Minutes-PC 1994/01/10r^
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEET{NG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY F"~iNNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1994, AT 11:00 A.A.:.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIG TESTIMONY)
11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CAI.DWELd., HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERA7A
TAIT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have flue minutes to present their
evidence. Addrilonal time will be granted upon request ri, in the opinion of the Commission,
such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be gNen ten minutes to
present their case unless addtional time is requested and the complexity of the matter
warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a
participant speaks, but rather by what is said.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Corr~misslon in each hearing.
Copies are available to the public prier to the meeting.
4. The Commission will wfthhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in fts opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection wrih any
hearing, including photographs or other acceptcble visual representations or non-documentary
evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for :he public record and shalt be available for
public inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed 4o speak on items
of interest which are wfthin the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda hems.
Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) mliiutes to speak.
ACOt 1094.WP
~,/
~~~ ~~
~,, ~ .y~
V71A1 `4
l
ta. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT February 23, 1994
1 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3645 READVERTISED
OWNER: ESMAIL and MAHIN RASTEGARI, ET. AL, P.O. BOX 3465,
Fullerton, CA 92634
LOCATION: 1108 N. Acacia Street. Prope•ty is approximately
0.36 acre located on the east side of Acacia S*.reet
and approximately 525 feet south of the centerline of
Romneya DrNe.
To expand the maximum enrollment of a previously approved day care
facility from 24 to 55 children and to Include a caretakers' unft with
waiver of minimum structural setback requirement.
Continued from the November 15, 1993, Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLDiIION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
1PPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
George Behman (phonetlcaliy spelled). Asked fora 6 week continuance in order to address the
Planning Commission's concerns. There are a couple of Code violations that have not been taken
care of because they have to pull a building permit They have to resolve the whole Issue in one
permit.
ACTION: Continued to the February 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the
petkioner.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent)
Ot-10.94
Page 2
.,+
~\ ,
2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1855 Readvertised
OWNER: NORTH STREET PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Gilbert U. Kraemer,
P.0 Bcx 2?5, Placentia, CA 92670
INITIATED BY: CIT`f OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805
Continued to
January 24, 1994
LOCATION: 1071 N. Blue Gum Street. Property is approximately 0.5
acres located on the west side of Blue Gum Street and
approximately 210 feet s~~tii of the centedine of La Palma
Avenue.
To retain a new boat dealership wfth accessory retail sales and boat repair
and including three (3) temporary outdoor storage trailers wfth waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces, Iimftations of uses, required front yard
setback and required screening of outdoor uses.
Continued from the December 15, 1993, Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A ~lJMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OF~~::IAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Dave Anderson, representing Omega Marina. Tiiey met wfth members of the Redevelopment
Agency and they are still in the process along wfth members of the Planning Department and
they are in the middle of trying to make a compromise. He is requesting a 2 week
continuance.
ACTION: Continued to the January 24, 1994 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the
petftioner.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent)
01-10-94
Page 3
3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT January 24, 1994
3c. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253. 3414 AND 2905
fREADVERTISEDI
OWNERS: SO CAL CINEMAS, INC., Attn: Bruce Sanborn, 13
Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660; DEBEIKES
INVESTMENT CO., Attn: Richard Debeikes, 2300 Michelson
Drive, #200, Irvine, CA 92715-1336
LOCATION: GINEMAPOLIS -Property Is approximately 5.54 acres
located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and
approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of Imperial
Highway (5635 E. La Palma Ave.). IDAPERIAL PROMENADE
- Property is approximately 4.4 acres located on the
northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway
(5645-5675 E. la Palma Avo.).
Request for possible revocation or modification to conditions of approval of
an existing movio theater complex and commercial retail center.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT
TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
2 concerned people spoke
PETITIONER:
Daniel Lee, one of the partners, Pacific Palisades, CA. He explained that
Mr. DeBelkes was unable to attend this meeting, however, he wrote a memorandum that the
Planning Commission has in their hands.
DISCUSSION:
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Officer. On January 5th he completed inspection of the
property to check for compliance on several Issues that are before the Planning Commission
this afternoon.
He referenced Cinamapolis. Some of the requirements was to have ail roof-mounted
equipment site screened. The only location they dkf find That did not comply with this
requirement was at the very back parking structure. Tho air condition units are still visible, but
they are only visible from the parking structure. It was also toted that it appears that metal
framing is being constructed for the air condition unts.
01-10-94
Page 4
One of the problems was the trash enclosure area. They noticed all of the trash bins were
~ outside of the trash enclosure and the floor area of the trash enclosure area was completely
filled with garbage. They felt ft was a safety hazard as far as pedestrians or vehicular traffic
through that area as ft is a one-way drive.
He referenced the Promenaoe property to the east and indicated there is a building to the rear
(5645). There is a metal storage shed that was to be removed, however, that structure Is still
at the rear of the property. He asked that that be addressed. Trash bins on that property are
being stored outside the closure and trash is inskle the trash enclosure area as well.
At various times over the past 6 months, portable signs, flags and banners and balloons are
being displayed Inside the Promenade as well as some other Issues regarding tables and
chairs onto the public walkway outside of the stores. He stated those hems are being
addressed at this time by our dNision.
The last Issue is the television antenna that is above Zendejas restaurant. It Is his
understanding they can have a satellite dish, however, this is not a satellfte dish, ft is a T.V.
antenna and the T.V. antenna is not sight screened and is visible from the street. This item
still needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Messe asked staff about the parking and circulation history of this piece of
property.
Alfred Yaida, Traffic Engineering, stated Cinemapolis has made changes for their Internal
circulation when they built the parking structure and there has been a lot of disagreement
regarding the parking, access and circulation. Traffic Engineering has had numerous meetings
with the representative with Imperial Promenade and Cinemapolis and they are recommending
an independent parking study be conducted and should be paid by the parties to determine
what the actual needs are for parking for Cinemapolis and imperial Promenade to alleviate the
parking and circulation problem for this sight.
The cost of the parking study is approximately $11,100 and ft is nis understanding that
Cinemapolis is willing to pay half of that but they have not heard anything from the Promenade
as far as the cost of the parking study is concerned.
Commissioner Messe asked ft he looked at the letter they received from the Promenade?
Mr. Yaida stated he just looked at the letter.
Commissioner Messe asked ff he could also discuss the traffic signal on La Palma?
Mr. Yaida explained they had numerous meetings on the installation of the traffic signal. The
last estimate they came up wfth is approximately $129,000 and in order for staff to proceed
wfth the study and design of the signal, they need to have all the money deposfted to the City
so they could start the study and design of the traffic signal.
The Redevelopment Agency is working wfth the property owners on the south side of La
Palma Ave~rue. Originally Imperial Promenade and Cinemapolis agreed to pay 5096 of the cost
and the rest of the cost would be borne by the south skis of the street. At this point Imperial
Promenade does not want to pay any fair share of the cost of that traffic signal.
