Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/1996YT YliTPC /14 T9L+ nL+niT nif MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 A. Van Tour of the properties involved in Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 96-02, General Plan Amendment No. 96-06, and Amendment Application No. 96-06. (Thomas Childress) The Planning Commission took a tour of the areas proposed for the industrial rezoning. Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding development options under the proposed zoning and under current zoning. Commissioners Brown, Doughty, Mondo, Nalle, and Pedroza attended the tour. 1 The Regular Meeting of the Santa Ana Planning Commission was called to order by Madam Chair Brown at 6:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 22 Civic Center -- Plaza, Room 147, Santa Ana, California. Other Commissioners present included: Doughty, Mondo, Nalle, and Pedroza. Also in attendance were: Robyn Uptegraff, Executive Director, Kenneth Adams, Planning Manager; Gary Sheatz, Deputy City Attorney; Charles View, Senior Planner; Linda Hale, Senior Planner, Vince Freqoso, Associate Planner; Jamie Watanabe, Assistant Planner II; Mike McCoy and Yolanda Pena, Police Department; and Sharon McCain-Johnson, Acting Recording Secretary. B. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of August 26, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 26, 1996. C. Reconsideration of actions taken at the previous meeting. None. D. VARIANCE NO. 94-03 (Jamie Watanabe) Filed by Dr. Robert Gonzales to allow approval of an expired variance located at 1117 West Seventeenth Street. RECOMMENDATION: Continue Variance No. 94-03 to September 23, 1996. E. HISTORICAL PROJECT REVIEW NO. 96-06 (Kevin Joe) Filed by Mr. Joseph La Muth of Disaster Kleenup to rebuild a 18 foot by 22 foot detached garage that was destroyed by fire located at 725 South Broadway in the Specific Development No. 40 (SD-40) Heninger Park Historical District zoning district. Approve Historic Project Review No. 96-06. F. HISTORICAL PROJECT REVIEW NO. 96-03 (Marvin Ellenbecker) Filed by Sima Noorahami to revise the previously approved Historical Project Review No. 96-03 in order to relocate the garage approximately three feet to the north and use stucco material on the north and east elevations of the garage to satisfy the one hour fire wall requirement located at 1019 North Spurgeon Street in the Specific Development No. 19 (SD 19) French Park Historical District. Approve Historical Project Review No. 96-03. *** E N D OF C O N S E N T*** Commissioner Mondo moved to approve the Consent Calendar items. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nalle. AYES: Brown, Nalle, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver and Segura G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-23 (Vince Fregoso) To begin revocation proceedings for the Roxbury South nightclub located at 2 Hutton Center Drive in the General Commercial (C2) zoning district. Direct staff to begin revocation proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 92- 23. Mr. Vince Fregoso, Associate Planner, provided a brief presentation and indicated that staff was requesting to begin revocation proceedings for the conditional use permit for the Roxbury South nightclub due to noncompliance with the regulations and conditions of approval. Mr. Fregoso further indicated that the Commission previously continued the revocation proceedings at the request of the applicant on July 22, 1996 to allow additional time to address staff's issues of concern. City staff had conducted several investigations of the nightclub and during the investigations it appeared as though the applicant/owner made little or no effort to come into compliance or address the concerns raised by staff. Staff was again requesting the Commission to proceed with the revocation process. Commissioner Doughty expressed her disapproval of the process which allowed business owners the ability operate businesses while neglecting the laws while continuing profit financially. She informed staff that she would like staff to develop a procedure or process which would allow a fine to be implemented. Mr. Kenneth Adams, Planning Manager, indicated that fines would have to be legally incorporated into the City's approval process. Ms. Robyn Upteqraff, Executive Director, added that if the Commission chose to revoke the conditional use permit, a fine could occur. If the code were amended to do so. Mr. Allen Blume, representing the applicant, indicated that he understood staff's concerns and stated that the restaurant had been recently closed down because the applicant believed the facility needed a fresh start with new employees and management in order to effectively rectify the problems. Commissioner Nalle asked who the primary share holder was for the business; who was the applicant for the project; and who was operating the business. Mr. Shillea responded that Nancy Clifford, his daughter was the primary shareholder. She and his son-in-law