffic Is
approximately 10%; asking developer m Improve the intersection of Uncon and Euclid
Planning -did receive a letter from the Anaheim City Scholl District stating this project
would generate 22 students at a cost of approximately $22,000. Noise Study indicates
67 db at Uncoln at the property line and they are showing gaps in the perimeter wall
on Uncoln and that would have to be a continuous 6-foot high wall in order to mftigate
to 65 db at the property line. (Archftect explained the pfirate areas have sdkf block
walls; sound report indicated the slid wall on the outside perimeter would comply
(Henninger clarified the developer is willing to meet the Council Policy guidelines.)
Planning -added condftion pertaining to landscaping of any walls which are
accessible to or can be viewed by the public shall be landscaped in order to reduce
1-11.93
Page 17
'~,.+
- graffki (applicant agreed)
ACTION: Approved MRigated NegatNe Declaration, wkh measure regarding traffic
signal being deleted.
Granted Variance, on the basis of the unique location, size and shape
Qong & narrow) of property and subject to addklonal condkion that a
traffic study will be conducted six months after occupancy to determine
ff a signal Is warranted; modifying Mkfgation Monkoring Program
deleting requirement for a traffic signal, and adding condklons as
fellows:
- landscaping of any wails which are accessible to or can be viewed by
the public and that Is that they shall be landscaped in order to reduce
possibility graffki
- traffic study will be conducted six months after occupancy to
determine ff a signal is warranted;
- owner shall Irrevocably offer to dedicate to the Cky a 25-foot comer
cutoff at Lincoln and Mueller on the final tract map and construct a
handicap access ramp In conformance wkh City standards prior to
occupancy;
- sktewalks on Mueller shall be removed and reconstructed prior to
occupancy
- approval tied to specific elevation and landscape plans submitted at
today's hearing
Prior to the vote, the neighbors asked that a traffic signal be required.
Traffic Engineer -agreed to review the matter again, but from all the data available,
including the traffic count, a traffic signal is not warranted, that traffic to this pro)ect
will be on Lincoln; but agreed to review k six months after completion.
VOTE: (5-0)
Two vacancies
ADDITIONAL ACTION: Motion was approved instructing staff to investigate possibilty of
allowing detached multiple-family dwellings in the RM-2400 and RM-3000 Zones.
1-11-93
Page 18
- i~_.
,-•
7a. r`EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1/25/93
7c. CONDITIONAL USF„ PERMIT N0.3575
7d. TENTATIVE TRACT: MAP NO. 14738
OWNER: PINETREE VILLAGE, LIMITED, Three Point Drive, Brea, CA
92621
AGENT: WESMAC, INC., 3333 S. Brea Canyon Road, #219, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765
LOCATION: S~9 North Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 2.5 acres
located at the northeast comer of Riverdale Avenue and Tustin
Avenue.
To permh the cornersion of an existing 40-unh apartment complex to a 40-unR
condominium complex with waNer of minimum unit size.
To establish a 1-lot, 40-unft, RM-2400 condominium subdivision.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
1-11-93
Page 19
~.,./
8a. rEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Sb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
8c. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3581
8d. VARIANCE NO 3851 - REQUEST TO AMEND (READVERTISEDI
^^4DITlON OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A PREYiOUSLY
APPROVED MONUMENT SIGN
OWNER: HUTTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 201 E. Sandpolnte, 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: ~2p5 E Santa Ana Canvon Road Property is approximately
3.34 acres located on the north skis of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and approximately 1050 feet 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 wfth waivers of minimum setback
adJacent to a freeway, permftted freestanding sign, permtted wall signs and
permitted roof-mounted equipment.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
Continued to
1/25/93
1-11-93
Page 20
l„J
9a. Cane rercr_narcer EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 I Approved
9b. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3578 I! Gmrn~
OWNER: BAZAK PROPERTY, 146 N. Stanley Avenue, Beverly H(Ils, CA
90701
AGENT: J. S. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING, Jacob Slies, 2006 S.