Ot-10.94
Page 5
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineering consultant, Cinemapolis. He is in agreement wtth what Mr.
,~ Yalda said regarding the parking study. They are in favor of tt to show what the actual status
of the parking study is and what the parking should be.
As far as the traffic signal is concerned, both the owners of Cinemapolis and the owners of the
shopping center on the south side of La Palma have also presented a letter indicating that
they are willing to pay for a portion of the signal and the only one to date that has not
commttted to the signai is Imperial Promenade.
There are 2 Issues with these particular properties--one is parking, however, the parking
problem has almost disappeared as a result of the construction of the new parking structure.
If you have been there recently, there has been quite a btt of vacancy In the parking structure,
although the front lot obviously fills up first due to tts more convenient location.
One of the things ha has observed Is that Imperial Promenade Is posted for "No Theatre
Parking." People that attend the theatre at first go to eat at the restaurants on Imperial
Promenade and they do not want to move their cars, therefore, they park on the Cinemapolis
site, walk over to the restaurant; have dinner, then go to the theatre and, therefore, use up a
great deal of the parking. The parking of course on the Imperial Promenade has been vacated
and that is one of the items that the parking study should address.
He submitted a letter to the Commission that he prepared making comments regarding tho
scope of the parking study.
He stated one of the problems is the traffic counting that has been proposed is really qutte
excessive, because H there is any parking problem, tt generally occurs only in the evenings,
especially during Friday and Saturday nights. It is seldom, if ever, a problem during the
morning or afternoon hours. The problem is in the evening when the both the theatre and the
restaurants are at peak operation. It could be Iimtted to those hours. Further discussion took
place regarding this Issue, the RFP and a parking study prepared by Paul Singer.
He explained also that most of the complaints regarding traffic to Cinemapolis primarily deal
with access and circulation. It is still an inconvenience and presents a negatNe aspect to both
properties. He urged the City to pursue the Imperial access. He asked that they try to
expedtte the installation of the traffic signal. The combination of a new signal and a new
access would greatly enhance the environment of the properties. There is access through
only one driveway that is uncontrolled. He felt that there was a m(sconception of the parking
problem that dates back to the time prior to the parking structure being constructed.
INTERESTED PARTY:
Charles Cintron (phonetically spelled). He owns two Togo's restaurants in the City of
Anaheim. One is located. on the south side of La Palma across from Cinemapolis. He
personally feels that it Is ,borderline criminal that there has not been a traffic signai installed at
that intersection. The traffic is getting worse and worse. It is an uncalculated risk crossing
traffic to get to his shopping center. He elaborated.
Commissioner Messe beought up the Issue of a median.
01-10-94
Page ti ~I
I
II
Mr. Cintron explained that a median would not work because they would put a lot of people
~ out of business in that shopping center. Their livelihood would be taken away from them.
~ Further discussion took place.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission can place condtions requiring a
traffic signal and that the cost of the traffic signal be shared by the property owners. They will
need an establishment of a nexus to the particular use and also make the findings wfth regard
to modification of conditions of approval and finding the appropriate findings that may be
applicable provided there Is evklence presented at the public hearing to support ft.
IN FAVOR:
Randy Qast name not audible), Regional Manager for Kinko's, 5645 E. La Palma, Suite 165.
They are in support of the traffic signal because they feel ft would substantlaliy aid in people
getting In and out of the parking area. (It was clarified he was in the Promenade). They
would like to encourage their landlord and Cinemapolis to come to terms in paying for this
traffic study. They do feel there is a parking problem, but he would like to emphasize that
there is a circulation problem. He has not seen the RFP for the parking study, however, he
wanted to make sure ft was part of the parking study. He added the circulation causes a lot
of congestion.
He further explained they would not support a median because ft would cut off the Iffe-line to
the stores as well as the rest of the tenants in this area.
Daniel Lee, Imperial Promenade Partners. For clarification, they are in support of the traffic
signal. They are one of the advocates working together wfth the City of Anaheim. They
attended all of the initial meetings trying to get all of the owners from the south s!de to attend
and to cooperate in terms of putting in a traffic signal. It is very important for ail of the
surrounding property owners.
The only objection they have Is in the last quarter of 1993, out of nowhere, they had one of
their accesses taken away from them. They have a reciprocal access agreement that is a
recorded document in the County of Orange with Cinernapdis which shows three access
points and one has been taken away from them. It is the one that is furthest to the back of
the property closest to the railroad.
Commissioner Masse stated ft was not taken aw&y, ft was redirected.
Mr. Lee stated ft was redirected and ft is says "No Entry, One Way Only.' If anyone tries to
access ft, they cannot make cleft-turn.
Commissioner Masse stated ft says "No Left Tum, One Way Only?" Mr. Lee Indicated that was
correct.
of-to•s4
Page 7
,.
,,
Commissioner Messe stated the City fs trying to be helpful In this case; they warn to get a
~,.~ parking study done; they want to get a traffic light put up and yet ft seems in the letter they
received today, they are standing back and saying they do not want that. Today you are
saying because Cinemapolis arbftrariiy changed the circulation between Clnemapeiis and
Imperial Promenade and refused to change ft back, you era wfthdrawing from participation
and negotiations wfth the traffic signal. He suggested they get behind the parking and
circulation study and ffnd the bast way to solve the problems that are there.
Mr. Yaida stated they are going to look at parking; circulation; and no. of people travelling
from the south side of the street coming to the movie theatres. It will be a complete study.
This is a Request For Proposal to identffy the problems and make the recommendations.
Commissioner Messe asked ff that changed Mr. Lee's attftude towards the parking study;
circulation study; and the traffic fight installation? Otherw(se he fs going to recommend that
they are going to put in a median.
Mr. Les stated ff that was the case he would change his consideration. He would certainly
have to recommend that wfth his partner. When they first had the circulation altered they
called the City and requested them to help mediate the sftuatlon. The response they received
is that ft was on private property and there was nothing they could do. Their hands were tied
and they do not know where to tum.
Further discussion took place between Mr. Lee and the Commission regarding this Issue.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Yaida explained they are Just wafting for a check. If they receive a check today they could
start the process tomorrow for a parking study. For tho traffic signal, ff they bring their check
tomorcow to the City and the agreement Is put together, they could immediately start the study
and design for that traffic signal.
He clarified that the cost for a parking study was approximately $11,100. The cost of the
traffic signal has gone down to approximately $129,000 due to an award they get from State
funding.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification ff the $129,000 would be shared by 4 parties
including the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Yaida indicated that was correct. They must have all the money and an agreement In
place before they can start the process.
Commissioner Henninger suggested that this be continued for 2 weeks and the only thing that
really needs to happen is that people need to submft their check to the City. The money is
the key. If that happens wfthin the 2 weeks, then they could continue this further depending
on how long the traffic study is going to take.
