Loading...
Minutes-PC 1991/10/07ACTIC.; AGETIDA P~X'~UIJdR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING Cnf9~1ISSION MONDAY, (x'1nBER 7, 1991 AZ' 10:00 A.M. SPECIAL PRESENPATION: 1:30 p.m. Service AwalY3s to Cor:nissioncx Boydstun and Feldhaus PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIFTV PUBLIC HEARING (F{1BISC TFSTIMONY) 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. CCf DNISSIONERS PRESENT: BC'JAS, BRIS2UL, HELD, HENNINGER, ME'SSE PERAZA COMFIISSIONER ABSENT: ZETIEL PI~17RE ~ F~IDITE PLANNING MISSION PJBLIC HEARINGS rr .~W Wrr n ~, • ~~ 3. Staff Repoita are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in iti ' opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be eierved. 6. All documents are presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable Pr~o~ents..~n _ na Dl.icatio s wh' c ale `not contested will h~ye_ five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, 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 given ten minutes' to present hie case unless additional time ie 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 ie said. visual repreaentationa of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public iaepectione. - ; 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allow to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the "'r Planning Commission, and or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted ~ maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. PC911007 in la. ENVII~NMET11'AL IMPACT RER~RT NO. 302 (PF.EVIO:I,SLY CERTIFIED) lb. DEVIIAPMENT AGREEI~'N'T 91-01 CWNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY, P.O. Box 1550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904, ATTN: Jay Pierce, Foothill Community Builder LG~'ATION: ~ is ap~Zlroximate~ 3,179 acres of ~ unincrorporated land located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's s~el~-of-influence i ~.neral~ tx~rdered on the north by the Riverside ~•YPP[/nV /CR-Q71 anri t~M (tinc~im /'anvnn R,~~ S z Apprcved Granted 6 f '{ ~;~ ~ a iii Specific Plan development) snd further- described as the Mountain Park Specific Plan lSP90-41 pYOiect area. Request for consideration of a Development Agreement between _.. ..••...••. - t'A~'L'i~y ~i"'tt'Md'I!~ m'i''"a"n`3`~h~~i`rL3Y5~ Z7'bmpany~ur"~Tiei g v~rn`. ••• i-• the implementation of the previously-approved Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP90-4). The Mountain Park Specific Plan provides for the development of up to 7,966 residential dwelling unite, 179 acres of commercial uses, interim sand and gravel mineral extraction, three elementary schools, a middle school, a high school an-site and off-site (adjacent Weir Canyon and ridge area) open apace, and governmental urea and public improvements including, but not limited to, streets, sewers, public utilities, transportation facilities, a City maintenance yard and facility, three neighborhood parka, two community parka and a community center. Proposed Development Agreement 91-01 is within the scope of the previously approved and certified Program Environmental Report No. 302 which adequately describes the activities contemplated by Development Agreement 91-01 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC 91-152 ACTION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 302 - Approved DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-01 - Granted VOTE: 6 - 0 (Commissioner 2eme1 absent). 10/7/91 Page 2 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 1 person present 1 letter submitted (Friends of the Tecate Cypress) OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Felt certification of EIR is premature; and that EIR is faulty. Recommended advisory ballot on the next general election. STAFF COMMENTS: Planning - Corrections to Section 8.1.1 of the Development Agreement - fee to occur upon recordation of the final map, rather than after the final map; and also Section 4.1 - date changed to 1-1-95, or as may be extended due to the length of time. ACTION: Approved VOTE: 6 yes votes (Commissioner 2eme1 absent) Commission offered a motion recommending that the City Council request that the applicant amend the LAFCO Annexation to exclude the wild land area. ~w. 2a. C9JA NEX,ATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Apptroved) 2b. OONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3032 (Readvertised) OWNER: BRYAN CROW, 113 Orange Hill Lane, Anahaim Hills, CA 92807 LOCATION: 23472 Santa Ana Can,~on Rand. Property is approximately 34 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 3,698 feet west of the centerline of Gypsum Canyon Road. Request for an amendmen*. to conditioc, of approval pertaining to an extension of time. Continued from the July 15, and September 11, 1991 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-153 --------------------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMPU{RY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO 8E CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None IWY~IYYr~riuYl~ _~..r,.. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: He requested amendment to condition of ~' approval pertaining to 3-year time limitation. Mr. Crow also requested that the payment of traffic signal assessment and the bridge assessment be delayed until zoning finalization and that_he~ I does believe churches have exempt statue. ~ Hellyer -Commission does not have the ability to hurry up the process regarding the fees and that applicant will have to deal with the County because that ie not within the Commission's jurisdiction. Meese - A letter from the County will take care of that. Alfred Yalda - Regarding Ordinance No. 3096, the only exemption for traffic signal fees ie if the area is in the Redevelopment areas. He indicated that he had a copy with him of the Exemption for Traffic Signal Fee. i (~ ~. k ~~ ~' `~ i rc~ ~4 ~,ir ~, ; Approved Granted ~ ,~ ~~s«a 4r 10/7/91 ~, Page 4 1- SvL~;~ `4~li 'ff?tea ~~- vry ~~; f j / 1 s ~~: ~~}. ~~~ c ~ ~ 4' ~~~~ ~~`~: •~' ,: ~yh: . } "~ 4A ! 4 }R%~~'( -r ~~~~,~.,... _ , Applicant - He stated he was not asking for an exemption, just move it forward to the permanent zoning. Beuas - It would have to be paid before the applicant would get his permits for the permanent building. Applicant - He w~~uld '.ike to tie it to the permanent zoning and building plan. For the record, he does not own the property. It belongs to the Garden Church. 1t belongs to 2 non-profit corporations. His nart~e i= on one of them but Its does rot have control of the property; he just works theta. It is open space which does not have any zoning so if it is zoned for a church then he can borrow money to build a church on it. Annika has the permanent zoning materials. Santalahti -When the permanent facilities comes before the Planning Commission the condition will be put in again. That he submitted some preliminary exhibits but staff still needs to yo through them and get the details of what the proposal is going co he so while the~~ have some drawings it is not filed yet. Bc•istol - Uoes the traffic signal assessment fee cover temporary ' structures? Santalahti - Yes anything that gets a building permit and involves I __W -____ _ __.~..-r. _---..- --- .-_.~_._ __S4tlar~ _footage. ~ ' ~i Alfred Yalda -They get credit after they build a permanent church; r r~~ ~ ~` so they always receive credit. ?~ ,, ' .; l ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved '~~}~;, ~ ' Conditional Uae Permit No. 3032 -Granted, subject to the ''` t; change in condition no. 2 pertaining to the timing for ~~,~~. i payment of the traffic signal assessment fee for the 4 ~',~~+' modc:lar unite; and that will move forward to the permanent CUP when applied for. Annika Santalahti noted one correction on the first page of the staff report, condition no. 5, wording should read as "That thin permit shall terminate in 3 years on July 6, 1994°. ~ ' i ; ;., ~1 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Zemel absent). _ ;`i: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~t, 7 y,,., Ir,. ~ 10/7/91 ' Page 5 ~ ~',.1 y, ~ ~~ , ;: 1 £ V .~ ~ i 1• ,F~P~I':a!J..~ `~.l,., ,..,..l-: 1141....,;~r~.l,.)'l:`!~"YC`Jb7Mrve~.v.w+,;.ryY4.!( +.Y'i'~1 i2~'..1.,,~.5b ~... `St.N ~ ~ i , 1 . !A 1 ~ h ~Y~ ~ ~.a J q. ~ F~,Y~ _ ;r l'Y ~ ~~c 1 f f h IJ ~~ r ~.