Minutes-PC 1994/04/18"'~
ACT10N AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1994
t 1:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED)
1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING BEGINS (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, ~
PERAZA, TAIT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSIOK PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents In applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request H, 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 their case unless addtionai 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 receNed by the Commission in each hearing.
Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will withhold questions until the pubilc hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing,
including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence,
shall be retained by the Commission for the pubilc record and shall be available for public
inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on hems
of Interest which are within the (urisdictfon of the Planning Commission, and/or; agenda items.
Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
• AC041694.WP
~~
n
ia. c`EQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21
1 b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
1c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2905. 3253. AND 3414
(Readvertised)
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 20L` S, Anaheim Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92805
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: CINEMAPOLIS -Property is approximately 5.54
acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue
and approximately 300 feet west of the centedine of
Imperial Highway (5635 E. La Palma Ave.).
IMPERIAL PROMENADE -Properly is approximately
4.4 acres located north of the northwest comer of
La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway (5645-5675
E. La Palma Ave.).
,s*~
0_
Request for possible revocation or modiflcatlon to condRions of
approval of an existing movie theater complex and commercial
retail center.
Continued to
May 2, 1994
Continued from the January 10, 24, February 7, and March 21,
1994 Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
ti~
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO
BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETI'TIONER'S COMMENTS:
Paul Singer, 7163 Columbus Dr., Anaheim, CA.
Alfred Yalda, Traff(c Engineedng Department, stated in front of them is a completed
parking study for Imperial Promenade and Cinemapolis. They agree whh the
recommendation made in the str.~dy.
04-18-94
Page 2
r
!;
Bruce Sanborn, So Cal Cinemas, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
l , He asked to set up a meeting with staff to discuss these items. There are conditions
placed on them, their neighbor and the City.
Mr. Yalda explained ff these are iraf(fc issues, he would be more than happy to meet
with Mr. Sanbom and Mr. DeBeikes, right after [his item. The Imperial access is
something that the developer of the property should work with Caitrans and the
Highway Administration and the Traffic will work with them in supporting the access.
He did not think the City has to take a position on behalf of a private property owner
asking for an access.
Mr. Sanbom explained there are 2 other Issues to talk about today, one Is the traffic
signal. Two weeks ago they were notified that there is an Issue in the document that
needs to be resolved and Richard Bruckner would be calling. He has yet to call in 2
weeks. We do not know where we stand.
He had some additional concerns regarding roof screening. After some discussion rt
was determined that the Commissioners could go out to the theater on their own.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained there is a condition of approval
which appears on page 4 of the staff report. Planning Commission Resolution No.
91-170 requires the air conditioners that are placed on the new portion of the
expansion to be screened in the same fashion and manner as the 15 existing air
conditioners.
They have had conversations with the contractor on this and the option would be to
have this particular condition amended ff the Planning Commission felt rt was
~T, appropriate. However, at the time the idea was to have one common look from the
expanded portion to the original portion of the building.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated the sight screening they are talking about
is the one that was Identffied in the previous meeting. it is the one that is on the
north side of the property adJacent to the parking structure itself. It is not completely
screened. It appears as though the construction has started, but it is stopped.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated it appears that the differences of opinion
are between staff and the applicant. Since the Planning Commission Is going to be
the body that is going to be making the decision, that there would be some due
process issues in receiving evidence from one of the parties that is involved out of
the presence of the other parties.
Commissioner Tart suggested ff they cannot work it out, to bring back pictures for the
next meeting.
Ms. Mann explained there are a number of items that are included as
recommendations that are identified as policy implementation and items. Some of
those items are matters that are private matters between the two applicants and
some of those are suggestions for the City and some of the testimony that has been
made here suggests that somehow this is going to be some type of contract
negotiation with the City.
04-18.94
Page 3
~e~/
The City's action here Involves the City's police powers which cannot be tied down in
the future, although there can certainly be discussions as to what the Planning
Commission's present evaluation is of this sRuation. Thare is noway that the
Planning Commission is going to be able to tie down future Planning Commissions or
the City Council
Dick DeBeikes, Imperial Promenade Partners. He has had only Friday to review the
report and look at the recommendations. He stated the biggest priority is to keep
things moving as fast forward as possible.
Based on what the recommendations are, he did not see anything in there that would
make proceeding with the traffic signal unsatisfactory. He suggested between
themselves, the theater, the adjacent property owner and the Redevelopment
Agency, they should take the traffic signal, set it on its own course, try to wrap up
the document as qulcMy as possible, deposit their monies and get that going.