He referenced the parking analysts on page 7 (the first asterisked footnote. This says they
are double counting the 38 parking spaces
01-10-94
Page 8
Mr. Yalda stated that is correct. He explained the; are counting k as a double. The
Promenade Is counting them for their numbers arx; Cinemapolis is counting them for their
numbers. So they have been counted twice.
Commissioner Henninger stated ff they really want to examine the parking on these two skes
as you do in the table abo~:e, one of the two skes needs to have 38 unks subtracted out.
Mr. Yalda indicated that was corcect.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, and seconded by Commissioner Messe that the
money be in place wkh the Cky at the end of two weet:s and ff not, then they will have another
public hearing.
Mr. Hastings stated that the parties may not want to give them the money ff there is no
agreement in place.
Commissioner Caldwell stated the motion included the wrking of checks and the deposk of
money and ff not, then the Commission may want to pull the CUP.
ACTION: Continued to the January 24, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 7-0
~.k~
01-10.94
Page 9
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE C_CLARATION I Approved
4b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 12696 AND 12697 Approved
AND SITE PLAN
OWNER: PRESLEY CO. OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Attn: Richard
Sohne, t9 Corporate Piaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: DAVID A. BOYLE ENGINEERING, Attn: Joe Boyle, 2098
Grand Ave., #A, Santa Ana, CA 92705
LOCATION: Property is aooroximately 26.7 acres located at the
northwest corner of Horizon View Drive and Sunset Ridae
Road.
Petkioner requests approval of one 13•lot (including 4 lettered lots) 240•unk
condominlum subdNision and one a-lot (including 4 lettered lots) 168•wik
condominlum subdivision and final she plan in order to bstablish a 408-unk
condominlum subdNision wkhin Development Area 7 of The Highlands at
Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1).
Continued from the December 1 and 13, 1993, Planning Commission
meeting.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
Commissioner Tak declared a conflict of interest.
OPPOSITION: hone
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
David Boyle, Civil Engineer, 2098 S. Grand, Suke A, Santa Ana, CA, representing Presley Co.
The project has been thoroughly gone over by the developer and the staff. He referenced
condition no. 4. Presley woulo' prefer that k read: 'chat prior to final map approval." He
explained that Presley plans to do a rough grading plan and then later a precise grading plan
that shows the unks. He asked that k be amended to say: 'That prior to final map approval
the petkioner shall submk a detailed fencing plan." (Strike out the worcJs °the approval of a flnai
grading plan or prior to final map approval, whichever occurs first.)'
He referenced condkion no. 9 regarding the CC&Rs. He asked that another letter regarding the
elevation dated January 10, 1994, be referenced in this condkion as well. He read the letter
Into the record.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
01-10.94
Page 10
DISCUSSION:
~ Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, expressed his concerns leaving out the final grading
plan. If thsrc are any types of retaining walls or any type of c^ib walls, those typically appear at
that point. Once the rough grading plan is approved, they are basically stuck wtth tt. The
Intent is to look at the grading plan wtth the landscaping for the wall rather than Just a w!ought
iron fence that can be shown any time before the final map approval.
Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, stated the condttion could ba rewritten to read 'prior
to the approval of a rough grading plan or prior t~ the final map approval whichever occurs
irst"
Mr. Boyle explained Presley would agree to the grading relative to the retaining walls, but they
do not avant to have to complete all of the architectural fencing details for the perimeter prior to
the rough grading, I.e., the aesthetics portion of tt.
Mr. Hastings stated that would be acceptable to staff as long as all of the retaining walls and
crib walls that will be included in the protect, be shown at that time. They would require that
prior to approval of a rough grading plan, or prior to final map approval, whichever occurs first,
any of the crib wails or retaining walls shown on the plan has to be approved. In addttion, any
additional walls or fencing or monumentation walls shall be approved prior to final map
approval.
Commissioner Henninger referenced condition no. 9 relative to the letters and stated that the
condttion does not specifically say that Presley shall do these things.
Mr. Hastings explained the verbiage in the letters should be reflected in the Maintenance
Covenant as to who will do what.
Commissioner Henninger stated he was thinki~;g of the construction and tt would most likely be i
done by Presley and not the homeowner's association. He was having trouble wtth the way
the condition was worded. It seemed to him that tt should state that Presley shall make these
improvements or modifications to the existing Improvements and the CC&Rs for the
homeowner's association should provide for their continuing maintenance.
Mr. Hastings stated unless the developer actually holds an interest in the association.
INTERESTED PARTY:
Kevin Aura, 1012 S. Laughingbrook Court, Anaheim, CA 92806. One of the letters was
addressed to his neighbor, Mr. Lacey and one to himself. He was unclear on a couple of
issues and expressed his Immediate concerns. He clarified tt there are building height changes,
setback changes, or anything of the sort, the letter he signed is null and void. He thanked
Presley for their willingness to work wtth them.
Commissioner Henninger stated Presley was committed to doing the things in the letters.
Mr. Fastings stated they do have plans on file provided for by the developer. Statf will check
against those plans when the building permtts are being requested.
01-10.94
Page 11
ACTION: Approved 'i entative Tract Map Nos. 12696 and 12697 and She Plan with the following
revisions to the condftions of approval:
Madffled Condftion No. 4 to read:
4. Th~:i prior to the approval of a rough grading plan or prior to final map approval,
whichever occurs first, the petftioner shall submft a detailed fencing plan to the
Zoning Division for Planning Commission review and approval as a Report and
Recommendation ftem. The plan shall show any proposed retaining or crib wall. Any
addftional walls or fencing monumentation wails shall be approved prior to final map
approval but not necessarily arior to approval of rough grading plan. in addftfon to
the content of said plans as outlined In Condftion No. 3f of Ordinance No. 4861, said
plan shall demonstrate the height and materials of any proposed fence and wall and
shall also include landscaping materials Incorporated adjacent to subject walls in
order to minimize the visual effects upon adjacent streets and residences.
Modified Condftion No. 9 to read:
9. That the maintenance covenant for subject tracts shall reflect the condftfans
contained wfthln the two (2) letters from lire Presley Company dated December 20,
1993, and one (1) addftional letter presented by the Presley Company at the January
10, 1994 Planning Commission public hearing dated January 10, 1994, agreeing to
improvements protecting the prNacy of the single family residences across Sunset
Ridge Road. The developer shall be responsible for implementing the conditions and
providing for the continued maintenance through the inclusion of the ap;-roprlate
conditions found in the project's Covenants, conditfans, and Restr<ctions (CC&R's).
~- VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest)
01-.0-94
Page 12
/~"~
5a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
5b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.93-9405 Granted
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3655 Granted, in part
5d. VARIANCE N0.4241 Granted
5e. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14666 Approved
OWNER: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 201 S. Anahelm Blvd.,
Anahelm, CA 92805
AGENT: KAUFMAN AND BROAD, 180 N. Riverview Dr., Ste. 300,
Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: Property consists of approximately 20 acres generally
bounded by Lincoln Avenue to the north, East Street to the
east, Broadway to the south and the Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad right of way to the west.