Sherboume DrNe, Los Angeles, CA 90034
LOCATION: IFS-783 N. Euclid Street. Property is approximately .37 acre
located at the southwest comer of Glenoaks Avenue and Euciki
Street.
To permft the dNision of an existing retail unk (4-unit total) within an existing
3-unk, 3,108 square foot commercial retail center.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC 93-05
------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Request is to add a dNision wall in an existing store. Explained a plan was
submitted for restriping the parking lot In order to satisfy the Traffic
Engineer. which eliminated one of the planters.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Henninger asked ff this property meets the parking requirements; asked ff
the Code Enforcement concerns have been met wfth regard to graffiti and
the trash enclosure; wanted graffiti removed immediately and pointed out
normally there Is a requirement that graffftl gets removed wfthin 24 hours
and that will be added to this approval.
Masse & Henninger -felt revised parking plan should be reviewed by staff;
applicant wanted action as soon as possible because they have a tenant
ready to move in;. discussed approval could be granted today ff the
applicant was willing to have the parking waNer approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
Henninger - felt the t;ommisslon is bending over backwards to allow this to
go forward today aril removal of the graffiti and maintenance of the
property would be Inc:Juded as condtions and he would expect the applicant
to comply or the conditional use permft could be revoked.
Masse -requested that the parking lot plans be reviews.' and approved by
the Planning Commission and that the plans Include the lark; „aping and
that could be reviewed under Reports and Reeommendatiurs.
1-11-93
Page 21
!,s/
Boydstun -suggested planting natal plum along the north skle of tha
building to deter graffiti or plant something that would climb.
STAFF COMMENTS: Planning - addftional condftion requiring termination of CUP N0.754
and Variance ?.444 which no longer apply to this property; wfth the
revised parking plan, the site Is 1 space short of code requirement
and they need to either readvertise this application to include a
parking waiver or apply for an administrative adJustment; they are
removing a landscape planter and a waiver for that might need to be
advertised; 4-week continuance required to readvertise; explained a
minor variance could be approved by the Zoning Administrator, at an
addklonal cost to the applicant of about $350.
Traffic Engineer - Explained he recsNed the latest copy of the parking
plan this afternoon arxl the architect stamped the plan and signed it
indicating that k does conform and that k reduced the number of
parking spaces from 37 to 36 and according to the archftect, k meets
the minimum requirements (8-1 /2 by 18 fast), but he was not sure
what effect the revised plan has on the landscaping.
Grafmi is almost a dally occurrence on the north side of the building
and the landscaping really needs to be Improved and that the
landscaping in the front needs to be improved;
ACTION: Granted conditional use permit, subjer:t to addftiona! condftions as
follows:
- termination of CUP 754 & Variance 2444
- Condftlon No. 1 to be complied wkh within 90 days
- landscaping and parking plans to be reviewed &
approved by the Planning Commission, under Reports
and Recommendations
- parking waiver to be requested of the Zoning
Administrator,.iF required.
VOTE: (5-0)
Two vacancies
22 day appeal period
1-11-ft3
Page 22
t0a.:,EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
i0b. WAIYER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied
10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3580 Granted, In part
OWNER: METTLER ELECTRONICS CORP, Attn: Steve Mettler, 1330 S.
gaudina Street, Aneheim, CA 92805
AGENT: SUPERSHUTTLE OF LOS ANGELES, Attn: John Goss, 7001
W. Imperial Hwy., Los Angeles, CA 90045; FREEMONT
PROPERTIES, Eric Knirk, 970 W. 190th Street, Ste. 660,
Torrance, CA 90502
LOCATION: 1439 South Anaheim Boulevard_ Prof~erty is approximately
1.8 acres located at the southeasi comer of Palais Road and
Anaheim Boulevard.