He stated Mr. Sanbom had a goad suggestion whh the recommendations. They
have a traffic consultant they have retained so that he can understand what the
recommendations are. He suggested having a working session meeting with staff,
their ~:onsultant, Mr. Sanbom's consultant and try to Identify which Issues they are in
agreernsnr to implement and which ones may need further discussion. Then perhaps
they can come baci~ in 2 weeks wffh a report.
Mr. Yalda recommended it may be better for Mr. Sanbom and Mr. DeBeikes to sit
together, look at these recommendations and see what they think is the best way to
serve them and come up wffh some kind of solution! back to staff so they can meet
~~,,., wfth them on what was discussed and put their disagreements on the side and agree
to some of the recommendations. This way they could have at least something
come out of this parking study.
He recommends they get together first and go over all of these recommendations.
Staff would be mars than happy to meet wffh them. He thought h would be
appropriate for them to meet.
He explained the majority of the recommendations regarding internal circulation
between the properties would be more appropriate for them to solve those Issues
between t'~emselves and staff would be more than happy to work wffh them to find a
solution in areas of disagreement.
Mr. DeBeikes stated that is what he Intended. First they would have a meeting
between themselves; identify where they feel they are in sink on the
recommendations and where they feel they are (n disagreement wffh the report or
with each other; meet wffh staff because there are certain issues in th~•e that are
recommended that he knows staff is hesitant such as ways to improve irculation
and access and that means construction and reconfiguration of certain , •rk drive
aisles and parking islands.
He explained they do not mind doing that ff it will improve things. However, staff is
reluctant to see a net parking loss occur, therefore, they do think k is important to
have staff part of the process before returning to the Commission.
04-18-94
Page 4
'~~
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
r~
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Yalda stated the design of the traiflc signal contract has been awarded to a firm.
They are in the process of designing the traffic signal and there are some issues
regarding the easement that could be included in the final contract within 2 to 3
weeks .
Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment. The Agency has authorized and gave Traffic
Engineering a billing number to start design of the traffic signal, knowing that ail
parties wanted to move ft forward before they receNed funds from the private
property owners. They have Initiated that process and as Mr. Yalda further stated
before they finalize those contracts with all of the property owners, both north and
south of La Painv3, they wanted to nail down the easement requirements so those
could be included.
Additionally, each party is retaining their own counsel, so they have 4 or 5 groups of
attorneys they are trying to deal with ft. He though. they were down to a couple of
Issues. One with Mr. Sanborn regarding his request that tha City Indemnify him In
this contract which the City is not willing to do. He hoped by the next meeting they
can work these issues out. They are moving ahead and have fronted the money for
design.
Commissioner Taft stated he would like to have the author of the report at the public
hearing.
,,,, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED.
0..
ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 7-0
' ;~~~
04-18.94 ~
Page 5
~../
~.
..
~.p,
~Y . ~' .~
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved I Continued to
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3032 Readvertised May 16, 1994
OWNER: BRYAN CROW EVANGF.~STIC ASSOCIATION ND
EUCLID STREET!? ;PTIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, Attn:
Bryan Crow, 8712 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim,
CA 92808
LOCATION: 8712 East Santa Ana Canvon Road (The Garden
hur h Property i., approximately 34 acres located on
the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
approximately 3,689 feet west of the centedine of Gypsum
Canyon Road and further described as 8712 East Santa
Ana Canyon Road (The Garden Church;.
Petitioner requests modification of a conditional use permit to permit
the addition of a temporary prefabricated modular structure and
modification of a condftlon of approval pertain(ng to the time Ilmftation
of a previously-approved semi-enclosed garden church.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Bryan Crow, 113 Orangehill Lane, Anaheim, CA. Their request is a simple one, but the
critical necessity for the approval of the request cannot be emphasized enough. All
businesses and institutions are suffering wfth the lingering recession and they are making
the calculated steps necessary to survNe. They would like to build a botanical garden
wfth Bible plant life.
He responded to the various hems in the staff report. Many times the strict adherence to
the Code is not possible or at least not practical. Each hem has been discussed wfth the
various departments irnolved. it is his desire to maint,9in this temporary approach to
their zoning to deal wfth many of these matters.
Gary Wilder, Flre Department, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., 5th Floor., Anaheim, CA. The Fire
Department Is not opposed to an extension of the condftionai use permft. They are
opposed to a temporary facility. In June of 1991, they agreed to one temporary structure
and that ft would be theme temporary structure. Their concern Is that there Is no water
on the property for fire fighting purposes.