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 93-9405: Portion A -Subject property Is
approximately 1;7.75 acres. Petitioner requests reclassification from the
RM-1200 (Residential, Multi-Family), CL (Commercial, Limfted), RM-2400
(Residential, Multi•Family), RS-7f00 (Residential, Single•Family) and ML
(Industrial Limfted) Zones to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multi-Family) or a
less Intense zone. Portion B -Subject property is approximately 5.68
acres. Pettioner requests reclassiflcation from the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multi-Family), RM-2400 (Residential, Multi-Family), RS-7200 (Residential,
Single-Family) and ML (Industrial Limited) Zones to the RM-2400
(Residential, Multi•Family) or a less Intense zone. CONDITI NAL E
PERMIT NO. 3655 Portion B - To permft a 2-story, 65-unft, RM•2400
condominium development wfth waiver of lots abutting a public street,
maximum fence height, required recreation leisure area, minimum
structural setback and Council Policy No. 542. VARIANCE N0.4241:
Portion A - To construct a 2-story, 87-unit detached condominium
development wfth waiver of lots abutting a public street, maximum fence
height, permftted residential structures, minimum distance between parallel
walls and Council Policy No. 542. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.14866:
Petitioner further requests approval of 87 single-family residential lots, an
8-lot, 65-unft air space condominium subdivision and 4 lettered lots.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC941
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC942
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC943
01-10-94
Page 13
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT
TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
INTERESTED PARTY: 1
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. She asked Kaufman and
Broad to do a short presentation regarding this particular hem.
Scott Manahmey, (phonectially spelled), representing Kaufman and Broad, 180 N. Riverview,
Anaheim, CA. He made a presentation on his project. This project has been carefully planned
to meet special goals and objectives they have established with the Redevelopment Agency.
They needed to consider special site constraints created by building in an older established
neighborhood. To meet these goats they needed to request some special variances.
Their first goal was to bring in a high quality community that blended Into the existing
community. They did this by incorporating the Calffomia craftsman style architecture that
predominates in the area. He elaborated.
They wanted to keep this protect friendly to the existing community. They were concerned
about closing out the existing neighbors, so they accomplished this 6y fronting their units on
Broadway.
Their second goal was that they wanted to provide a more friendly environment to encourage
neighborhood interaction and socialization. This will make the resklents feel like they are more
part of the community which encourages them to take pride in their homes. They
accomplished this by providing the front yard orientation to the homes and townhomes. They
have porches on all of their single-family homes and they hae•9 private court yards on the
townhomes. This is to have people come out and spend more time wflhin the front yards.
Their third goal was to continue the unique architectural features that have become the
trademark of the award winning Redevelopment plan. They have extended the 20•foot
landscape corridor wfth 40-foot Washington palm trees along the northern boundaries. The
palm corridor extends from Anaheim Blvd. to East Street along Lincoln Avenue.
They added fn an additional 13•foot wide landscaped pedestrian corridor along East Street to
provide for pedestrian circulation and an extensive buffer to the project.
In addition, they are providing unique street lights that contribute to the specie! Identity of the
Redevelopment project in the downtown area.
Their fourth goa:• was to provide quality project landscaping. This project continues to provide
the extensive landscaping to this communities exterior giving the community a more mature
feel from the beginning. The trees along Broadway and East Street are proposed to be 24
inch boxes.
01-10.94
Page 14
Their fifth goal was to assure that good recreational opportunftles exist far the project. Directly
across from the main entry, they do have a 12,000 square-foot park that includes a small tot
lot for the children who Ifve within the neighborhood and the area will also serve as a central
meeting place for the local residents.
Within 50 feet west of this proposed community, there exists a two acre community park that
provides two court half basket ball courts, a tot lot, BBQ's and sand volley ball court.
Their sixth goal is to provide a diversity of housing types to the area to appeal to the wkfe
range of home buyers. This Is why they are proposing both townhomes and single-family
residences.
In addition they also want to assure that they were going to be bringing in new familes to the
downtown area to help support the new businesses they brought in.
The final goal was to eliminate the blight within the area. There existed, previous to this
project, a wide variety of non-compatible land uses prior to acquisftion by the Redevelopment
Agency. He elaborated. They Intend to down zone this property to a much less intense use
that is more compatible wfth this area.
Mike Woodley, 100 Bayview Circle, Newport Beach, CA. (Curentty in charge of the
Architecture Department, Kaufman and Broad). He went to the exhibk board and gave his
presentation further elaborating on some of the points that Mr. Manahmey spoke about.
Mr. Manahmey reviewed the two variances that the Planning Commission recommeded denial
on.
INTERESTED PARTY:
Steve Sabrinsky (phonetically spelled), Orange, CA. He referenced the unfts facing Broadway.
He wanted to know H they are going to build walls or fences of any type?
Commissioner Caldwell explained they will be facing right on Broadway.
Ms. Stipkovich stated they would be recommending a low fence (approximately 3 feet) that
might be added to the front yards of all of the townhomes in order to make that open space
more usable and more private and still make ft visible and have the feeling of addressing the
street and neighborhood. This would be a new requ(rement for the developer, i.e., wrought
Iron fencing wfth a gate in addftion to the shrubs.
She refer.9nced a request by Commissioner Caldwell who asked for an analysis to be done of
this project versus the Heritage Place project. She submitted the information to the
Commission and explained the numbers.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he would like to have a chance to look at the project before he
cotes.
01-10-94
Page 15
Mr. Woodley explained the tot usage is very similar although more compact. The reason they
~ came up wkh what they refer to as an 'upside down' house, is because the ilvingroom is
actually up stairs and is a very compact foot print, consoquenUy they use less of the back
yard.
He also explained that they thinned the townhouses slightly and Impacts the square-footage
number on an average.
Commissioner Henninger stated the curcent proposed lots are about midway between the
paired homes and the single-family homes at Herkage Place. He asked what people think
about pared homes?
Ms. Stipkovich explained as a planning statement, they thought they were great, but she did
not think they sold very well and she did not think the general public was very pleased wkh
that particular product type.
Mr. Woodley stated paired homes era nice, but there is 40-foot of garage facing the front of
the house. The street scene is more garage dominated. Further discussion took place.
Ms. Stipkovich stated fl people have a choice they really prefer to have a detached home. The
paired homes, enough though they are an efficient land use concept, is not as preferred by
buyers.
Mr. Manahmey stated one of the goals they had was to bring the detached home ownership
Into the downtown area; and one of the reasons they wanted to propose asingle-family
detached product was to encourage home ownership. Discussion took place regarding lot
sia es.
Further discusslon took place regarding the home owner's association and CC&Rs In order to
ensure that there v:ould be adequate maintenance of the front yards, etc.