} _ _ > ~,, '~ i x7~~ , ~~~ tiw . r ~ i 4 's.. ,~ .,~v a '- Y~; r' i ~ u~~~x ,,Sy i w J ~ ~, ~ ~~~r yY * .. , . ~ ~'. U4PCi1 c.. .. .., Melanie Adams - Reccmmenc3ed that a tame frar~te of between 90 to ]20 i days of when Commission would Like to see the improvements installed. ! I John Arian - Th'.s involves work along State i'oliege Blvd. ~:hich is a heavily travelled street and it also entails removing a relatively wide sect_on of pavement to make improver.,ent necessary to get into the center. Presently there is a severe bump at the existing ~ entrance which causes people to slow down considerably while entering whicl is a problem to the flow of traffic. In order to rectify this, i an ex.:er.sive portion of State College has to be removed and reconstructed. Nis concern ~.aas construction during the rai.r.y season w!:ich could extend the time element of such construction. ~ Hellyer - Asked how long was needed? Lrian - Tha actual work alona State College should not take more than j 35 or 45 dayR. Hf;llyer - When could construction begin? I Arian - He would r.ecommerd that construction not be started until April which would be the end of the oncoming rainy season and if we i did have a rainy season it could extend this construction. Once that sub-grade gets wet there is no way to dry it out. so ACTION: Approved - Negative Declaration Granted - CUP subject to the following: Hellyer offered a motion and motion carried instructing the Planning Staff to set Conditional Use Permit No. 3226 for dearinq to revoke it for non-compliance with conditions if Commission does not see this letter of credit in place within 30 days and construction completed with 180 days. VOTE: 6 - 0 (Commissioner 2eme1 absent). i 10/7/91 Page 7 ~ ;,>. ? f ~x, ~:'i=l~ ~~l/~~ S r~~ ~`7 ~~ ~!~T ., ~' r y~,"rr '. Yi~~~ yj"J k~ x~ ;5 Y ~t i '''~ C j3`5". `~~. ;1 r ~ ~~+' } .~i~,;' M u;=g'r~ ~-.. , ,~ ,~ a ~.w ;nk; ~~t..w ,...~ ~.y~ } ^9: l1 3. ~~3 [~~Ft~ T ~~ ,, .• • y4 't; J~tf ~y ' y ~~ -., x.P'A~C~' ' ;Y~"~~2 ~w~l L~ ~~~~: ^ ,~~. ,~~H V • j~n ~e '~i~~' tiy1~~ g ;`F~ SS ~} ~ '( f ~ ~+"W ' • ' ~t h ` fi~ ' Y L~ Y } 4 ~, L~t. ,' 't s ;; i,. 4 ~, e~ti1; ," _ ; ~ 1 ~ 3a. CEnA CATE(~RICAL FJ~ff"170N CLASS 1 ~ Approved ` ; 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PE[71NI'L' NO. 3381 Granted ; ' ~ .: ~ CI~VNER: STEWART GREEN AND ASSOCIATES, Attn: Rosalie ~~ McCormick, 2180 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 `~-~;- ~~, IC~17Cx1: 2134 E. I,iriCOln Ave. Property is approximately :~~: `'•'141 Jl~, 27.1 acres located at the southeast corner of y Lincoln Ave. and State College Blvd. To permit the division of an existing retail unit. ~` Continued from the February 11, March li, May 6, June 3, and July 1, 1991 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-154 ~~~ FOLL047ING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Request ie to allow the subdivision of one of their store into two smaller stores. The CUP requested the completion of certain street improvements on State College Boulevard which were required in connection with the previous CUP which was issued. The plane have been modified to reflect the Cities most c,~, recent comments a:~d those recent set of comments were relatively minor. Their engineer has not received final approval from the plan ( ~ checker but that the last set of revisions incorporated some minor ' ' changes pertaining to drainage elements in the plan. The other `.-. ~ element is they are to post a performance bond. The petitioner is located in Calgary, Canada and this bank ie unable to issue the LC in the form that is required by the Clty of Anaheim as they have objected in the Evergreen Clause (the automatic renewal of the LC) the letter of credit. They have had their bank issue an LC through i; ,,,, Hank of America. Bank of America is issuing a letter of credit to ' 'i' the City of Anaheim, however, it is not available today although he did have a letter from Alberta Treasury showing that the letter ox credit is forthcoming but Hank of America's approval has not been ~ ' forthcoming yet. The letter was offered ae evidence and given to the j City Attorney. Selma Mann - It states ti:at a letter of credit will be issued for the correct amount of the bond that is being r=quested pending final review of the letter of credit itself. It would be the City Attorney's Office recommendation that a condition be placed on whatever action the Commission decides to make that the letter of credit be finalized possibly within 30 days. -' ... 10/7/91 ~, Page 6 i ! 'r m, .. 14': '. ~~. ~ ' j~, ~~,. 1 1 -fr~~~ - .. y ~ ,. ~ ~~ ` a ~ j .~~ ` ~ S,yi +~~rr J.F.;;tk, , . ~ ,, ~~ L+F- '~+ ~ ~ ~y y , + ` -- ~Y: - ~ ~C ~ ~"f~t U ~< L ~_3. ~ •.Y , J ' ~ . f-,E . 1 wYl k N~ k, ' ~ ` .. - ... r . 3r 3t 1 . ...., .~,:. s r: 'r r ~ ge~-_ ,. y,~ ~ty`~js {4.t Y'ry.?*~ ' ~ ~Y ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ 4a. CEiOA NFG~RVE DA:i.ARATION ~ Continued to ~~ w t ' ` ~,...• 4b. GL7NDITIONAL USE PEE7MIT NO. 3447 Nov. 4, 1991 _ ? s4 + z ~ ~~~, , U'VNER: LEDERER-ANAHEIM, LIMITED, 1990 Westwood Boulevard, ~- ' f " Los Angeles, CA 90025 r ~ ; ~ ~ AGQ~Id': EDWARD KIM, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, '~' `. ~t'E~Srv~ CA 92805 F'i'~~' 1 IQCAR'IO1N: 1440 South Anaheim BCalevatYi. Property is approximately 14.7 scree located north and east of M1;~, the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim r.g~' ~ Boulevard. ~° `y~' ' ~ To permit on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine ~; 4 within a commercial retail center (indoor swap meet). ( ~` i Continued from the September 11, 1991 Planning Commission .~,rt Aly` ~~? meeting. ~"'~ 0/ ~ r ~. ;., ; . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. -- / ~. . -'>'~c= i`~' ^„4~r FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE /^. CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. "~` ; : ~ y , ~ OPPOSITION• • yri i ~,~~ CONCERNS: i OgPOSITION - t `~'~~ PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: ' ~a; i ~ '~~ COMMISSION COMMENTS: STAFF COMMENTS• ' r" y,: ACTION: Item was continued to November 4, 1991 meeting at the request of the applicant. la°` ` ;j rs~-~ ' I 10/7/91 y Page 8 W~ ~_: i stn yJ• ~~ Y: y d' q~ ~r. a ~' S'- ,o- X~ .:~ ~2'-L'~9. °tf'Y^R~ViG:v7r+i ... ,a3•;,ar. T.... ,.-~,..?^ -,..,.,•<~h :,.-. rf',~ ~. ;PaK"".., r~.^, o,.W ....._ ... ,. ~ "~ r j7 t'~ ~t . ~~~ '~. It ~. M -.r t5 j~ 9~ ~ ;~,~ - _ .. ~~~1 1, ;. ? - r'~ ~.. ~d^~c ;. 1 4'~, ~~. ~ }~' Z ~a M.^A y~~! ( ~~ ~~'. f ~,~~ .. ~+ $ ~Ni~. 1. ~~~ ~ .. a yr ~a L,4 ~~~ . S 7, `} r } ~' ,~:; ~~ r Eric Nicoll - They are also requiring under one of the conditions that the developer execute an affordable housing agreement, and '' within that affordable houein a reement which will im lament the ~~ 4 g P ~, section of affordability, the management plan and SRO policy, and they will ask for sharing of information on the affordable unite and they can include questions such ae the parking and that sort of information. Meese - He would like more information, even beyond the affordable unite. Eric Nicoll - He is sure the developer ie not opposed to providing information for the entire project. Applicant - They have been cooperating with Housing and Planning and ~ many of these issues they will not know until they get operating but they will offer all that information on parking requirements and the type of people using the facility to the Housing and Planning Departments. Bristol - Throughout the documentation, it is indicated how the SRO'e and management will bring people who work in the tourism industry and hotels to the SRO's and asked how that will be done? Applicant - They have been talking to the major employers in the CR Zone and some of them have referral programs and they are going to ~ work with the Housing Department's program. Eric Nicoll - On several projects they have used a preference system for marketing of unite especially when they want to track downtown employees to certain downtown projects. So on the affordable unite they will be requiring they first come from their waiting list and ~ that they create a marketing plan that they can review and approve as ~ far as attracting employees in that tourist area. They hope to do this through a phase marketing plan. Santalahti - She referenced Condition No. 36 which refers to the Code Enforcement inspections which will be taking place as often as monthly. The Commission may be wanting some reports occasionally ae to what the statue of the project ie, i.e., to insert into that condition that the aspect of parking ie of interest and, therefore, if the report ie made to the Planning Commission in approximately 1 year after occupancy of the project, that it include information about the parking relative to the number of occupants who have cars. We can modify the conditions if this is approved to put that in ae a reminder and alert the developer that he will be expected to do that. `./ 10/7/91 Page 10 ~~; ``, :;i~ m4A6Lbl4~:P. .