To permit the storage and dispatch of transit vehicles with on-site vehicle
maintenance and car wash tunnel with waiver of minimum landscape setback
area.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. _
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Applicant Indicated he had read the staff report and agreed wkh the
conditions of approval.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Henninger -staff has recommended the waiver of minimum landscape
setback area be denied (applicant agreed to put In 5-foot landscaped area
on Palais); asked the maximum number of vehicles to be stored on ske
(applicant responded 60 vans will be in the Orange County fleet and 40
would be there between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. and ::i~~9ss there was an
emergency, a restriction of 40 vans maximum to be stored on the site at any
one time.)
Messe - concerned about view of the car wash from Anaheim Blvd.
(applicant explained they have these car washes in sbc other facilities and
they have redwood slats in the fence, and added they will block h from view.
Planning staff explained the reason for the recommendation for denial of the
1-11-93
Page 23
'~~
landscape waNer was that there is Noway to :~ndscape in front of the
tunnel or screen k wkh the fence.
Henninger ascertained there is no room for the car wash tunnel behind the
building. (applicant stated they will dress k up so k has a presentable front
and k was suggested that a condkion require approval by the Planning
Commission.)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Traiflc Engineering -Parking lot should be modkfed to Improve circulation,
but will not affect the parking needs.
Planning -Plans indicated storage for 15 vehides, but k the 40 were being
parking there in the evening, he dkl not think that would be a problem.
ACTION: Approved NegatNe Declaration
denied walvsr of landscaping
Granted condkionat use pennk in part, wkh addkional fdlowing condkions
- Maximum of 40 vehides stored on she at one time
- letter requested termination of Variance 1627 and Redassiflcation 91-
92-02
VOTE: (5-0)
Two vacancies
1-11.93
Page 24
~-,
(Previously Approved) I Continued to
(Readvertlsed) 2.8.93
(To be readvertised)
OWNER: M. SMITH/CORY ROBERT, P.O. 54029, Term. Annex, Los
Angelas, CA 90054; DARRYL SNYDER, i i'J E. Wilshire Ave.,
Ste. 305, Fullerton, CA 92632
AGENT: FARANO AND IQEVIET, Attn: Thomas G. IQeviet, 2100 S. State
Cdlege Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806; ANAHEIM COACH
AND TRAILER CO., Attn: Sherman Baird, P.O. Box 8129,
Anaheim, CA 92812
LOCATION: 2222 East Howell Street. Property is approximately 3.3 acres
located on the southwest skle of Howell Street and
approximately 520 feet northwest of the centerline of Katella
Avenue.
Request for an amendment or deletion to conditions of approval to retain a
recreational vehicle storage yard.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETI'flONER'S COMMENTS:
They have an existing CUP for RV storage and are requesting that certain corxlftions
be amended, namely those requiring sklewalk installation and site screening around
the site; think there are adequate facts on record to support findings In order to
eliminate or extend the conditions; regarding site screening, the condtions are the
same as when waiver was first granted, and that was that the site was under common
ownership with the car dealership to the south, and the character of the property Is
still the same. Concerning the installation of sidewalks, they tell a waNer is warranted
since then3 is no fact traffic in this area, the use does nuc generate foot traffic, none of
the surcounding properties, except car dealership to the s,~uth, have skewalks.
Existing RV use wili probably be short•termed until March 1994 when current lease
expires, and then property will be subject to Redevelopmern which may require
reconstruction of skewalks.
Curcent CUP obtained by master tenant who has long-term ground lease in 1976 for
RV storage; this client has occupied property for number of years, has not receNod or
1-11-93
Page 25
~,,,r
heard of complaints ftom surcounding neighbors, or anyone who an Interest In the
'~ property; through the years has commenced the actNriles of rental and sales which
exceeded Ilmriation of the CUP which allowed storage only, plus they have taken
delNery of RV's for customers which they have ordered at R`1 shows; they do not
advertise on the srie and get their customers primarfly ftom their reputation in the
industry; parts, accessory sales and installation which they have been performing Is
primadly for RV's and focuses on awnings, trailer hriches, gene~~ators, but does not
include engine or transmission repair; that this site has been conskiered as a possible
transportation center by the City which would affect the continued use of this property;
lease does have option for extension, but they would be willing to limit the eMenslon
to the end of the curcent lease, March 31, 1994, and at that time they could apply for a
new condrilonal use percnri, ri desired, and then the condrilons under discussion today
can be reconsklered.