Ms. Stipkovlch explained that this part of the project completes the urban design plan for the
residential areas and Project Alpha. It is proposed to be built out at a much lo.+er densky than
what the plan had originally invfsloned. There was a mixed project invisioned in this area on
the urban design plan which was to be a mixture of apartments and townhomes.
There was a mixed project invisioned in this area on the urban design plan which was to be a
mixture of apartments and townhomes. In response to what they think is the preference of the
communky, they recommended a product type that was reflective of home ownership and also
as much single-family detached as possible. They are also very familiar wkh the townhomes
which they felt were consistent wkh the type of housing they would like to see in this area,
however, there were certain constraints they had to deal wkh. She elaborated.
She further explained there are problems in trying to configure something wkhin an existing
block of property where they have the realignment of Uncoln anti the railroad track which Is a
real constraint and then complying wkh the Cky's requirements to widen both East Street and
Broadway. This densky, which is actually less unks then what is on about 70% of that area
right now, represents a very effective use of this land.
Ot-10.94
Page 16
Commissioner Messe asked N she would explain the constraint caused by the railroad track? ~
Ms. Stipkovich explained ft Is a physical constraint and it would be extremely expensive to
move. They could ask that the railroad be realigned, but they do not have the money to do
that.
Commissioner Messe stated they did not seem to worry about placing homes right against the
railroad tracks.
Ms. Stipkovich stated they do feel there is a significant buffer as a result of the setback from
the railroad tracks to the wall and that a significant sound wall will be established as well as
the back yard setbacks. There are some considerations gNen to the fact that the railroad
track is there. It was determined that the minlmurti setback would be 22 feet.
Commissioner Messe asked why they did not put the small private park up against the railroad
tracks eliminating 3 lots so there would be 3 fewer people that are affected by the railroad?
Mr. Manahmey stated ft was Just a decisicn they made. They wanted to centralize the park
and have it be a focal point as you enter the project.
Discussion took place regarding the grade differential, recreational area and private open
space versus common open space. Ms. Stipkovich clarified that the front yards are not meant
to be common open space, ft is meant to be private fenced in open space and usable to the
person to owns that unit.
Ms. Stipkovich explained their larger objective in the downtown area Is to help reinstate the
older neighborhoods Into a more viable part of the community. This is also part of the urban
'- design plan that they have established. She elaborated and added they want their project to
be integrated and be a cataylist to revitalize the rest of the downtown.
Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification ff the urban design gukielines encourage them
to front the street and address the street? Is k that policy that is causing the problem wfth the
open space?
Ms. Stipkovich Indicated that was correct. It does create a necessity to address how they will
make both spaces usable.
Jonathan Borrego, stated Ms. Stipkovich is correct, in the sense that the Code when reading
what can and cannot be used towards recreational/leisure area, the common
recreational/leisure area Is the one which does not include the front yard setback area, so ff
the Planning Commission determines that the area adjacent to Broadway is actually private
area as opposed to common, then he thinks they would be safe in using that towards the
calculation. A private area within front yard setbacks is not actually distinqulshed.
Commissioner Messe stated if the applicant would stipulate to putting in wrought Iron fencing
wfth the hedge and with gates at the approrprlate places?
Chairman Peraza asked how much space would that give them?
01-10.94
Page 17
Ms. Stipkovich stated the total would be 776 square feet of prvate open space and she would
~ stipulate to the fact that they will make sure there is a gate as well as landscaping hedge
material to dellniate the private open space wfth the wrought Iron fence at a half level,
somewhere between 3 to 3-1 /2 feet.
Commissioner Messe asked to deny waiver 'C"' on page 2 so they could fulfill the 750 feet.
Mr. Borcego stated ft could be withdrawn.
Mr. Borrego read some corcertlons Into the record as follows:
Page 2t of the staff report, condtion no. 18: The reclassftlcation no. at the end of that
sentence should actually be 93-94-05.
Condtion No. 19: That prior to final tract map approval condition nos. 2 through 16 should be
amended to read "and 18" above mentioned shall be compiled with' in other words the
zoning needs to be finalized before the final map can be approved.
Commissioner Messe referenced condtlon no. 9 and stated he noticed they are using both tllt-
upand roll-up doors.
Ms. Stipkovich stated ft should be only roll-up.
Commissioner Henninger stated the conclusion they came to regarding the private recreational
space (at least his vote) was heavily dependent on the policies of the Redevelopment plan.
He emphasized this is not something he would encourage in other parts of town where they
do not have the guidance.
ACTION: Approved CEOA Negative Declaration
Granted Reclassification No. 93.94.05
Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permft No. 3655
1. Waiver "C" pertaining to required recreation leisure area was withdrawn.
Modified Condition No. 9 to read:
9. That roll-up garage doors wfth minimum dimensions of sixteen (16) feet wide with
twenty (20) foot long driveways shall be shown on plans submitted for building
permits. Said doors shall be installed and maintained as shown on submitted plans.
Added the following condtion:
That the front yards along Broadway shall be enclosed by a combination of wrought iron
fencing and shrubbery (36-4^c inches high).
Granted Variance No. 4241 wfth the change to Condtion No. 9 as
noted above.
Approved Tentative Trait Map No. 14866 wfth the following
changes to condftions:
01-10-94
Page 18
Modified Condftion No. 16 to read as follows:
1 B. That the approval of Tentative Tract Map is granted subject to the approval of and
flnallzadon of Reclassfflcation No. 93-94-05.
Modffled Condftion No. 19 to read as follows:
i
19. That prior to final tract map approval, Condftlon Nos. 2 through 16, and 18, above-
mentloned, shall be complied wfth. ~
VOTE: 7-0
.~~
01-10-94
Page 19
~/
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. CONDITIONAL 7SE PERMIT N0.3593
OWNER: YUK T. LAU, 8922 Emest Folsom Drive, Garden Grove, CA
92641
AGENT: ALLEN DAVID ORNSTEIN, 5295 Cameron Drive, #408, Buena
Park, CA 90621
LOCATION: 314 N. Beach Blvd Property Is approximately 0.67 acre
located on the east skle of Beach Bivd. and located
approximately 1,050 feet north of the centedine of Uncoln
Avenue.
Petftioner requests deletion of a condftion of approval pertaining to
prohibftion of live entertainment.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-4
Approved
Denied request to
delete condftion of
approvai
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COAIIMISSION ACTION. NOT
TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
IN FAVOR: 2 people present
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Allen Ornstein, 314 N. Beach Blvd., representing the Electric Circus. He gave a presentation
regarding the club. He stated he was in default on his property and his business was slow.
He explained having pool tables was not enough and needed a dance floor and
entertainment. He elaborated on his background in the entertainment industry.
Mr. Ornstein voiced his disapproval of the Police Department and staff's recommendation for
denial of subject request. He stated he has been at that location for 5 months and has not
had to call the police once. He has not been aware of any problems. He explained this
would dramatically hurt his business.