¢"rri.`3r°!i: 31~. i. <!. t ... ~, ~ . k"'®^r'n','r' ... ~. f ; - ~~ . 4~WT ~1 ~ ~~ k~ 1~ ~ ~~~ ~, - k ~ i ~ ~'~ .,; 4.t~ ~' ~r ~~ ' r ` }'fit ~ +' ~:1,J µ 'S' up t ~. ' ~ ~ nr •' . ~! t 1 } { ,.. ,r, ; a~ ;~~t ~ ^s`~i"~' 1F~ ~ I //y' ~~L~ Cry 3; . T ~~ ~ ~ ~ j '-~" 5a. Sl~l fKtTSIl~ • Ft~LICY Approved ~ ~~'~-<, Sb. CEDA NF~Y['IVE DECLAPATION Approved ,~~ 5c. Q7IVDITIONAL USE PERhII'P NCO. 3449 Granted ~~~~'' il~"' CzVNER: LING YING PENG et al, 24144 E. Lodge Pole Road, ~~~~ Diamond Bar, CA 91765 = ,~•~~; ' ,ii AGN3V'P: ENVIROPROP, INC., 121 LINDEN AVE., LONG BEACH, CA ~~ r 90802 ' „fi ~ ~~ IOCATION: 1360 SOUTfi ANAHEIM BLVD. Property is ~~ approximately 2.36 acres locat-;d on the east aide of Anaheim Boulevard approximat ay 125 feet north of - ~ ~ the centerline of Palaie St_aet. To permit a 208-unit single-room-occupancy (SRO) residential /~'~,~1 /rte hotel. Continued from the September il, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-155 ~, FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. t!'. NOTE: Commissioners Peraza and Bristol stated they listened to the '.F",ti: j tapes from the last meetings of the SRO's. ~;. OPPOSITION: None. (1 person in favor) PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: They concur with the staffs comments on the SRO. They have one minor request in regards to the doorway between the doorway and the units; they are asking to use the bifolding type doors versus the fixed solid for saving of apace. r•,~!;, Susan oakson -She is in favor of the applicant and the Planning ~ ~; Commission's recommendation and wanted to thank the Commissioners and the staff for including additional affordability, particularly for ': the minimum wags workers, and for Anahaim acting as a model City in Orange County toward thin type of housing. Mesas -This is the Commission's first SRO project and they will be ~ wanting to access the data base information? i 10/7/91 Page 9 ~; a ~, , 4p. 7`' 5.. r~. ei 4 ~ fir! ~lr ~..,. r ....._ ~-.. ~..- .... __. _.-------...__ ._..__..__.. __~_., . rY C~ ;~ 5 ~, ` ~ J ,. ~. sal r r y ,9.~G• ?{ '~Si. ''TT . ~:~ f} ~ * 4t ~ V R ~ 1 2~ ~ Y ~!~ r ` ~ - 4~tW k: ~Y ;. . ! ~ ' ^) I •1 m - G~ t <'=~~7t~is~: }, lam' U ~ _.r, . ~ ~ • ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~i £7G rt r~ ~;~jf,.~.. t ~~ .. } -!t .•/' ~ S?~ r f ~ f 5 z~ .. ~F ~~ ~t~~~y ~ ~ ; :. . 4 r r ... ~ .... ~~ ... _:~i: .,w:..,.. is<-`xa A"~ ~r,~~ Bristol -Would like to add a condition regarding the potential for k?p: ~~~ ' an char in for arkin s aces; paths s a ae arate condition could Y g 4 P 4 P P P ~ , Mega be added that no fees shall be charged to residents, guest or ~ ~ .~ employees for parking as required under the conditional use permit. ~ F. , ~~ Hellyer -Suggested adding a new condition no. 44 to page 19 to ~4. r~ ~;, inc?,nde the prohibition of renting the parking apace out to others. jp•"'• ~.u Henninger -Suggested asemi-annual statistical report in connection ~`` ~' with condition no. 36. '` ;fr.~, t ~K:. Bristol - On the unit requirements he thought that an air °t`, conditioning unit should the available. ~?~ `r k„ ~ Nicoll -The concern was the energy conservation issue; they are dx; , asking for ceiling fans as well as operable windows so there can be ,',;z' an open air circulation system. The hallways and common areas would „ 5~;; be helpful. ACTION: Recommendation to the `itv Council to Approve Single Room occupancy (SRO) Housing Policy ~ - Selma Mann - Explained a modification in the format of the policy as it ie stated in the CEgA review will have to be made before there is . a final adoption of the policy by the City Council and it may be that r' some of the penalty provisions will be more appropriately stated in :3y~y an Ordinance form since it will be very difficult to enforce them contractually. ~' ~<< < ~ - ti,.r Approved - CEQA Negative Declaration _ ''` Granted -CUP amending the requirements to require bifold " ~ }" doors and to include the changes in the conditions ' discussed. VOTE: 6 - 0 (Commissioner Zemel absent). ~ ^ ,~~. 10/7/91 Page 11 4 ~, ~5~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . .n rFJ"'-~....~. h., .., ... .. -.., r!'rcn~m*.'I~.M`eN.7*n+.e~.^^s~^nr!.!ArIORro: A'J^~+V.t??i'. .^a 1 '`.~T~• 1 i1 i tit s .~#d+ ~ . ~ a r ~^ ,~ Y.} ~ tiu,,FSm'I,; ~A~ ~~` a~, _5~ ,m ~: y s [ S ~ 11 Y~ ' ' ~ : fi ',~~. F .:+4 ¢~1 x;5 1__~' 0 .w ~~-. s ~~. < _ < F~. ! ~ I ' Y ~ i 1~\' • - ~ Y ,} S ' . ~ y1x~:~~~7.. tF ~F~ . ~ 9 ~~' •Y . if .~ 9 ~.M ~. { ~?..~'K ~ !V ~. ~ /V 1 ~ `.i+a 9 t ~ ~ yi R',an r ' i y r•., 6a. CEtOA N!'X,ATIVE DF7CLARATION Continued to ' 6b. VARIANCE N0. 4136 (WITf~RAWN) Oct. 21, 1991 1 i 6c. TENTATIVE TRACT' MAP NO. 14429 ~' 6d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NQ. 91-07 CIaNERS: ED STERN, LINDA STERN, MANFRED A GLASTETTER, CHRISTA •. ~?„`:. GLASTETTER, GARY F. LYONS, DONNA LEE LYONS, RAYMOND f4~~. `~N' W. PEARSON, PAMELA J. PEARSON, CURTIS B. PEARSON, REITA BETH PEARSON, FRED GLASTETTER AND LORZ ~~f GLASTETTER ,i';a:'•- kn AGIIV'P: FRED GLASTETTER, 7.5012 Via Del Rio, El Toro, CA '#' 92630 ~. • LOCATION; Prperty as ,~proxiln3tely 8 4 acrns located on the ~' ~ west side of HennincLWay apnroxim3tely 350 feet 'xs;~:, south of the centerline of Quintana. Waiver of minimum lot width to establish a 7-lot (plus acommon - :. lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family subdivision. `T~~n" : 7:C~ To remove fifty-eight (58) specimen trees. ' ~ i ~~ Continued from the August 26, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. ~~ . t'- '~~' VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. -- ~, ------------------------------------- - ~, FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE f~'x~,; CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ' i" ~~;~ OPPOSITION• , ~! '~ Tt'; OPPOSITION CONCERNS: ?L PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: ` i ?' COMMISSION COMMENTS: k ,(4~~ ry STAFF COMMENTS• ~:. ACTION: Item was continued to October 21, 1991 meeting at the request of the applicant. ~~ ~? '~. 10/7/91 '. ~F~j Page 12 ~'' ~a~p;l C j~. S ,. YK~: ..wwrnl~'snlr?.r .Y, rl.'.r.T',~`•~t3'~'Y.:Y T Y. ^:h .... _ .... ~ _. 5~ ..~:U'~~td~. .. - .;)~~.~'1~:~1w~% n. I„v„~, ~ ~h~ b.. ji Yati.: . ' ~~~.- 'ti. u~l~ . i :£~~.. 7.~~.~~ . ~ ~ r,~ ~ f' y. i ~ 1' .. a ~,y.k ~rR ;•~{ry . y . ~ ,.. ~ ~, ~:w: ~~ ~ A Wg p fy-a..~ , Ja4 } ~~~ 1 C y + ~• 4 ~~M f ,~ r~r ,f °u~~~~~ .r~M.~ . :~^}° 'a w~~ ~. , , ;~ . s 1~~ w r . ~, ~;, , ~: y~1~~. ... '. ~ ,. . ~ L ~ J Y ju ysti . r¢ ~, n4~ N~ • .' r 7a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 Continued . H ~ 1; ~ ~ 7b. VARIANCE NO. 4144 to Nov. 3, 1991 ~~~t? OWNER: MCW INVESTCO INC., Attn: Margo Cagle, U~. 27132-e Paseo Eapada, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 ~ ~s, t.. .