Regarding Condrilon 1 -requiring asphalt pad in front setback to be removed -
requested rather than totally removing those pads, they would propose to make holes
in the pads and plant trees according to staffs review and approval; noted the pads
are not being used for display or parking purposes; or they would Just place
landscaping on the pads wrihout removing them..
Regarding Condtlon No.2 -sales of parts and accessories shall be Iimried to
customers whose RVs are stored on the srie and na Installation permrited on srie, and
explained pdmadly the accessories or parts are provkied to the people who have RVs
on the sria, but would not like to be totally prohibried from making sales or installing
parts or accessories to people who may be coming In from recommendations of the
people who have RVs on the site. Would request elimination of Condtion No. 2.
Regarding Condition No. 5 -storage being Iimried to recreational type vehicles only
and at no time can an RV be used or occupied for on-srie INing or office use - he
explained there is an RV that is used curcently by a secur"rtY person who has been
there for a number of years prfmarily to serve as security. Asked that the reference to
'on-srie living' be eliminated to reduce potential for vandalism and burglary.
Did not feel installation of skfewalks is something they can INe with.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Henninger -questioned the statement that the operator was not aware of any
complaints. He added ri sounds like they have been operating there for about seven
years contrary to the condrilons of the CUP, and have greatly expanded the actNkles
and now are requesting permission to continue doing what they were not supposed to
be doing. (Agent stated they had not been contacted and were not aware of any
complaints from surrounding property owners. Did acknowledge that there have been
Code Enforcement actNriles and that is why they are here today. Added they will
Iimri the actNriy to what is called for which is storage and rental only. They have been
operating since 1976.)
Occasionally there is a sriuatlon where someone doesn't understand that there are
regulations, but was concerned that someone has been there this long after being
made aware of the regulations. ConskJering denim of this CUP. (Agent -their
posrilon Is that they became awara of the problem commencing July 1990 and that
1-11-93
Page 26
t_.o
efforts have been taking place since that time to find a sdution, and he understood
~- the principle concem at that time was the landscaping.) Responded to Commissioner
Masse, that the asphaR pads were put in 3-1 /2 years ago, apparently because of
cftatlons wfth parking on the dirt area.
Agreed asphalt pads have to come out.
Need to readvertise for on-site security person and the sales arxl installation of the
parts and accessories. Suggested continuance to readvertise and suggested during
that time period, maybe some of the general maintenance problems could be deaned
up. Wanted to see a detailed landscape plan and Planning staff asked that tha
existing irrigation be included since one of the problems seemed to be the lack of
irrigation. (Applicant stated the front setback area will be cleaned up.) It was pointed
out there are areas wfthin the she which have discarded parts, etc. stored.
Masse -did not object to a live-on security person, but Code Enforcement Indicated in
December them were two vehicles being used for that purpose. (Agent explained
there Is only one there now, and apparently there was a maintenance person living
there in one of the vehicles.)
Felt ff this is allowed until March 31, 1994, extensive landscaping should be required
and putting hde in the asphalt pads Is not something he would approve. (Agent
stated operator feels he has landscaped the property to what is required and has
plans for addftional ground cover and trees which he will be putting in and ft will be
done for the front setback area ff that is required as a condftion.)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Planning staff -only provision for on-sfte security person is wfthin a dwelling unft
on the property, so ff they want to have an on-sfte security person, they would
need to readvertise to indude a waNer of that code provision; in addition, ff they
want to do installation of accessories on the sfte, the matter would have to be
readvertised since the original application only induded the storage of vehicles.