Joe Loas (phonetically spelled). He asked for his son to speak on his behalf.
Benny Loas, 8922 Earnest Wilson. They reed this license so they can supplement their
business in order to make ft work so they can pay their bills. All of their money has gone
Into their business and they are seeking a license to supplement ft and make ft work. This is
why they went Into partnership wfth Mr. Ornstein because of his resume and reputation In
entertainment. He is a senior in college and this could impact whether or not he will be able
~ graduate or not.
01-10-94
Page 20
IN FAVOR:
(.,,~ Sherry Weiss (phonetically spelled), 2701 Cherry Avenue, Fullerton, CA. She has been
employed byMr. Ornstein for the past 7 years. In October they did have a temporary
entertainment permit. They did have bands play and every night they played they had zero
problems within the night club and the business increased substantially.
Ray Stephens (phonetically spelled) 7662 Sierra Circle, I~ Palma, CA, Manager of the night
club. He agreed wfth Ms. Weiss and indicated there has never been a problem in the past
with their club and they have adequate security. It has not been a problem whatsoever and
when the Commission makes their decision they should consider that. They do not
anticipate on having any problems.
Commissioner Henninger stated they had this hem as a Report and Recommendation a while
back and they were asked to make a decision whether the condition that is in here prohibited
dancing (condftion no. 6). They decided that they would consider a dinner dance facility
upon staff's recommendation. He asked what was allowed with the dinner/dance facility that
is different then what they are proposing now?
Mr. Borrego stated the only difference in this case is that ft was specifically condftioned upon
prohibition of INe entertainment, otherwise, INe entertainment would be permftted under a
typical dinner/dance type of operation as long as they were not charging a cover charge
which would then render ft a public dance hall.
Commissioner Henninger asked Officer Gandy with the dinner/dance facilfties they have in
the City, has there generally been a problem?
Mr. Gandy explained ft depends on the way they aro run. They have a couple in town that
are a problem for them because they got away from the food service to Just alcohol. The
ones that are run as a regular dinner/dance where food is served, they are generally not a
problem. If a club is in violation of their conditional use permit or the Alcoholic Beverage
Control license, and not serving food, then they take appropriate action against those
particular places to bring ft back Into line or to have them close the doors.
Commissioner Messe asked what the history was relative to this particular business at this
time?
Mr. Gandy explained this was a Chinese restaurant up until last year; ft was closed down and
they opened up as this facility. When they receNed their conditional use permft last March
they were to open up as a restaurant wfth pool tables. They have been in the business on
several occasions and there has never been any food served.
When they receNed permission from the Planning Commission to get the dinner/dance
permft, ft was their understanding that they would apply for adinner/dance permit and when
they obtained that permit, and one of the condftions of that permft was that he must serve
food of substantial nature. He never applied for the! permit. As far as he knows, he still does
not serve food.
Commissioner Henninger asked if he saw this as a bar wfth entertainment rather than a
dinner/dance? It was questionable as to whether or not they ever served food.
01-10-94
Page 21
Officer Gandy stated only on one occasion and that was the grand opening. Undercover
~ ofOcers have been in there on several other occasions and they have all reported back to him
thzt no food was available.
Officer Gandy stated he has emphathy for Mr. Omste~n and Mr. Loas. However, when they
originally came in with this protect, they never guaranteed ff would be successful. The Police
Department told them ff they would like to continue operating a restaurant to put pool tables
in, but ff should substantially be a restaurant and then they would not be in opposition. He
did not want them to get away from what the orignal format was which was a restaurant.
Mr. Ornstein stated because their business has been slow, the restaurant has not been quffo
up to par, I.e., they are serving a Iimffed menu. They do have a new revised menu that they
put out and they do need the income from food. He explained they had to completely
remodel the kitchen and their main objective was to be a full service restaurant. They
originally wanted to be a blllard room, but they need to keep their doors open and change
their direction.
Mr. Borrego reminded the Commission that when the application was approved last March, it
was approved on a year to year basis and this one is set to expire on March 22, ttf94, and
that the applicant iras the opportunity to come in and have that time limitation efther
extended or deleted.
Commissioner Messe asked ff the stage and dance Boor was already built and Mr. Omstein
stated they were and both were approved and they cannot have dancing and entertainment.
He could not understand why they would approve a stage.
Commissioner Mayer stated she cleady remembers his discussion with the Commission and
he did understand at that time that the dancing was IimBed to the dining patrons and ft was
not to be live entertainment. He agreed.
Commissioner Messe stated he was not present at that November 1st meeting and asked
why did he go ahead and build a stage?
Mr. Ornstein stated they requested a stage. He referenced a letter dated October 5th that he
wrote. He knows they have not had food everyday, however, their Intent is to have a full
service restaurant.
Commissioner Messe asked what type of entertainment was he planning on having?
Mr. Ornstein stated he would like to have bands, combos, blues and a blues night. Ho has
worked with every entertainer in the world.
Commissioner Mayer asked what size bands and Mr. Omsteln responded 3~ piece trends.
Mr. Gandy stated for clarification, with the dinner/dance permff that he has been apppoved
for, he may have live entertainment with that as long as that 1Ne entertainment Is there for the
patrons coming in and dancing. 1 think he wants to charge people to get into the door to
come in and listen to these different groups.
Commissioner Messe stated that is a dffferent Issue.
01-10-94
Page 22
Commissioner Caldwell asked if there was going to be a cover charge?
:~''. Mr. Omsteln stated sometimes there has to be a cover charge. Thoy have not had cover
charges yet. He added some of the bands cost $500 to $600.
Commissioner Caldwell stated this changes the whole spirt[ of what he voted for and they
voted for a billard place with food wfth some dancing. Now we are discussing a cover
charge wfth entertainment and people mostly coming mainly to hear the musk and be
entertained.
Before he would approve this he would want to review the entire CUP process and look at
the Y~yoie thing in the context of what he ultimately wanted to do and not continually madfly
the original CUP. He would like to see it be readvertised far a new CUP and have the
applicant explain exactly what his goals are.
Mr. Ornstein explained part of doing business is to go wfth the trends.
Commissioner Caldwell suggested he go back and resubmft a new CUP describing this new
use. It is totally different then what they originally approved. He made it clear he was going
to voto to deny the request.
Commissioner Messe stated on November 1st the Commission approved complimentary
dance to the existing CUP. Now today they are coming back and suggesting a cover charge
for some nights.
Mr. Ornstein stated everyone else does it and asked that the Commission not take this out of
contc "_
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the applicant should come back wfth a complete
picture as to what he wants to do. There are other establishments that do have cover
charges for their entertainment, but all of those come in under a different application before
the Planning Commission and that is for a public dance hall. He further explained ff he does
want to charge a cover charge for the entertainment, he needs to file under a public dance
hall which would allow him to do that. What he has right now is the ability to have
dinner/dance. If the Commission chooses not to approve his request today, I.e., to change
the one condition of approval which is limiting his ability to have live entertainment, then he is
bound under the terms of what he had before he came before the Commission hove today.