~~ ~. IOCATION: 1725 S. Etrookhurst Street. Property is " ~~ approximately 0.42 acre located on the weet aide of Brookhuret Street approximately 580 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. '~' '-,v r``, Waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs, permitted location of freestanding eigna, minimum distance between freestanding signs, minimum sight distance requirements for freestanding eigna, unpermitted canopy "column" eigna, and unpermitted garden wall aignage to retain 3 freestanding aigne, ~ 2 canopy "column" eigna and garden wall aignage. ~~ 3; Continued from the September 11, 1991 Planning Commission a *'„ meeting. ~j~ k ~ 6 4~ ~~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. -- ,~,. °°-°-°-----°°°---°--------°---°-------°--------°--°----- BE ~1:. ~ ' FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANN.T.NG COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO , C CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ' '- OPPOSITION: None }t„ PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Requests waivers to retain 3 freestanding `1., aigne, 2 canopy "column" eigna and garden wall aignage. They area ,r full service car wash and gas station affiliated with Texaco. Their °` nearest competition (not in the City of Anaheim) which is on Katella and borders between Garden Grove and Anaheim has a large pylon sign where people can see what they are. Houas -How many varieties of services are offered? it seems that there are a lot of menu boards up there. :' Applicant: They offer 2 packages which are price reduced and also on ;; ~' ,~; that board they have individual prices of each of the services. Meese -Were they aware of the signing ordinance and the signing conditions when given the CUP in the first place? Applicant: He retained a company (Brilliant Signs) for the purposes t of securing their eigna and manufacturing and installing them. It ,I was not until they were cited that it was brought to his attention that they did not come in as they stipulated they would in their contract with them and secure permits for signagea. He is now very much aware of that. .-~~ U 10/7/91 Page 13 ' 'i'; 3• ~ ,t, w . ~` .. 't E f~ ~.. S :r' " ~ u~ ` ~,, r~ • ~ ~11~~,, S ~Ckn h.. ~}~f •. '-.}..,: `^~ fi?'^ ~ ' ~'J fy. ti} ~~z~ t' ~~yy ~ .'+J 7~ Y ,_ 1 or~j~ ~d~~ff , <~S ~~R ~~ • Sri::- _. ~,'ht J :L . t yi A,F~~ l vs~~~' . s''W~~.'~~~ k ~ ~• , " " ~ ~ u~ , . a"y.T ""• ~ r ~~ y ~ ~ r~ ke ~~. '. t F 4 .'i AN. e f ~~ ~'r '~'~, " - ?ink r ~x~r ,_ a . µ~ ,yyn ~p~ - '1.,1, ~~ S ~ ~ Bruce Freeman -Code Enforcement responded there were to several ~;- . • complaints from local businesses as well as residences about the ( ;~~, abundance of aigne and the traffic hazard because of the obstructed ~ ~ view do to the signs. If you look at other car washes in the city vt' they seem to resolve their problem with aigne in the interior -'~,~~: (cashier window); in 1990 the City Council stipulated a sign ;=,;~Sn restriction on the property and i.t is felt there are too many aigne ~?; ~i: on the property. ,•-~~ Meese -Sometimes simplicity is better than what they have presently. `~p~: Applicant:. It is difficult to see the sign that says it ie a full service car wash because of the layout of the eL•reet. Hellyer - On December 1989 Council had amended the conditions to show ~ ~~~• 5 that they get 1 sign and since then they have a multiplicity of aigne t, s" there. He feels they are giving the wrong message to the rest of the rK`: businesaea in Anaheim, i.e., if they told them one thing, then went ;~; rY and did another and then after they got caught they come back and ask ~`" for a waiver. `: t,,?~; `'~,~ ! Applicant -They only have one monument sign, the other two signs are :;: - _ pricing signs that they posted on the north and south aides of the property and the wall aigna. The aigne in the property are for the - purposes of notifying their customers. Meese -There is a safety problem with the two aigna that show z~l ~'`, gasoline. •, _ ;<. y; v Applica~:~t -They looked at where they are located. It was his ,t`x: +,n: underseanding that those pricing signs, particularly the pole sign ~;;: that hoe their pricing on, was put up with a permit. It is their goal - !:' ~ to comply with the City requirements as well ae the state . I requirements and still be able to be in a position to inform the a` i public about their gas prices and their services. Jonathan Borrego - He is aware of other gas etatlone located throughout the City which have been limited to an 8 foot monument sign and were able to meet the sign critera that is required by the State. The applicant may want to consider affixing some ~f the signs that are located on the property onto the building wall; they are ~.` permitted a maximum of 209 wall converage for wall aigne in each of ~ ~r the walls of the building that is existing on the site. Perhaps they ~ '. could move some of the signs on that wall so they would meet Code since there is room for wall aigna there. i V j i ~~" ' ~; ~ "~ ' ~1 3~ _ _ " f 1 ~y+ ~S ,r tt~^XC . ~ i ~~ l t :K~r ~ s t ~ '~ a E ~ ~? 4 ~ l ~' 5 ~ ~ ~ ~' 4 ..i d _ t ~ M. ~ { ~F.t ~,YtF - ' ~' - ' , . . ~~ htr ~Y~ +"~xN:, i '~~ye~~ii~H :` fv~sf5~'A~yy2. xht ~ Jt ~ ~ r a t ~ • C~ nli l~ f~liy~f4 ~~~`' r w: C ~ 1 ~~,A1.4y .Sy~i~ ~! k ~,~ 4 H'.X~ _...._.. ... ....~...wwrw~.u..o ~.= ~,i4ri~x~y~ Bristol - He indicated that he passed this business from both directions. He had difficulty reading the address because of the amount of signs they had. Perhaps signage on the north side of their building would be very easy to distinguish because it presently looks crowded. Applicant - He requested to continue this item for approximately 30 days in order to return with a revised sign proposal. ACTION: Continuance to PC meeting of November 4, 1991 at the request of the appliciant. VOTE: 6 - 0 (Commissioner 2ame1 absent). ~~ i .~ ~7i ~, ~I~ rg ~ ~,4 ~ ~~ 10/7/91 F ~ ~ ~ Page 15 a~ ~ ~ . ~ r 6~F7 } h. ' Y J,} 1 ~'`i , s r~ ; . '~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ rx r L' ~ }~ ~ {Fj~ r~ ~~~~r~'`T~a ~ ~g .y [ .. i J~ 3'F) Et ~ y R _ . ~ yn t rt ,.~tT '~~ ~$r ~ ~~ . ~ E ~k I i ` ? y1y. Y { h .. ~ .. .- .. .. ...^t.. ~.lS~_ C ~`Y '~.' y:? ~[ i'`}~ ; iy 'tT1yiF,~+ ~. ~.. <-, ; s. ~>,~~~~ isx~5 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ . ;~~~~ r; y ~ ~ ~ _ '..s~.~~~. the the Alcoholic Beverage Control showing that Mrs. Honigmann contact Doug Faulkner who determined that a CUP that was currently located at the premises did permit the on-sale consumption of beer and wine for publi: premises which is a Type 43 license which does not operate as a restaurant and does not permit anyone under the age of 21 to enter and remain at the premises. When the current owners looked at this property for purchase purposes they contacted the City and they asked if they ~.ald continue the type of operation that was currently operating at Chia location and were told that they could. They then went to the City and obtained the appropriate business license; they also applied for an entertainment permit which they did receive to permit 1 dancer to entertain at the premises. The owners have been operating at this premises for 6 years and had the intentions of expanding the business to include some kitchen facilities when a vacant storefront next door was no longer needed by the retail commercial center. Mr. Honigmann began to take down the drywall to see if there were any baron walla that would be effected if he did try to increase the square footage on hie business and when he did that people thought he was building without property permits. City Code Enforcement people were notified. This started the present chain of events. in the event any complaints would be received from the neighborhood Mr. and Mrs. Honigamann are very responsive to any of those complaints but have not received any complainte~ from the surrounding neighbors. A petition was submitted stating that they are in favor of the expansion and that they have not had any difficulties. There was also another petition submitted that contains over 190 signatures, B5 of which are neighbors of the area. OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Concerned about the continued welfare and safety of this community. This business has continuous loud music and noises, laughter at all hours of the night also fighting, shouting, gun shots and use of outragous language. There ie no physical barrier between the present commercial sit and the residential properties because of an easement that exists. A copy of a petition signed by about 56 residents was submitted. The situation, as it presently exists, dose cause a problem for those residents at that site. The expansion of that site would cause additional problems which there is fear that there will be difficulty controlling. Even though there is parking provided other than the one specified for this commercial center (behind the Alpha Beta) they seem to prefer the closest parking available which is the parking off that site. There is also concern about the extreme density for this area. ~• ~ ,. !VC~~sM1;':Wl,~Nrva-.:•a~=rw+ ......, .:, ,.., ..,, ,....,.:;: !r:~, `~'. ,.:., °^v~fF,rwtiR".