were the operators of the business. Ms. Yolanda Pena, Police Department, indicated that New York Gourmet Corporation is the applicant for the alcoholic beverage license (ABC). Commissioner Mondo stated that when the request for Roxbury's first came before the Commission several years ago, he supported the project and had high aspirations for the project. However, within six months after the operations began, the project began having problems. When the Commission met with the applicant, it was agreed that Roxbury's would not be opened until the improvements were made and in compliance with the code. Despite this promise by Mr. Shillea, subsequent investigations showed the promises were not kept, and for that reason he supports revocation of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Doughty again expressed dissatisfaction with the operation of the business as well as the City's policy which did not fine operators that ignored the code requirements and laws. Commissioner Pedroza indicated that she was not happy with the operations of the business and expressed displeasure with the applicant wasting the time of both the Commissioners and staff. She also reiterated to Mr. Shillea the he had informed them that he would bring the site into compliance and it appeared that he had not shown initiative to do so. After further discussion, Madam Chair Brown stated that she felt that several Planning Commissioners had extended themselves to conduct a site inspection. During that inspection, staff had indicated all of the requirements and had explained and identified all areas of the site that needed improvement. She further expressed disappointment with the applicant's progress to conform to the requirements. Commissioner Mondo moved to direct staff to begin revocation proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 92-23. The motion was seconded by Madam Chair Brown. AYES: Brown, Nalle, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver and Segura H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-16 (Vince Fregoso) ' To determine use for the Galaxy Concert Theatre located at 3503 South Harbor Boulevard in the Light Industrial (M1) zoning district. Deternine that the dancing and nightclub use is not a permitted use under Conditional Use Permit No. 94-16. PLANNING COMMISSION MAdil"1'ES 2 SEPTCMACR 9. 1996 Mr. Fregoso provided an overview of the staff report and indicated that since early summer, the Galaxy Theatre had been promoting dancing and consumption of alcoholic beverages as the primary function of the facility on Monday nights. Staff believed that the use was not agreed to per the original approval of the request and would like policy direction from the Commission. Ms. Pena further indicated that there had been an increase in police service calls for the night club venue and it was not considered a bona fide eating establishment. On one evening there had been a total of 18 violations and the owner had been cited. She also informed the Commission that there were no grounds to deny the request but the Commission needed to clarify the issue. Commissioner Mondo asked if the management had been sending in monthly reports to the Police Department for alcoholic sales. Ms. Pena responded that one report had been received and she had recently received another report. Commissioner Doughty reiterated her concerns regarding business operators the ability to willfully operate their businesses in violation with City codes. Madam Chair Brown asked the applicant if he understood the issues of concern. Mr. Jeff Benise, Attorney, indicated that the applicant had operated an upscale concert theater and he did not wish to run a foul business nor run an operation that did not satisfy the City. When the original conditional use permit was approved, the applicant believed this was an approved use. Mr. John Huntington, Club Rubber, indicated that what was being performed on Monday nights was industrial music and it could be viewed as a disc jockey. Food, drinks, and dining still occurred on Monday nights and he believed the operations did promote a nightclub atmosphere. After further discussion regarding occupancy limits and dining room set up, Mr. Gary Folgner, Owner, indicated that his intent was not to just sale alcohol. That he had been operating according to the 50/60 food law. There were nights when alcoholic sales were more than food sales but other nights when food sales exceeded alcohol sales. His operations catered to different crowds with different taste in music. He further stated that he was not in the nightclub business. Madam Chair Brown indicated that a major concern was the number of police service calls which lead to safety issues. The Commission had an obligation to ensure that the issues were being addressed. Mr. Folgner indicated that Monday nights was the only day there was an age limitation. The age limit was due to the ability to control the acholic sales. Commissioner Pedroza asked if the applicant would address the fact that 18 violations