In addition, he w~:.dd suggest fl the applicant is Interested in changing his floor plan, i.e.,
eliminating some of the kitchen area and perhaps modifying his floor plan, h is probably best
that he take care of that under this application today so the Planning Commission could
consider a revised floor plan ff that is his wish.
Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification H they have dinner/dance can they do Ifve
entertainment now?
Mr. Borcego stated not with the wording of the condition.
Commissioner Messe stated a normal dinner/dance facility would allow live entertainment.
01-10-94
Page 23
Commissioner Henninger referenced page 3 of the staff report for November 1st, paragraph
13, which specifically states ff the petkloner wishes to have Ifve entertainment, i.e., a live
band, condkion no. 6 of the resolution shall be amended in conjunction wkh a future public
hearing.
Commissioner Mayer stated she has not heard from the applicant exactly what he wants to
do; she wanted hirn fo tell them exactly what k is he is proposing. She suggested that he be
sure to talk to staff so that the next time he is here, he is not telling them he does not
understand. She explained staff Is available to talk wkh him and walk him through the entire
process so he does understand what k is he needs to be asking the Commission for.
Discussion took place regarding pulling a Special Events Pennk for live entertainment.
ACTION: Approved CEoP: ~~egative Declaration
Denied request b~ delete condkion of approval pertaining to prohlbkion of INe
entertainment in a previously approved restaurant/billiard center.
VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted No)
:,+~
01-10.94
Page 24
~'
7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT January 24, 1994
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3658
OWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS, INC., c/o TCW REALTY
ADVISORS, 865 S. Figueroa Street, Ste. 3500, Los Angeles,
CA 90017-2543
AGENT: S4NDRA QUILTY, COMMERCIAL CENTER MANAGEMENT,
865 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
LOCATION: 5520 E. Sarda Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately
10.63 acres located at the southwest comer of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Imperial Highway.
To permk an 8,710-square foot semi-enclosed restaurant wRh on-premise
sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and roof-mounted equipment
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: gone
ACTION: Petitioner not present. Continued subject request to the January 24, 1994
Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 7-0
01-10-94
Page 25
~/
~`
Sa. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
i 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3650 Granted
OWNER: CHARLES A. BONNETT, 10990 Wamer Avenue, #D, Fountain
Valiey, CA 92908
AGENT: DEBRA BROTSKY, 9132 Cresta Drive, Los Angeles, CA
90035
LOCATION: 3020 West Lincoln Ave. Property is approximately 1.59
acres located at the southwest comer of Lincoln Avenue and
Beach Boulevard.
To permk the Installation of automotNe accessories (stereos, cellular
phones, alarms) in conjunction wkh a proposed retail establishment.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC845
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
UPPO5ITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
AI Brotsky, Presklent of AI and Ed's Auto Sound, 516 Monterey Pass Rd. He referenced
condkion nos. 1, 3 and 5 and asked the following person to speak on these hems.
Clatre Coritsey (phonetically spelled), Property Manager for C. A. Bonnett Enterprises,10990
Wamer Avenue, Fountain Valiey, CA.
She referenced Condkion No. 1 regarding the existing westerly driveway on Lincoln Avenue.
That driveway is the Ingress and egress for the refuse people to get into the back alley of the
shopping center. She was not sure how this would work.
Commissioner Messe stated that would put all the delivery trucks that circulate on the back
alley into the main area. He was sure there must be a mistake.
Alfred Yaida, Traffic Engineering, stated the reason they asked for that driveway is because
there is another drveway adjacent to k and iF they could modify their plans k would be
helpful. Further discussion took place regarding this Issue.
Ms. Corksey referenced condklon no. 3 regarding the 10-foot radius curb returns. She
indicated they will confiorm.
She referenced condkion no. 5 regarding solid waste storage and collection.
01-10-94
Page 26
Mr. Borrego stated the existing trash enclosures were in disrepair and the dumpsters were
~ rolling around the back. They may want them to reconstruct the trash enclosures and make
sure the bins stay in the enclosures. He stated regarding the recycling plan, that is subject to
negotiations wfth the Maintenance DNision.
Ms. Corftsey referenced condtion no. 7 regarding the termination of Conditional Use Permft
No. 3307 and stated they will request termination of that CUP.
Mr. Borrego stated he would like to add language to condition no. 4 regarding trash storage
areas being provided. Add the following: 'That the trash storage area should be shown on
the plans witch are submitted to the Building Division for building pennfts."
ACTION: Granted CEQA Negative Declaration
Granted Condtional Use Permit No. 3650 wfth the following changes to condftions of
approval:
Deleted Condition No. 1.
Modfied Condition No. 4 to read as follows:
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location
acceptable to the Department of Maintenance and in accordance wfth approved
plans on file wfth said Department. The trash storage area shall be shown on
plans submitted to the Building Division for building permfts.
Modified Condtlon No. 8 to read as follows:
7. That sub)ect property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petftioner and ~,vhlch
plans are on file wfth the Planning Department marked F~chibft Nos. 1 through 3;
provided, however, that the proposed overhead doors shall be relocated to the
west elevation.
Modified Condition No. 9 to read as follows:
8. That prior to Issuance of a building permft, or wfthin a period of one (1) year from
the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condftlon Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6,
above-mentioned, shall be compiled wfth. Extensions for further time to
complete said condftions may be granted in accordance wfth Section 18.03.090
of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Modfied Condftion No. 10 to read as follows:
9. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2 and 7,
above-mentioned, shall be complied wfth.
VOTE; 7-0
Ot-10-94
Page 27
r~
OWNER: TRICO S&T, Attn: Fred Salter, 201 Pauiarino Ave., Costa
Mesa, CA 92626
AGENT: STEVE KIEFER, 25591 Rancho Tierra, Moreno Valley, CA
92553
LOCATION: 3969 E. L.a Palma Ave. Property is approximately 2.35
acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and
approximately 80 feet west of the centerline of Van Buren
Street.
To permit a 3,700-square foot baseball school within an existing 37,700-
square foot industrial building wfth waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC948
9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3852 Granted
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Mike Kiefer, 1305 Bridalwood Circle, Corona, CA. They are proposing an Indoor baseball
training facility to accommodate 4 cages. Three are hitting cages and one is pftching. There
will be one Instructor per one student for a one half hour lesson. Instruction is by
appointment only. They are dealing wfth children with average ages between 14 and 16.
They are trainning them in the basic fundamentals of baseball.
He referenced page 6 of the staff report, ftem no. 2 regarding hours of operation. They
propose to have the facility open until 10:OOp.m. They asked for an extension from 9:OOp.m.
to 10:OOp.m. They will not operato an Sundays.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Condftional Use Permft No. 3652 and added the following condftion
The hours of operation shall be Iimfted from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Saturday.