04-'.8-94
Page 6
Commissioner Messe asked about obtaining water from the development up above and ft
,~ there would be any objections ff they would sprinMer their temporary structures?
ti
Mr. Wilder indhated that is correct, i.e., ff the temporary structures were spdnMered, they
would have no problem wfth the continued use of the facility.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement. He explained as outlined in the staff report, In the
summer of 1993 he visited the property and he dkl observe widng being placed in the
ground that appears to be connected to the Wedding Chapel. He has not seen any
indications that this is being corrected. Tho plumbing sftuatfon evfth the bathrooms and
for the facilty have not been corrected as there is no permanent potable water supply
system for the property.
He still has concerns with continual dumping, I.e., dirt being brought in by carious
entfties. He has photographs (the latest ones taken on Friday at 4:15p.m.) which shows
this area being continually graded. He has other concerns such as stockpiling. They do
have a stockpiling permit for 500 cubic yards of dirt. Public Works indicates there is
approximately 2,500 cubic yards of dirt.
Mr. Crow has not been noticed for the 2 temporary buildings on the property, however,
Code Enforcement feels they need to be addressed at this time.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Crow refereed to paaa 2, no. 5 of the staff report. Ne explained since they rec~•ew the
lot line, k is 3-74 ac. and not 1.06 ac. The lot line adjustment was one of the ISSUE6 that
they have bet.i deaiing wfth.
~tlT; He referenced page 5, no. 16, Condition No. 1. He explained he worked this out wfth the
previous Fire Marshal. Since that water supply dkt not exist all of the buildings have
smoke detectors In each of the rooms and ail of the buildings have 2 sprinMers in each
:.wilding. They have malntalned that and last Monday they passed their annual fire
inspection.
It is true as Mr. Wilder stated, they did have that agreement with the Fire Department in
1991, but they are in the posftion that everyone else is in. They are having to renegotiate
their contract. The secession has ~ompietely stopped building out there and there is no
avenue for the adequate amounts cf water needed to sprinMe those facllfties.
They do have a 2 Inch water source (n the Woodcrest property and as he Indicated to
staff in his letter, if they can temporarily bring that 2 inch water source down he thought
they could sprinMe the building they are requesting. It is 500 feet above them. This Is
the main reason he is requesting this be a metal building. They did work out an
arrangement.
I
I
oa-l6-sa i
Page 7 1
c
He referenced page 6, no. 6 regarding the driveway. He explained he met with the Traffic
^ Engineer on all of those matters and ff they put the circle drive at their present property
line, their neighbors garage is efther over or on their property line. They would have to
tear their garage down to put the radius ln. He met wfth them and they determined they
would push that forward.
He referenced page 6, no. ~ regarding a parking plan. He sat down wfth both Mr. Yalda
and the Director of Trafffc and they discussed this. They decided they could go wfth
what was there until future development was needed.
He referenced page 6, no. 13 regarding thoroughfare and bridge fees. He has verbal
approval from the County that 501 C3 organizations are exempt from this. He does not
understand why that Information was never forwarded to the Cfty.
HS referenced page 7, no. 17 regarding building permfts. The 5th structure is the one Mr.
Wilder referred to. It does have a building permit somewhere; ft was approved and
checked off. It has been approved and Is refereed to in the Fire Department's report.
The 6th building referred to is a temporary storage building. In preparation of building
they were given the use of one metal storage container. Thoy are Just storing things and
getting them out of the way for this next building.
He referenced page 7, 20(a), Hazardous Electr(cal Wiring. He discussed those in
advance with Cade Enforcement. He was under the impression that the work had been
done according to Code. They paid for that, but ff ft Is not they will deal wfth the matter.
Someone had Illegally dumped some old tires-massive amounts of old tires. By lighting
~,, the area they have avoided that stuation. Their frontage has been the recipient of 5
~ murder victims.
He referenced page 7, 20(b), Hazardous Plumbing. Their present water system was
worked out with Code Enforcement's heap. While less than satisfactory, k has allowed
them to continue. Part of their present request Includes bringing their 2 Inch water
supply doom from the Woodcrest development.