Main concem of operator is installation of sidewalks, however, and if Commission
is not willing to waNer that requirement, the applicant may not want not
readvertise the matter. (Applicant -will put in landscaping subject to approval of
staff, but dkl not feel the Installation of sidewalks is warranted.) (Masse &
Henninger - since h is only for two years, would have no problem waiving that
requirement.)
Code Enforcement -This Is a sftuation brought to their attention July 1990, and
they have trying to correct the sftuation since that time; that original condftions of
the CUP were not being met; there is a continual problem wfth the landscaping
and noted the rest of the surrounding area is well-maintained; and there is a
continual problem wfth on-going maintenance; they do have on-sfte sales; there
are rental unfts being rented from this sfte and they are stored on the property;
does install parts on vehides stored on the property and was not aware if that Is
being done to other vehides; number of inoperable vehicles on the sfte; refuse
and waste matter consisting of scrap metal, tires, RV parts and supplies, and two
RV vehicles being used for INing purposes
ACTION: Continued to 2-8-93
To be readvertised.
1-11.93
Page 27
~.~-i
12. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. ~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3559 - RE\-IEW OF SIGN Denied
PLAN Request by Signs Methods for review of sign plans. Property is
located at 222 North Beach Boulevard.
Staff recommendsd pde sign be lower and smaller and nomrnfly a
monument sign would be required.
Applicant stated there are s lot of new businesses in that area, such as
Tower Records and the sign is surrounded by signs that area larger and taller.
Chairman Henninger stated k is the Commission's intention to work on all
the signs, and k might be slightly unfortunate that this request is one of the
earlier ones, rather than a later one, but the Commission has to start
somewhere.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated Planning staff would review the
sign plans submkted wkh the application.
ACTION: Accepted staffs recommendation to deny the request to retain the
freestanding sign as proposed on the basis that due to the orleMatlon of the auto
repair bays, a 30•foot high, 149•square foot, pylon sign, would compromise the
aesthetics of the ske; and further ff the petkioner w(shes to utilize the pylon sign,
the 128-square foot sign shall can be removed and a new sign panel added at a
reduced hefgM and area.
B. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO Approved
rOMMERCIAL USE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES_IN_
CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONES.
C. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3437 -REQUEST FOR A NUNC Grarded
PRO TUNC RESOLUTION TO CORRECT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CONTAINED IN RESOLUTION N0. PC91-118.
RESOLUTION N0. P 7
(4-0) (Boydstun abstained)
D. RECLASSIFICATION NO 92-93-02 - REOUEST FOR A NUNC_ G~m~
PRO TUNC RESOLUTION TO rORREC7 CONDITION NO.2
OF RESOLUTION N0. PC92-133.
RESOLUTION N0. PC 93-0e
(4-0) (Boydstun abstained)
1-11.93
Page 28
b ,4
_ E, rnNDiTIONAL U E PERMIT N0.3550 -REQUEST FORA Granted
NuNC aan, TUNC RESOLUTION TO CORRECT CONDITION
NO. 12 OF RESOLUTION NO. PC92-124.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 93-09
(4-0) (Boydstun Abstained)
F. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO LIQUOR Approved
STORES WITHIN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZON~$
Commissioner Messe asked that a deflnitlon of a'liquor store' be included,
and that could Just be added before the ordinance goes to City Council i.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, asked if the reference to the permitted
use in the CG and CH Zones should also be deleted, in order to encourage
rezoning to CL
ACTION: Recommended approval with a definition of 'liquor store' being
Included and references deleted In the CG and CH Zones.
G. VARIANCE NO. 2900 -REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF Approved
REVISED PLANS TO DETERMINED SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE. Request from Vester Whfte for review
of revised plans to determine substantial conformance. Property located
at 1759 West Orangb Avenue.
ACTION: Approved (5-0) Two vacancies
ADJOURNMENT:
<Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
1-11-93
Page 29
,~
t