VOTE: 7-0
01-10-94
Page 28
.~
i0a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3654 Granted
OWNER: ELWYN INSTITUTES, Attn: J. McKinney, 18325 Mount Baldy
Cir., Fountain Valley, CA 92708
AGENT: RON ERICKSON, 1980 Petra Lane, Placentia, CA 92670
LOCATION: 3831 E. La Palma Ave. Property is approximately 0.68 acre
located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and
approximately 470 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Avenue.
To permit a 12,958•square foot automotive repair facility within an existing
industrial building wfth waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94.7
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Ron Erickson, owner of ExclusNe Motors, 1980 Petra Lane, Placentia, CA. They repair
Mercedes Benz automobiles and they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit. He
referenced condition no. 1 regarding the number of employees. He asked what the
reasoning was for having only 8 employees? It was determined he would like to have the
flexibility to grow to 12.
Commissioner Messe explained this was based on the parking study.
Discussion took place regarding the number of parking spaces.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated as long as they do not overflow the parking and there
is always parking available for the customers, he thought it would be o.k. as long as he
keeps all of the cars on the inside.
Mr. Erickson referenced condition no. 5 regarding the ex(sting driveway. He spoke wfth the
owner of building B regarding the chain he Installed. They would like to be able to remove
the chain.
Commissioner Boydstun stated as long as the chain Is not on h is property, then the
condition should be removed.
Ot-10-94
Page 29
'~
Mr. Borcego stated K was put in because it does restrict the access to the property. That
,r-~ driveway was designed to service ali three of those parcels. It does appear there is a
recorded document that states: 'As the owner and developer of 3811, 3821 and 3831 East
La Palma, La Palma Partners, hereby agrees that when the above mentioned lots are sold
mutual ingress and egress easements, as wei! as sewer access agreements will be
exchanged.'
Commissioner Messe suggested that the City should take that up with the adJacent property
owner.
Mr. Erickson stated he does want the chain down, but he did not ih(nk it should be a part of
this condftional use process.
He explained wfth(n the lease agreement they have the ability to purchase the building.
OPPOSITION:
Rosemary Parks, RLP Management, P.l). Box 1397, Newport Beach, CA. She is the Property
Manager and represents the owner for the property directly across the street from the
property in question.
The owner has asked her to appear today wfth some serious concerns about why the
restriction for the narking spaces is going to be waived when they are all held to the same
accountability and the fact that these types of businesses generally generate a great number
of cars. The gentleman indicated that he curcenfly has a employees and hopes to move to
12. That would mean that approximately 12 of the current 26 spaces would be taken by
employees cars. ;ihe explained he has 7 lifts and 8 parking spaces wfthin the building. She
was surprised a formal parking study was not required.
IN FAVOR:
Mitch Zaner (phonetically spelled), 2099 S. St. College Blvd., Anaheim. He is a commercial
real estate broker for 10 years fn the Anaheim area. For clarfOcatlon the property has 24
parking spaces (2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.). He has worked wfth Mr. Erickson wfth the
relocation of this business for the past 2 years. They did have a formal traffic study done
with Mr. Yalda. Based on the parking requirements and the amount of cars he is going to
put Into the building, h was determined they would not have a problem.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Erickson explained the new building allows him fo have eight lifts and in between those
iifts ite will have available space to work on. Now he can have at least a minimum of 16 to
20 cars inside wfth no flow problems. When a customer brings their car Into the shop, they
are not left up front. When a car pulls Into the front of the shop, K is Immediately taken to the
back of the shop or Inside the shop to be worked on. After the cars are finished they will be
pulled to the front and the car will be picked up. One of the condftions is that no cars will be
left outside in the evening.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Yalda if the applicant has adequate parking based on the
fact that he will grow to 12 employees?
01-10-94
Page 30
./
Mr. Yalda stated a Mercedes Benz automotive shop is dffferent then a regular auto mechanic
,.~, shop. They feel comfortable with recommending approval of this conditional use permft.
Commissloner Messe asked ff them was a parking study?
Mr. Yalda did ask them to provide them with a one page, detailed Information. They visfted
both sites; the ono they are in now and the one they are proposing. Then they compared
that wfth one other she on La Palma Avenue.
Commissioner Messe asked when they visited the she dkl he notice there were 2 parking
spaces Inside a fence that appeared to be unusable on the northwest section of the
property!
Mr. Yalda stated ha did nut go out there himself, he had one of his associates look at the
site.
Mr. Erickson stated ff they need the parking spaces he will move the fence.
ACTION: Approved CEOA Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Condtional Use Permft No. 3654 wfth the fdlowing changes to condftlons:
Modffted Condftlon No. 1 to read:
1. That the total number of employees shall be Ilmfted to twelve (12) persons.
Deleted Condition No. 5
~.- Modfffed Condftion No. 10 to read as follows:
9. That prior to commencement of the actfvfty authorized by this resolution, or
prior to issuance of a building permft, or wfthin a perlad of one (1) year from
the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and
8, above•mentioned, shall be complied wfth. EMensions for further time to
complete said conditions may be granted in accordance wfth Section 18.03.090
of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
VOTE: 7-0
01-10-94
_. Page 31
f~
11. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3098 - REQUEST FOR AONE- Continued to
YEAR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME YO COMPLY WITH February 7, 1994
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Roger J. Work requests aone-year
retroactive extension of time to comply wfth condftions of approval for
Condftional Use Permit No. 3096 (to permit a 3-story, 43-unft
"affordable' senior cftizen apartment complex) to expire November 21,
1994. Property is located 3601 W. Ball Road.
Continued from the December 1, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 28 -Request for Termination. Terminated
Applicant (WIId Bill's, Attn: Ed Beaver, 7600 Beach Boulevard, Buena
Park, CA 90620-1838) requests termination of Condftional Use Permit
No. 26 granted to establish an Ice rink wfth restaurant and skate shop.
Property is located at 1869 S. Manchester Avenue.
TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC948
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3466 -Request for Retroactive Continued to
Extension of Time. Applicant (MNW Development, P. 0. Box 5513, February 7, 1994
Fullerton, CA 92635) requests a retroactive extension of time to expire
on November 4, 1991, on CUP No. 3466 granted to permit a 2-story,
13-unft senior cftfzen's apartment complex at 1204 W. Center Street.
D. VARIANCE N0.4215 - ~teguest for Extension of Time. Applicant Approved
(Aradi, Inc., 1675 Century Park East, Sufte 1880, Los Angeles, CA (to expire 1-11-95)
90067) requests an eMension of time to expire on January 11, 1995, on
Variance No. 4215, granted to permit waiver of permitted resklentfal
structures, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback and
minimum distance between parallel walls to construct a 2-story, 74unft
detached condominium complex. Property Is located at 1925 W.
Uncoln Avenue.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:05 P.M. TO THE JANUARY 24, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION AT 10:00 A.M.
Ot-10.94
Page 32