09-23-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She also noted that the Certificate of Occupancy clearly stated that it was not approved for use as an indoor swap mall. Chairman Nalle opened the public hearing. Wayne Avrashow, attorney for applicant, advised that they have been in operation since 1989 with over 60 entrepreneurs. He noted that prior to opening in 1989 the applicant submitted plans that the City approved without requiring further discretionary action. He stated that the site is cleaned daily but that donations for the Thrift Store next door are frequently left on the property. He also noted that the property has one owner but is two parcels. Payless Stores and Farmers Santa Ana Marker lease the front of the property with Universal Discount Mall leasing the back; therefore, they believe there is more than adequate setback and that the parking is adequate if the area occupied by Payless is not considered. He also noted that the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that meets City Code. There were no additional speakers on the matter. Chairman Nalle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mondo noted that the site was one of the worst looking pieces of property in Santa Ana and that the Certificate of Occupancy specifically states that an indoor swap mall is not a permitted activity. He asked the applicant why he believed that the swap mall was a permitted use and was advised by Mr. Avrashow that the plans originally submitted by the applicant were approved; therefore, it had been assumed the activity was permitted. Discussion was held regarding the amount of parking at the site and how the number of available spaces had been determined, original approved site plan, number of applications for certificate of occupancy from vendors that had been denied, and approved vendor business licenses. Discussion ensued regarding the applicants lease from the property owner, the average rent charged for each stall, and why the issue had not been dealt with earlier. Ms. Nelson noted that the issue had not been dealt with earlier as staff had not been available for commercial code enforcement duties. In 1989 the applicant had initially applied for a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor swap mall but when advised that a parking variance would be required he did not proceed with the application. He then proceeded to rent spaces for use as an indoor swap mall. Motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-14 and Variance No. 2002-09 until October 28, 2002 to allow time for the Planning Commissioners to review the original plans that had been referenced. MOTION: Mondo SECOND: Verino VOTE: AYES: Cribb, Doughty, Leo, Mondo, Nalle, Verino (6) NOES: None (0) ABSENT: Richardson (1) ABSTENTION: None (0) Commissioner Verino noted that she wanted it clear that this was a separate issue from the criminal prosecution issue and that it needed to be reviewed from the viewpoint of what it is today. There is an obligation and responsibility to clean up mistakes of the past. This issue will set a precedent for other properties. Commercial code enforcement efforts are just beginning and there will be other properties to consider. Chairman Nalle noted the property needed to be cleaned up and encouraged the applicant to make the effort. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 September 23, 2002