Their new removable building will become their Cfty water source until better
arrangements can be made. When and ff the Irvine development unfolds, or when
Baldwin moves to the hill behind them, ft would be far more practical and less expensive
to secure those water sources. They cannot do ft out of Woodcrest because ft has just a
2 Inch line and h is already installed in the street.
reegarding the dumping matter Mr. Freeman referred to. They got caught in the middle of
a situation that they were certainly not completely innocent of. The reason they were
caught in the middle was because h was a request by Woodcrest to do ft and since they
had donated the property to them, they thought ft was alright. Any addftlonal dumping
has been unauthorized.
He referenced page 8, no. 22(0), Recommendatians. Primarily he would like to extend
this out as tar as practical because they are dependent upon the development to be able
to move ahead.
04-1 t3-94
Page 8
U
He referenced page 9, no. 22(b), modular kitchen and bathroom facnfties. Ha
understands the concerns. The new building is critical of their being able to survive the
present financial situation because k gives them some of the amenities that other
churches have and also allows them to expand their wedding ministry. This building,
because of their great sensitivity to public safety, is not in their opinion an added risk. It
does give them at least a 21nch supply of water.
He referenced page t0, no. 10, 'knox box' device. They have the Staticn 10 people out
there on numerous occasions and they have run expedments on how best to deal with
the fire Issue. Station 10 cut the chain and they have a system worked out so that they
can get in when they are needed.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Peraza asked Mr. Freeman what has been worked oul?
Mr. Freeman explained he has discussed this at great length wkh Pastor Crow and he
has been involved with the property for about 5 years. The statement he made about the
potable system for the water was to be a temporary system. He had been assured that
the water supply system was going to be installed, but at that particular time he was
having problems with the Orange County Health Department in supplying water to the
restrooms.
He has no knowledge of the matter with the electrical, however, he cannot Imagine that
one of the staff members would say it was o.k. to Install electrical without a permit. It
,„ does need a permit and needs to be inspected and signed off. The electrical was done
j to Code, but ft is a matter of getting the permfts and having ft inspected and signed off.
They have discussed stockpiling. They have caught people out there in ~~ie past.
However, something needs to be done to control it. He is normally the one who
conducts the inspections.
Mr. Wilder stated all of the condftlons that exist today have been worked out with the Fire
Department. They just conducted a fire inspection on April 13th and the only condRions
that they noted is that there still remains no fire fighting water at the facility. He is
located in a high fire hazard severity zone. They are very concerned about that portion
of the City. Afire started at that facility could easily spread throughout Anaheim Hills.
The last time they agreed to allow a temporary facility was in June of 1991 and k was
their feeling then and now that no additional temporary facilfties without fire protection
should be built there for the protection of the people that attend serilces.
Commissioner Messe stated it was indicated that a new 21nch Ilne is going to be brought
in.
04-18-94
Page 9
~../
Mr. Wilder explained a 2 inch Ilne may or may not provkle enough hydraulic pressure for
,^ all of the temporary facilities. They would require that ali of the temporary facilfties be
sprinMered. They would be more than happy to work those calculations out.
Commissioner Henninger stated he may have a good chance because it is coming from
500 feet away.
He stated they have heard 2 dKferent stories and he thinks they should take some time
and ask the applicant io work this out with staff so they can have a common story and a
common solution. He understands the need for economy and to bend the rules when
they can in a reasonable way for anon-profft use.
He was also worried about the public safety aspect. They are deaiing here with fire
safety. He would like to see the fire sprinMers installed in the buiidings and if they are
going to bring down a 2 inch water line, then perhaps it Is possible at this juncture. He
realized that the grievances they had were all based on a temporary use. They are now
talking about extending ft for quite some length of time. He would Tike them to go back
and see if thore is some chance of spdnkling those now with the new water supply and if
not what other solution they can work out. He thought they should continue ft for 4
weeks.
Commissioner Messe stated they may have permitted the buildings through a CUP or a
temporary entftlement, but k still needs a building permft. These are Issues that need to
ba taken care of in the interim time. He also thought a 30 day continuance was In order.
Mr. Freeman stated if the 2 Inch water Ilne does exist, there should be a written
~., agreement wfth Woodcrest that ft does in fact exist before they go forward.
Mc Crow stated they already have a meter in place and pay 591.00 a month for the bill.
It does have an address. It is up on the street and there is an easement for them to
bring ft onto ihefr property. He was not sure what the 2 Inches would accomplish.
Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, stated because this is a public water system,
ft would be most appropriate to have input from the Water Engineering Division and
helpful for them to be here at the next public hear(ng.
Chairman Persua asked Jonathan Borego, Senior Planner, to contact the Water
Engineerir `ivision.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 16, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting.