`T rai'/~: S'~f~vgrk~ ~1. it~t' C S . 5~~. ,. c?.i_ ~'y: `v' ~~~~,~ ~i;9: ~ I ri i ,~ 1' .! ,rte 8a. CAA NEX,~RVE DE~CGARATZ~N 1 1 8b. WAIVER OF Ct7DE RFX)CTIRD~43~T1' 8C. GLaNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3458 G I i /!' ~t C~ 4N JJN ~jf1 h~, ~f~i ': .. H ' ~`~~ ~~F 1~n ~ 1 4j4 . ~ ( : NN IA . V1 t Y ~. ~~ ~ i ~~~~~ ~~ ~, .... R ^t l 'r ' ~ ' a ~ S l ~+'~Ct'~~}a~1. fp. `~'fi: AZ , .rf~Y v+ t ° .v~ l F~C ~~ r .. ~ .. _ _ ... ... .. .r ~ +r ~~ . is u' 1 yk "` .x ,, fN ~ ~~a~' ~. Denied , ~ ?~, ~` Denied , ~ ;~ ~_ Denied ' ~ s~~F ' -~~~ OWNER: JOSEPH DiRUGGIERO and EMANUEI.A DiROGGIERO, 22010 S. ~.; Wilmington Ave., Ste. 200, Carson, CA 90745 ;e AGENT: KARL and FRANCESKA HONIGMANN, P.O. Box 2352, ~' !, Anaheim, CA 92814 ~"' yp~IOr]; 2~3o wp,,,rt GblChester DI'iVe. Property ie `' t'` approximately 0.85 acre located at the southeast corner of Colchester Drive and Colony Street. To permit the retention and expansion of a cabaret with ~ on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with ~'= waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~/~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC 91-156 a; f. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE Pi.ANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ,.. OPPOSITION• 10 ,lA, ^ Petition of 56 signatures submitted. - t y, ,:;. ~~~ PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: TF.3 CUP was done in protest from the ~'~` applicant as they are not consenting to the Cities claim that a CUP }Y~.' ie needed nor ie it not outstanding at that current location. The ~,. ' owners purchased that business in 1985 and had done an extreme amount ~` of research on the property to ensure that all the permits were in ?'~ place at that location prior to their proceeding with the purchase of that business. This particular location has been licensed by the State of California and through the City of Anaheim with different type of liquour licenses since 1961. From 1961 to the current data the premises has had an excess of 13 different owners at that location which has sold and permitted the service and consumption of beer and wine to the customers of the business. At the time that any h~. application is made to transfer a business with the State of Californaia the applicants must show proof to the State of California that the CUP and the zoning ordinances are currently in place and `=ii}..' proper for the type of lincensee that they are seeking. Tn all of the instances from 1961 to the present that has been done. She stated she has a certified copy of a document in the office from t , '+ ':r: :lr r: a ~;` _ ~ , + ~~~_ ~~' br . a ~; r ~~~~.. rr. G ~. ' ~f \'~w. y '~ `~~ ~' h., p ~. ' ~ M ~ . 1 ~ err' p ~ ~ ' r\ ~ '~~'CX. ~.~ ;"~~Yy~' x ~~ ..... t:,,,i ~~' r, ,~,1 : "Y ln, .. 'C ~ -. T~ i Z1v r k~ 4+t ,:~[r1 ~- i ~ ~ ~~ 1tie,~ . r~ ,~ ( , ~~~ s . R ,. ;}t~N ,r~i } ~~_~~~ ~< ~ G K ~ i fit. 4 ~!: <~~ t ~, _, ,. Y r'A t ~k y .u . ~,~. ~ }C }7, ' f ~f C t. ~ ~ r~`kr ~' Applicant - They are fully aware of the type of problems that the ~ }Y ~ residents have with the various establiahmente on erookhust Bivd S ~•" which is one of the entertainment strips. This establishment has ~ 4'*> been in existence long before the senior citizens complex was built. ~ ',r}, They would like to have an opportunity to look into some type of ';y~'; security. Patrons are from the Anaheim residents. Would like to ask ;;<;~': to meet w3.th the residents to see if they can try to work out some _'~i'? solution to the problems that they are experiencing. `f'~ John Poole - It was brought up that the use had been approved a number of times when they changed owners and that can happen at ',;' times. The only approval that was ever there was for a variance for ': ,K beer in conjunction with a restaurant, but when an applicant comes in c~~t and they fill out the application they assume that is what they are ~ ;, ;y continuing to dr.. It ie not until there ie some problem or expansion ''^~rf that many times they find out that someone is operating beyond what ! the variance or CUP allowed. Some of the neighbors have said it very . Try;. well, i. e., that there is to much of a concentration of alcoholic ' beverage salsa in this area. He did not think that there is - "~ ~ ~~: something that can be worked out here because there are too many '~~r places. Code Enforcement has had problems and they have had to site !r>;' n them for operating a pool hall without a permit. He does not think '^ "' , it is a friendly neighborhood bar. '~ ~: investigator Jim Gandie - Was in this operation within the last 3 :r~; l,- weeks to see what kind of operation they have. It is basically a bar ''" CS with 3 gi`7.'s that work inside there and each of them take turn on top ^ ' of the bar dancing. The bar has a raise portion in the center of it, probably 8 to 10 feet in diameter. The girls dance on the raised :t portion located about 1-foot from the bar level. Overall 26~ of the - ly: reports wart: written at this particular location on this block. '': g!! ~ There were 55 calla for eorvice over a 2 year period and 19 of those Y~;' .' were fights or assault calla. .;aT~T ' ~ F I ~..iC.~ ' .H yY T„A 4 f • s /i ' ! ^.7y4 / ~ k' '1 r1Tc~~~~,~ :- ~, fi~ n ~ +,~~,~ • . ~u~~ f A ~.` F y~ ~ :.~.-y5~r+44C. ~~~~ . .. ~: ~ , r ....... .. ~= ~~ r~i Sgt. Harold Mittman -Stated it is not a friendly neighborhood bar; ~ I it is not a place that has not contributed at all .o uplifting the ,h neighborhood and it is not meeting the standards of the ~q~,~ 4 ~~~ fi t,,,J i hb h h d h ~ , ne g or oo . T ey ave reports that they have submitted regarding ) the conduct within this bar that outlines in detail numerious ',,~b i occasions where there ie blantant violations of many of the ABC rules „ `~ `~' and regulations having to do with lode conduct. Just recently the ,_r ra. manner in which they conducted themselves has been modified aubatanially because Anaheim Undercover Vise got them for exposure from first hand experience. y ~a,kJ, Henninger - In this location there ie a consistent pattern of violations that these people have been suspended for over the years. The last violation by these very owners in 1989. Selma Mann -She suggest that Commission consider based on the informaiton that hoe been received regarding noise impacts and ~ possible physical deteriation of the neighborhood as a result of the I ' ! proposed activity that they may wish to reconsider the appropriateness of the Negative Declaration. i I ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Denied ~ Waiver of Ccd: Requirement -Denied Condit: ?•.~ Lae Permit No. 3458 -Denied Inetru i staff to set public hearing to conai~ter revocZ n of Variance No. 1323. ~i' VOTE: 6 - 0 (Commissioner 2eme1 absent). -;it i7:. ,r:~ ':'~;', ``r. _..{ci; ~~! A{': r' ~ ~` t 4.~ ~ ~~ yn - ~J. f I f ` ~ r` k; - R'n'~r?tirA.'3°t~'YT~-..t^~: rwC" MY:!^e:.~" .~ .. , 4~: . J t - ~`~„ y{ ~ .. - ~ ~ ~ L~w~ t: ~~r ` r ~ ' Y .rt a-Y!~;. r ~l ¢.. + ~~r. ' n • ~ 1g7 ~~ ~r ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ k, ~,. , '~~~~ '~ e ,. ~~~~Y- ~~ . tt? Cn~ ~: l ~ v , ~ z ash=.y+~. s.~; ~ . t z~v=c z' . u J ~^~j'4- 1 ~~ y.~ • r~.}ti, r . 1J +~ .~J K 'Y W S U„ 4 lT ~»~ Y~ ~~ ~~~VF~, ~ f~~ . ~ ~ ~N l ~ 9a. CEUA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEL^GARA4'ION Approved j ~`"'+~~ , ~ 9b. GIIVERAL PLAN Ahg1VDh41V'P NO. 323 Granted ' 9c. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 91-92-07 Granted ~ ~~ 9d. WAIVER OF DUDE REUUIRII4E'N'l Granted "~ ~ 9e. GUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3463 Granted (added 'sx.d condition) c ~;. OWNER: JEROME MARKS TRUST/SHSRRIE AOBERTS MARKS TRUST, ~ 1080 Park Newport, Newport Beach, CA 92660 `"""~' AGENT: PRS GROUP/PHILLIP SCHWART2E, 27132-B Paseo Espada, = .~; Ste. 27132-B, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 ~r;• 7ACATION: 2144 West Lin~ln Ave. Property is approximately `:t, ' 6.47 acres located an the south aide of Lincoln %r: j Avenue and approximately 102 feet west of the centerline of Empire Street. ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 323: Petitioner requests an amendment to the Land Uee Element of the General Plan redesignating the northerly 1.14 acres of subject property , having frontage of Lincoln Avenue (Portion A) and the eeuthwesterly 2.6 acres of subject property (Portion B) from _ the respective General Commercial and Low Density Residential designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-07: Portion A (3.2 acres) from the _ ~... PD-C (Parking District-Commercial) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a leas intense zone. Portion B (3.27 acres) from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multile-Family) or lase intense zone. ~' .. 1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3463: To permit a 3-story, ~ 108-unit, condominium complex with waiver of minim~•:n landscaped setback, maximum structural height and maximum fen~a h?Aight. 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-157 ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. RESOLUTION N0. PC91-158 ~ P, I ~~ j , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-159 ~ '*" ~":~;~ •~ ( U 10/7/91 Page 20 a,'z i ~' ~: a ~x• JJ~.; ~ .wgfY@ylID:6iMut!^,!1q+Y1yaTNi"t•.n.ar ~,-. r.~:.._.n;....r->. i..... ... -. ,.. ..,.~ LLS, . F aa • . ~~ i • ~ h~. ~ 4 S• hX w V„' ~° ~ ~~ ~..,1 4 !kt„ ~ r ~ k r~ ~~t ~~. ~ "~ S .~;4 it a . . c r4^ . ~ y ~' ~ _9'„~ ~ ~ ,wr r .. {r ~ ~`S~: . .. .. ay ~~ Y - Tye ., '~ , s 4 f Y f ~.~."~ 66;;{E N~.{; ~ ~ 'eke ~a ~~; w ' ~ _ti x f` M i t _~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~~ , ~~~y 1 ~ `~~ , x~~Y r , . •. s 13 ~{. f : ~ ,_ ~ ~V-try~~. • VD~°~M~ ` ):~( . ;ti~ kµ . Y „~ "y, , s ~, ~ry~, '~_ ~'.~ 'r ~y~ c~{~ ~d 4 .: t ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE ~ "'~ a K CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. 4 j _ f } ~{ OPPOSITION• 4 y'~ " -,~: ave a brief elide overview presentation PETITIONER: Phil Schwartz ; g on this project. The site ie an old Builder's Emporium site. This , building would be used for the residential development. It is '?: ~ti essentially a large parking lot abutting commercial on one sine and `~ "; on two aides it abutte a residential neightborhood. Tht:y are `~ ~~' planning to save and maintain the landscaping as requested by the +- residents. ,, ,. ~ ~ `.:: ~,' ( -a There was a previous project proposed at this site and there was a `~y:~. substantial amount of opposition. The residents indicated they were ri looking for a project with high value, home ownership and security. Their project met those concerns. They submitted a revised site plan which includes trash bins be located away from their property. <r;°:;i~ ~ Through the new system of recycling containers there are not going to ~', be trash bins in that area. They are going to locate them off on the other aide and do individual pickup. OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS: Would like to see the Commission support the City Council as far as the density issue (RM-2400). He felt it should be at the lowest RM-3000 type of development. It allows the developer to build and make a profit and keep the community not so .... overY.uiit. T.`.ere was also concern expressed with the parking and trash bins adjacent to the reaidental properties. A petition from ~_ residents was submitted requesting atop signs be put in on Embassy ~"` ` • and Empire, a three-way stop, and Victoria and Empire, a four-way ~ ~ , atop. : Maria Elena Moreno - Thia project ie wiL•hin the Barton Elementary r , : I School District and that school is currently overcrowded. They feel that developers should do their part to mitigate this impact if they _ ire to build more housing as far as assisting the school district in housisig those children. As it is presently, the developer fee i , ''~ ng those structure does not cover even 15~ of the cost of hous children. : >'%~, ~~ ~4 ' ",~y n ~ .`7~?T 7 3?~~: k+~ `~ ti., t ~~ ' ~:. • T Cv~, ' .A . . ~ ki i,x 1. 4 ~ Applicant - With regards to the density t j /1 they wanted leas than 20 acres and the pr f 1 1 They attempted to contact the school diet confusion as to whether they were in the not receive any input from the school die morning. That is the total activity thus district but are willing to work somethin Bristol - Have they seen the elevations t Applicant - They were aware that there we elevation. They have only seen the eleva but the Bite plan and the other things in were blank. Meese - If you were to keep the 20 foot e ~ family residences, would the existing tre Applicant - If a 20 foot setback is done changed which the trees end up buried. I before the screen would be as effective a would end up losing all those trees and r of landscaping. souse - Questioned what would happen at 1 C Applicant - The trees could be kept. Th 10 feet; the plants put in would be low i the canopy growth that is already there screen and that could be done very eaeil I the grade. Henninger - In the past the Planning eta (within the school district) of how many constructed unite versus new students ou 908. The school district said that the costa of the new schools that they needs for more than their fair share. _i rti ; ~ . r~ _ y .. ? ~ ,~ . C mL ~ ~ ` ~ F 4`~ 1-'~~.r -.t" 1 ~•f~".i y`15J .~ rr r,~ t~ alY~~, ~`u~' ~ L Y 4".~J'V ~4 ~~~ l ~ ~ N ;yam n ••,c \~. ,as.Y ` a ~~~ t ~ Ir *.. ~ ~E~ I a -, ~ ~~a.. ~~F ~ 4 ': he consideration was that ~~ ~ ;Gr'. F opoeal is almost 18 acres. ~ ~ rict and there was some ~'~~ *c district or not and they did I trict until late this ''~}~ ; far with the school _ r g out with them. , ~ ;' ~~, ' hat they have no windows? k ~' re no windows in that r' ~ tione that did have windows ._~~ ' ~ dicated that those walls ,,. ~ ~ etback from the single iv, ee be maintained? 1?~.: the grade would need to be " t would be a long time i `~' e it is right now. You ; ~, eplacing them with 20 feet 0 feet? ,~;{>' intent erauld be to go out ise, then they would catch o you would have a full `_ F without having to change ~;; ~, ~ f hoe done some analysis ~+ students come out of newly .~` of existing units which was ee was paying for 158 of the so those unite are paying ~' s~, ~ i. I v~ A e r s y f t f d -~~`~, _. .'~;. ~. Li „3„ . ~~~ t h -R 7 . ' jam ~ ) } T ~'S~S"w~ ,uJ r.~ a~ ~n}3 ~ +os? krt`,~;; n.`L,. , aY ~. ~ ~ ' (^ ~aF, _ .. -- y~r . :~~k j. ~ ~' t Y ~~~ ~ a -. ... ;:v. .;r .4 r sy ~ k~ + th l #. :, ~ , .1 ? ~ ~ ~ Maria Elena Moreno - That 15B ie per student and is prorated to the I ~' "~' ` 1.4 generation factor that they use. It 1s not counting all the a,+~r ' etudenta that come to the school. It is based on the number of d with t d t th t it ill t Th l i t h ~ ~ s u en s a un w genera e. ey a so commun ca e eac ;; the developer on September 3, 1991 letter !certified) enclosing the notification of proposed development and their conmente were written -,~~` down in that form so they did receive their comments. They stated ';,~" that aide is overcrowded, undersized and that they expect to get 44 new etudenta from the development. Granted it may not happen that first day but they have to consider that project will have a life of ``ti, 30 or 40 years so they are thinking about children generated in the '~;, ~ future. " ' ~: Meaee - What are their plans for future growth? Maria Elena Moreno - Right now they are ,ooking at year-round schools and the rest she could not say because that is the only option right now. Some of the sites can not accommodate emergency relocablea _ anymore. Bouae - Are they busing from this area? Maria Elena Moreno - No, not from Barton nor is it year-round yet. ~` Masse - Would like to see the 20 foot setback maintained, however, if }? indeed those trees would be lost then he would go along with the 10 foot setback in a crusade to save the trees. Bouae - Or whatever the maximum would be needed in order to save the trees. ~~ Hellyer - Suggest you r-;liminate waiver A and then in the event they '=~~" need that they can come back; but ae for right now they are sending " the message to the ap;~licant that they want to keep the trees in 1' place and also have a 20 foot setback. ACTION: CEQA Mitigated Negative Delcaration - Approved General Plan Amendment No. 323 - Granted Relcaeaification No. 91-92-07 - Granted ~~ Waiver of Code Requirement - as it related to pagaraph 4 B & ! ~ C and denying paragraph A (mimimun 20 foot landscape). ~ Conditional Uae Permit No. 3463, with an added condition ' ?