had occurred on one night. Mr. Folgner responded that he believed he had been a victim of the Police Department. There had been undercover police officers in the parking lot watching that evening and he believed most of the violations occurred on the adjacent property's parking lot. In addition, Mr. Folger indicated that he believed if the Police Department sat in any parking lot of any business within city limits for a period of time violations would also occur. Commissioner Doughty asked how many police service calls took place and what types of calls were made. Ms. Pena indicated that she did not have with her at the time the amount of calls that took place. But the calls were related to drinking and fighting. Between January through July, there had been approximately 20 police service calls. After further discussion, Ms. Uptegraff suggested to the Commission that the applicant and staff discuss the issues further and try to come to an agreement and staff would bring Conditional Use Permit No. 94-16 back to the Commission. Madam Chair Brown moved to direct staff and the applicant to discuss the issues further. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughty. ' AYES: Brown, Nalle, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver and Segura I. Comments from the Executive Director. (Robyn Uptegraff) Ms. Uptegraff informed the Commission that the approved monopole project (Conditional Use Permit No. 96-17) had been remanded back to the Commission and it would be brought back at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Charles View, Senior Planner, recommended to the Planning Commission to form a subcommittee consisting of staff and Planning Commission members to prepare an ordinance and policies for monopoles as a wireless entity. Other alternative PIANNP7G COMMISSION MINUTES 3 SP.PTP.MRF..R 9, 1996 l measures could also be discussed as a subcommittee. Mr. View asked for volunteers from the Commission to form the subcommittee. Commissioners Mondo, Nalle, and Pedroza volunteered to be on the subcommittee. J. Comments frog the Planning Manager. (Kenneth Adams) Mr. Adams informed the Commission that he would like to hold a Saturday work session on October 26, 1996 to discuss the revised General Plan. Due to the Saturday work session, he also like to cancel the October 28, 199b Planning Commission meeting to hold a recognition affair in order to express the City's thanks to Commissioners Miller, Steins, and staff attorney, Richard Lay. R. Conmeats from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mondo acknowledged and thanked Mr. Adams for his efforts resulting in the trash enclosures at the County Apartments being repaired and the doors being replaced. Commissioner Doughty asked the statue of the 99 cent store on North Main Street. Ms. Uptegraff indicated that an applicant had proposed to put a 99 cent store at the Chandler building; the proposal includes demolishing the adjacent Goodyear store in order to meet all code parking requirements. L. Recess. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 SEI'TERf1iE29, 1996 COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL 7:D0 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG PROCEDURAL RULES PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 20NING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 96-02, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-06, AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 96-06 (Thomas Childress) Filed by the City of Santa Ana to amend the General Plan land use designation and change the zoning on industrial properties in three areas of the City and to modify language in the Light Industrial (M1) district for administrative clarification. (Continued by the Planning Commission August 26, 1996 to September 9, 1996) LEGAL NOTICED: August 2, 1996 PUBLIC NOTICED: August 2, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Recommend that the City Council approve Zoning ordinance Amendment No. 96- 02. 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 96-06 to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 3. Recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 96-06. Commissioner Nalle requested to be excused from the discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 96-02, General Plan Amendment No. 96-06, and Amendment Application No. 96-06 due to a conflict of interest. Madam Chair Brown granted the request. Mr. Tom Childress, Associate Planner, provided a brief overview of staff's request to delete the Limited Manufacturing and Commercial Manufacturing zoning district from the City's zoning code and modify the regulations for administrative clarification; redesignate land uses for various properties affected; and rezone properties with Limited Manufacturing, Commercial Manufacturing, and Arterial Commercial zoning. Mr. Childress also displayed the three areas of the City being affected by the changes. Commissioner Mondo moved to approve the requests for Areas 1 and 2 of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 96-02, General Plan Amendment No. 96-06, and Amendment Application No. 96-06. He requested to discuss area 3 further. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughty. AYES: Brown, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver, Na11e, and Segura Commissioner Mondo indicated that he believed the residential use could and would continue even changing the use to an industrial designation which he felt is the more appropriate long term use. He moved that the zoning be amended to Light Industrial (MD). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughty. AYES: Brown, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver, Na11e, and Segura 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-22 (Jamie Watanabe) Filed by L.A. Cellular to allow a new 61 foot high cellular receiving and transmitting antenna facility located at 2731 North Grand Avenue in the Arterial Commercial (CS) zoning district. (Continued by the Planning Commission August 12, 1996 to August 26, 1996) LEGAL NOTICED: June 15, 1996 PUBLIC NOTICED: June 12, 1996 Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-22 and adopt the findings as submitted by staff. PLANNING COMbIISSION MINOTES 5 SGPI'EMItCR v. 1996 Mr. Jamie Watanabe, Assistant Planner II, provided an overview of the applicant's request to allow a monopole on Grand Avenue. Mr. Watanabe indicated that staff's main concern ie the overconcentration of monopoles as well as the effect on the view of Grand Avenue and the 22 corridor. Staff had met with the applicant in an attempt to come to a point of agreement, however staff was not satisfied with the studies submitted by the applicant. Therefore, staff was not comfortable with the applicant's proposal and recommends denial of the request. Ms. Leslie Daegle, representing LA Cellular, displayed slides, provided an overview of the of the applicants proposal, and discussed the technical issues involved. She indicated that a full proposal had been submitted along with other alternative designs. Mr. Joe Morales, representing LA Cellular, indicated that he would like to continue to work with staff but LA Cellular needed to adhere to technology needs and requirements. Commissioner Mondo indicated, in his opinion the height o£ the monopole was not an issue. However, if an additional monopole was needed he would like to see design elements. Mr. Adams informed the Commission that staff had met with the applicant previously. Staff was not opposed to monopoles, however, additional information was requested of the staff and the applicant had not provided that information to staff. In addition, Mr. Adams recommended that the Commission continue Conditional Use Permit indefinitely or until the subcommittee met and established guidelines for monopoles. After further discussion, Mr. Morales, requested Conditional Use Permit No. 96-22 be continued for 30 days. Commissioner Mondo moved to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-22 to October 21, 19963 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughty. AYES: Brown, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver, Nalle, and Segura 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-36 (Jamie Watanabe) To revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 95-36 due to noncompliance of conditions of approval for Pizza Hut located at 2451 South Fairview Avenue. LEGAL NOTICED: September 5, 1996 PUBLIC NOTICED: September 5, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 95-36. Mr. Jamie Watanabe, Assistant Planner II, provided an overview of staff's request to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 95-36. He stated that staff's request was due to the applicant' a inability to meet all of the conditions of approval specifically the requirement to meet the city's light standards and upgrades. Mr. Adams further indicated that the applicant was aware of the revocation request and the applicant had agreed to request the revocation of the conditional use permit in writing but staff had not received an correspondence in writing. Madam Chair Brown verified with staff that the lighting standards was the sole issue with the conditional use permit. Mr. Adams indicated that the lighting was the sole issue. Commissioner Mondo moved to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 95-36. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughty. AYES: Brown, Doughty, Mondo, and Pedroza NOES: None ABSENT: Oliver, Nalle, and Segura 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - COMMENTS FROM T$E PUBLIC. IFOr matters not previously listed on the Aaendal There were no oral comments. 5. E%CUSE OF ABSENCES. Commissioner Mondo moved to approve the excused absences. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pedroza and unanimously passed. PL4NNQJG COMMISSION MINUTES 6 SEITEMDF.R 9, 1996 6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ' Marg ret r wn, Madam Chair Bro P1an11in Co isaion 1~ PLANNING COMMISSION MQ9i1'I'FS 7 SF.f'PGMBEN 9. 1996