~~, that the existing trees along the south and some along the east maintained. VOTE: 6 - 0 (Commissioner Zemel absent). I i n'.„a5f?arF^`n4rr_-r~r. ::._ n-... ..... - ,., .. J. ~. ~; w~ . i • ~ .. ~. ~ . TZt-~.1 ~ '. 1 ~ : y ~ ~ ~ +I cy ~`:S ~~ ~ ' t ~ F ~ °~' i- - t X'!~s. t- . ~ : r: ~ ~ ?~ - ' i~ ~ ~ :ti '7 _. ~:: y Ski ~~^> ' 'y ~ ~~~ .~~K.: : av`9..y'rypS . _ _ ,„ :• ~ f~. ~ ~ • : S 7 ~ 'v : * , ! 1~ 't~~ ~'11~1;~ ~'" _ - 10a. CQ~A MITIC,ATID NEGAZ4VE DFxGARAZ'ION Continued 91 ,~'~ ` ~ ' lOb. WAIVER OF GLADE REt7[721tF143V'1' to 11/18/ , 4 ~ 4 lOc. Gt7NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3451 ~ t• :.~. ,~ L~ • ' GZlR4ER: MILTON JOHNSON, CARLA BEATRICE JOHNSON, MILTON E. ` ~~-: JOHNSON, JR., HAZEL C. JOHNSON, 1214 W. Katella Ave. ~i; Anaheim, CA 92802 '`~" >;~: AGENT: FARANO and KIEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim Hlvd., X340, _ Anaheim, CA 92805 LOC&!'IQN: 511 - 521 Sauth Manchester Ave.: 500 -520 South_ Walnut Stt'~eet. Property ie approximately 2.1 scree located at the southwest corner of Manchester Avenue and Santa Ana Street. j To retain an auto repair, towing and dismantling facility ~'_ (including the storage and retail sale of used auto parts) and - a temporary office trailer with waiver of required improvement of parking and outdoor storags area, minimum structural setback and improvement of setback areas. ~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE "" - CONSIDEIIED OFFICIAL MINUTES. • • • • •• •-- • • •• • ---- ~ Grave concerns were expressed by the Commission and various f,~ y departments regarding paving, intensity of use, land use in general, ~' u: parking issues, an underground fuel tank, soil contamination and r; f' ; environmental concerns. r`1~~«~. `w ~ . ~- k ~`T?' ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1991 in order to allow applicant ~L - sufficient time to prepare a soils environmental impact assessment . 's '~`~ report. ~i; ~~ ,'~• .~ I ;~ • ~.~ i 4r~, Al 1 v 10/7/91 i. Page 24 ;y _ far. ~ ~ v~ ' ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ s << ~ - .: ~( .. ~ •.X14.CRy/.+f..,r!f...~rrtr.~v...~.me..?l. ~,...::": ~ -.-...,,..~ y.p..~y~...~+,...•'^x~;M_!+m~4.~.x..mi9-.e+1!{ivfVM!.^..v+,+.R;..SNS.Tis.~p~ ~..[~'w~WT:ffi ~a ~~ _ ~ ~~ . ~ S' t ~ ~ ~ : h .,yi~ » r ~ e"sti; .' ~ - - ~~~3~ ~~. ~, :; , n~~.~ .., - ~ s t ~yj4~'~ Po- ` .}. ~~, ~ -f yi. ~. t~~a •+ ~ -~ ~c Spry ski t ~r k , ~°i 1~. , u~ ~ ~ ,i ' ~~ii!;) I lld. CEt~A NhY~A'I'IVE DEL^LARATION Approved Ilb. COONDITIONAL USE PEI7h1P1' NO. 3457 Granted GINNER: WOOD BRIDGE VILLAGE, P. 0. Bc:: 348, Anaheim, CA 92815 AGII~fP: YVES MASQUEFA, 8431 E. Foothill Street, Anaheim, CA 92808 I,ICP.TION: 30 South Al]di_~eiln BotilevdiY7. Property is approximately 1.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. To permit asemi-enclosed restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. n .. / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE30LUTION N0. PC91-160 ~j~C/ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved Conditional Uee Permit No. 3457 -Granted ~i'~ ~ (Subj'ecti to-'the condi't~-~ia~-no off"'ea'T8 of"" - - -• __.._. ..-. ____._.__~__._ _ __ alcoholic beverages shall be permitted) ~.,,,~~~ ,fit ~; VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Hellyer and Zemel absent) `~~ ~ "~, lJ i r~ I rt y ~ ~, ,~~ x h>~? 'xts7.r8 q ~ '~fk'~l ~{. rz ~ ~ ,~ t~r ,. r,.>•„ s ~~ A ~~y~ y 'int., ~a.T~ ] T}}1 m tiC~u's^ is S` ~ 4. ,~~ „~'~'~t r ~~~ ~ }}v 1 ;~..q,~ j-~ ~ ~ ; ~_ • ~, ,~ ~~ ~~~: ~. !'x pl, y~ :. ~1 ~ :. }.i ~~~'v ~~.,: `t 'j; 10/7/91 }~ Page 25 ..~~` ~~ yr; 4th f~' ~ ~}v.:. ,~~,.~' . Y J I. ~ - y'{i. J } ~yl ~) ~~; ~ YS~' "~ I' H. ~' ~+'~'S . ZL H7N, ~^i~' f~. ~ . _. i ,~+~' is ~:~~ s ti~~~ 'ucl i .• ?~.. xR.'d. ?~ i ~,/}q~ y~3, v 1:x,1 .~. .. 12a. LTiVIId3Nh~PlAL IMPACT REFbRT NO. 273 (PREVIOUSLY APPRJVID) ]2b. REVISID SITE PLANS FOR TRACP MAP NO. 12690 (lots 7-481, AND TRACT MAP NO. 12691 (lots 26-41) LWNER: THE PRESLEY COMPANIES, Attn: Steven K. Riggs, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: WARMINGTON HOMES, Attn: Dennis E. Harland, 119 N. Maple Street, Ste. M, Cornna, CA 91720 LOCATION: Subiect property consists of 58 single-family residential lots located within Development Area 1 of The Hio5landa at Anaheim Hills (SP87-11 and further described ae Tract No. 12690 (Cote 7-481 and Tract No. 12691 (Cote 26-411. To permit the revision of previously-approved site plane. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: EIR No. 273 (Prey. Cert.) -Approved -_'_~` ""-"' Ttev se a ane'f'oFfis"~E"Mi~S"IPS:'1265tl'-('tOCa~-9~~4kt; ~I `.J and Tract Map No. 12691 (Lots 26-41) -Approved VOTE: 6-0 - (Commissioner Zemel absent) Approved Approved ~~~ ~ '` ,.,~: ;~a;~, 10/7/91 Page 26 a?: ,~cw~? 36v` ;~:: ~~ ~ii M~~~fi ,. s~i~ ~. 1 ~ ~~= ' ~ `!~ ~ ~I ~ 3f~~:r~C."a c~ ~.; F Y ~`` ~~j~" ~ •~ i~';p~. _ sa :. ~' 3 t 44{ " ^ 13a CEnA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued 13b. O~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3460 to 10/21/91 CWNE72: Mr. John Hsu, K.O.K. Investments, 2654 W. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 AGF.N'l: Lu Architects and Associates, 8862 Garden Grove Blvd., CA 92644 LCX.ATION: 2658 Wst Ia Pa.1tr~ Ave. Property is approximately 1.9 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 420 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. To permit a 4-unit, 3,200 square-foot, expansion to are existing commercial retail center. j' ~, ,~. c ,~J CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ---------- NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ACTION: Continued at the beginning of the meeting at the request of .w..r..._... --- ~~ .~....._._....r..... - ...-...r.r.rr " ( ~i a app ~.... ..rr r x~kr. SSA 11 "`a ` ~ ~ ~~ ! 'i ~<< I x 4 _ c~. i ` S T l ~ =1 e ~ ~. ~~ s ti . J,p-{. :~: ( ~ 1 ' . - ~~. `~ "' s7 ~~. ',i ~ '~""~ ~` ~ `.J 10/7/91 ~~ ~ ~ ~4 ; Page 27 ^ ~~~ ~ `* ce ' .. i r . ~~ ,, : 4 ~:ud' ~ f _l K. ur~ ~~ ~ ~ .iTMICL:.^.(.t!?9fA:.^!.i!v.T1N'YltYP.Y`~!~t5'7tnf'~m+R_i,~;'7~}vttt+^~i :... ."'~'w'?7!^,1?.f _. ~ `±- „ YLL 1~ y I Ny~~ .,r _ -.. J~Tf F ~ >~ ~ '~F t ~ e ~! t rt ~ .. ' # :~r.n~t u S i91 - C5^''~1~e .~"~~} ~ ~ ~ ~~~ fyj ~~ i `: ' S S~~S.~ '~ ~ 1 ~ F' k,4 ~ ~ro t c ~ r F i ~'Z` ! . ~ Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated Sycamore Canyon is within a Specific Plan Area and there are certain aesthetic considerations that are given in that area and any design that the applicant comes into agreement with the city should also take those aesthetic concerns into consideration; he is mainly concerned about poets and cables. Mr. Borrego suggested that perhaps prior to an issuance of a building permit that the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with a Report and Recommendation for the review of whatever barrier they agree to. ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved Conditiunal Use Permit No. 3462 - Granted Subjec*. to the following conditions: 1). Require applicant to provide a catch fence and other appropriate rt~itigations to eliminate the hazard of any injuries in the i..'ay area that would be caused by any cars coming off the lc,;al streets including the planting of plam trees. 2). That the developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims. .4 _. ... __ ._._ -..r~r-..~++--.. _._~. •-•-3-j~-• That the-app~ie-~ec,•1~-•5o-•-!w-~ianaing CcmmisslGR . . with a Report and Recommendation for the review of " /~, whatever barrier they agree to. ~.i 4) That appropriate language regarding indemnification be added by a document satisfactory to the City Attorney's office. Mr. Borrego stated for clarification to the applicant, the condition that they had discussed was that prior to ~ issuance of a building permit for whatever improvements the applicant would be making to the unit, that the applicant bring a plan back to the Planning Department to be scheduled as a Report and Recommendation item before the Planning Commission so they will have an opportunity to review the fence for safety considerations and also for aesthetic considerations. VOTE: 6-0 (Zemel absent) c-> , ~. ~, "~ ~~:. ?," L~. ;',<i ' ?,! c i ,:~. fi'. x;• '" +~ ~~: -t. ''.' „"..~ ;~ l0/~/9l Page 29 1,~ f fir; ~~;: ~~~;. iy`1~?. ~..,.~, •, ~ ,n n~ ~,, +a"~c ti sue'' ~%~ F~fP~ T`l (~ 7 t ~~' S`~,sT i ~' ^~ i,.~. Z v`~ ~ ~ ~;,r 'iti~,yR i~;f.`', .jt~~ ;iii ~~ f'h ~ ~~~~ 19a. CDJA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 19b. OONDITIONAL JSE PERMIT NO. 3452 OWNER: WClR PARTNERS LTD., Attn: •JOe Carroll, 1C Corporate Park, #220; Irvine, CA 92714 iG~"•'.'ION: 761 South Weir Canyon fdxid. Property is approximately 11.~~ acres located at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. To permit a child day care center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PC91-161 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Design of fence is their respone+.bility and would accept whatever conditions they would like to impose on them. Will get with Alfred Yalda, Traffic Department, and come up with a reasonable solution to the fencing which we believe meets certain r th -Md""~'• Approved Granted ~ ' n~ indemnification is something that they do not take lightly and they -',~: ~./ do have the responsibility. ~,.~ Fencing will be some kind of wrought iron structure with pylaetera ae °,~~~ originally designed and submitted, however, it will include a cabling 3~';~,, ~ feature. : ~;,c i~ j COMMISSION COMMENTS: Concern expressed regarding the safety of a wrought iron fence and the potential lawsuits against the City if Jh,, there would be an accident. 1;t STAFF COMMENTS: Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated if applicant has any questions at all he should take a 2 week ~;~~> continuance rather than be involved in appeal proceedings either with '~"''~~ the City Council or else coming back before the Planning Commission ti$~t, with regard to an indemnification; it is a serious ;~oeition to be ~.'~ j taking. Since there is an indemnification that is being required they would like language added by a document satisfactory to the City Attorney's '~ Office. .... U ~.' a ~~ ~~ . I ~~ i 10/7/91 ~. y;. Page 28 .+~~ ~;. F' y~ : ,s; ~ k ~i;. 4 •~ ~ ~: r,~mmrmwv~v-rn .s~.Raecenc. ~, x ,,r~~, . . • ~r ~1 Y ~ . ~~ ~~~j~••~ ~~. .v , 1 Q ~. ~~~~ :~ K.~~ T:. t { Y.. ~. ~~ ,:. 1Fa1.~'ia`! f2~~5 . ~.1 :~ ;. vJ . S, ~~r A, ~ 1Sa. ~A NEGATIIE DECLARYTION 1Sb. CCn"dDITIONAL USE PEPMIY' ti0. 3959 !zh:~rER: WI:.LIAM and MELINDA PATTON, 1472 Galaxy Crivo, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: PACIFIC NE4'PORT PROPERTIES INC., Attn: htarshali Wilkinson, 17842 Mitchell North, Ste. 100, lrvinc, ~ CA 927;4 i,CCATION: 2382 East OrangethorPe Ave. Property is approximately 4.10 acres located at the south~.aest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Av~nve. ~ To permit a motorcycle repair shop with parts sales. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NU, pC91-162 FOLWWING IS A SUMMARY OF TME: PLANNING COMMISSION AC'fTUN. NOT TO BE CONSIDdRED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None I~1W- - - ~ ~IYVh..rllll STAFF COMMENTS: Bruce Freeman,•Code Enforcement, asks that applicant stipulate to selling new parts only; concern expressed regarding a pitbull that was tied to a door; portable aignage and the use of vehicles for additional aignage is a problem. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Pitbull be:onged to his partner; he has mace bought his partner out so the pitbull is gone; concern expressed by owner regarding his ineffectiveness to atop the abuse of portable aignage. ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3459 -Granted Subject to the following: 1. Debate Condition No. 7 2. Applicant to stipulate to selling new parts only. ~. fi. f 't ~ `J ~~• 4 ~11flfl ~~a. .., „, r5 qppy~. x~~u2 ~~( ~._ I ~Xt II 4s +. ¢ ~}~ ~ Yxl~.., T ,.. ~? ~T ~ `~~ L, r ~, ~ ~,- i . s~nr} ~. 91d ~ W V ~~ ~ Y Mt, # Approved Gra:a e;. ,~3 .~~~ .h~ .~. {u±., \.~ s:. • t~;;: 10/7/91 `fig' Page 30 :' ` ~. a'-'~ ~i~$k. ~ ~{r~~jj.~t+hn~ t i six Sd f Ch:7:i'~1'.:x. ~ '~.. ~ ~. ~,~ 3 ( ~ ~ • r ~~'}.- ~' ,~ri,~ Mq N Mrt ~"qa~ ~*~4~"e,.~', r ~~~ ~~. ~{ 1l~ A~• 4A ~~t f -„ I` 16a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) 16b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3082 (Readvertiaed) (MCtion required for retroactive time extension and reaoluticr. required for amendment to condition) OWNER: JACK and JUDITH MANDEi:, 1301 Ridgeview, Fullerton, CA 92631 A@PP: TIMOT~iY THI, 1681 W. Broadway, P.naheim, CA 92802 ILXliTION: 1681 West R1•nadway. Property ie approximately 0.4 acre located on the north Bide of Broadway and approximately 205 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Amendment to conditions of approval of Resolution No. PC 88-302 per*aining '.o a 3-year time limitation of an existing church and a one-year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. CONDITIONAL USE PEP.MIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-163 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY GF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None I PETITIONERS COMMENTS: Zoning indicated to them that they had not 1 complied with 5 conditions, however, they have and the plans have been approved. Would like an indefinite period of time £or the CUP or at least 5 yrs. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Hellyer recommended a 4 year time limit on the CUP. S"'AFF COMMENTS: Mr. Borrego, Senior Plannar, explained that staff and Redevelopment both recommended a 3 year time limit on the CUP because this site ie located within the Anaheim Plaza redevelopment area. i ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved ` Retroactive Time Ext. - Approved for 90 days (retroactive • ~ to October 24, 1990) to expire on January 24, 1992. Conditional use Permit No. 30H2 (Read.) - Granted for 4 yrs., to expira on October 24, 1995. Approved Granted for (4 yrs.; to expire 10J24/95 Approved Ext. o` time; tc expire on 1/24/92 (retro. to 10/24/90) r, ~~ (, U) VOTE: 6-0 (Zemel absent) I ,.,, `„% 10/7/91 Page 31 r I ~'''• I`^ ,~`,. ,. ,wSx:cv ,rs-,-.. . .........__....~._.__.~_~_...~.__.~.._.,,...._....__..,.......~....-,...,-r-.,.>.a.~^!t.lrnmw„eR.wi,..c,7.{R*~i , ~ ' re: ''-.in~ •~ ,I 'j; t, ~. , Q . } ~. `?'%.i .;t: .i~ .'~~'~ ~` r~~ 17. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: "'t` >~ ~ ~~ ~~^, rt ~r~•~. . ,. ,~ ~ . ~ ~,~. ,~ c~fi''; ~~~~ ,~; ~~ ,. ~~ s¢, f~ ~. ' ,4X'.,~'.^~ ~sS'C~ ~ . o ~, z~'~,~ • -. ~ ~::lQ K~-:.> . ... _ .. t .a "ems y. -~~ t F~ ~#' :.~:a~. ..: ~~ :~ ~~ ^~ 1 .~ ~. A. TFNTATIVE TRACT NO. 14353 -REVIEW OF FINAL SPECIFIC FLOOR Approved ~ ,:~ PLANS AND ELEVATION DRAWING: Brock Development Co. requests ~;}~ K~` review and approval of final specific floor plane and elevation drawings in compliance with condition no. 23 of Q/j / ~~GfU/ t~ M~.w +f;p ~' Tentative Tract Map No. 14353. N t;`~' ,~, ' i i , 4. ~ fit, QYVDITIONAL USE PERhii'P NO. 3333 - RRXIFS'l FDR EX'IFNSION OF . Approved ~ s, ` TIME Rte COMPLY WITf! CD~IDITIONS OF APP137VAL: Robert for 1 yr. t `' Fiacua requests eons-year extension of time to comply with retro. to `; £. conditions of approval for Conditional Us9 Permit No. 3333. 9/10/91] to Property is approximately 85 acres eoutY~ aide of Santa Ana expire 9/10/92 ': Canyon Road, west of Weir Canyon Road. (Anaheim Hills ®/t 1 j, Festival) . ~`/•W %.~~'v' C. PIDFASID O:~DE AhmVAM1~3V'!' PF.R~'AINING '1T) SElBAG7GS OF Approved MUIII'IPLE-FAMILY RESIDIIVTIAL P%1TEL^!5 AATACII~1'l 2t7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEUEZOPMENTS D. Pfd~FL1SID GnDE Ah1FNQyET1l5 PERTAINING 2b FIIVCES. WALLS AND Approved IBS IN FRJNT YARLIS AND HEIGff15 OF AC.~^S1~RY BUILDINGS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONE REAR AND SIDE YARDS. ~',~ ;' .. 'weAw.l!SB[M'SIM.IS.":'n:.C::VJ.^!M.. .: .,. .. ~+:!T^'_, __,:.. .. ,. S < ~ , ~,-:, ,, ~, a `•' t : "'~ t~ i 1 'i ,I ~* ~~ ~t ., ~d: F' aiF:, ~r ~,~~.. 1 y= 18. DISQISSZON A. None Ai.1TWl~lhffiV'!': !M F, ~u xl ~ ~~MY ~ . _ Z~ ~ . ,,~~rr"~'}~ ~ - ~ ry.l~ ~~~~, r,'ri~ "A ~,,~ 4 u-A rZ ' f~ n~~ti C,!~ ~~ ._.,. 5 ~' '~y'. ;:u ,,o ~ ~~. ~X s`« r ~ ~ ,,r s x~,. J~~ ~ ,T. S; i ~~ 1 ` ~}~ x~3 }}~ l; The Planning ~vreni,ssion adjourned their regular meeting of : y~?,~1' O~ctobPx 7, 1991, to B:OOa.m., Ootober 14, 1991, far a ` cbmnunity Developmnt Housing tour. ~~t .. r `' ~~ ~~ C:: lJ r 7Cf~ It °~ .. ~, h?~, ~.~ ;'~ ;r Page 33 ~.: ~~, :fi ~ ~q. 4~, ~ ~*M~ .~};.:i. s, ;{ , ~,rK ~ ~~, .~~.~ c^ ~,~ ,~ti~f ~ t ~¢' _ +Y~Y t1. ~, } [;. 7p[µ, y~4 ~ ., ~ ", -~1 ~1JA- F~j T~k .~~, t ~~,~~* ~~~, .. .. ,~,'