VOTE: 7-0
04-18-94
Page 10
,~
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2987 Readvertised Approved
amendment to
OWNER: STEPHEN M. CURTIS, 327 Grand Canal, Balboa Island, CA condklons of
92662 approval
AGENT: PASTOR EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, 5464 E. La Palma Ave.,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 5464 East La Paima Ave. Property Is approximately 2.42
acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue and
approximately 1,100 feet east of the cented(ne of Brasher
Street and further described as 5464 East La Palma
Avenue.
Petkioner requests readvertisement of Condtional Use Permk No. 2981
to amend or delete a condkion of approval pertaining to the time
Iimkatfon of a prevlousiy approved church.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-47
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANPIING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
~,~.., OPPOSITION: None
~ _;
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Pastor Eddie Rodriguez, 5464 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA. They are requesting a 3
year extension on their conditional use permk that was previously approved under the
Canyon Industdal Area Code Section 18.03. At this time they do not see any problems
wkh the continuance nor do they feel they pose any problems to environment, safety or
public health.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated they have had no problems wkh this location.
Commissioner Messe asked about some small Illegal signs.
Pastor Rodriguez explained there were some smail potable signs and they removed those
signs when they found out th9y were not In compilance wkh any kind of Cky Code.
Comrissioner Messe commented there was a banner out there on Sunday directing
people to the church.
OMt C'•94
Pala t t
~/
Pastor Rodriguez stated they have been putting a banner out there so people could see
h, where they are at.
ACTION: Approved a float eMension of time for Condkfonal Use Permk No. 2981.
Amended Condkion No. 2 of Resolution No. 88R-135 to read as follows:
"2. That in conformance wkh Code Section 18.61.050.614, the temporary
church use of subject property shall be permkted to cont(nue for a flnal
three (3) year time period (until March 29, 1997). The church shall,
wkh the exception of national holidays, Iimk activkies prior to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Priday, to church office staff."
VOTE: 7-0
~~~
,,,,: ~
04-18-94
Page 12
(~
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved
4a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3625 Readvertised Amended conditions
of approval
OWNER: SIMON FLUOR III AND GLORIA FLUOR TRUST, ATTN:
Cecil Wright, 265 S. Anfta Drive, Ste 205, Orange, CA
92668
LOCATION: 1300-1382 East Auto Center Drive. Property fs
approximately 8.39 acres located at the northwest comer
of Sanderson Avenue and Phoenix Gub Drive (previously
Auto Center Drive) and further described as 1300-1382
East Auto Center DrNe.
To delete a condftion of approval pertaining to the removal of a
billboard in conjunction with apreviously-approved automobile sales
facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94-48
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
.,, PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
~ ~ Barry Kielsmeler, Redevelopment Agency and Protect Manager on this protect. He stated
they are asking that they concur wfth the staffs recommendation to delete one more
condftion. He explained apparently when the CUP was originally placed before the Cfty
Council there were conditions that pertained to a billboard on the sfte. There were 2
condtlons, ane was deleted and one was not. They are asking that the action become
internally consistent and that both of the condtions be deleted at this time.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, if the court action was
completed?
Ms. Mann stated she was nut aware of what the status was of that Ift(gatlon. It may be
that the applicant could speak to that. She could confirm ft.
Mr. Kielsmeler was not familiar wfth the exact status. Apparently a lot of that Iftigatfon was
related to this condition and removal of the billboard.
Commissioner Messe stated h makes the removal of this condftion valkl.
04-18.94
Page 13
ACTION:
VOTE: 7-0
~~
0...,~
Approved subject request. Deleted Condition No. 11 of Resolution No.
93R-194, in ks entirety.
m~'q,
(e.~
04-18.94
Page 14
5. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3573 -REQUEST FOR AONE- Continued to
YEAR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPL'! WITH May 2, 1994
CONDITIONS OF APPR VAL: 71m Bundy, 20331 Irvine Ave., Ste. 7,
Santa Ana, CA 92707, requests aone-year retroactive extension of time
to comply wfth condftlons of approval for Condftional Use Permit No.
3573 (to permft a car wash with waiver of minimal structural setback
and minimum landscape setback) to expire March 2, 1995. Property is
located at 201 E. Ball Road.
Continued from the April 4, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
Tlm Bundy, architect for the project, 4831 Lego Drive, Huntington Beach, CA. Apparently there
were some Code violations or some Issues that were at question before this extension was granted.
Ray Bierman, co-owner of the property, 13550 EdgeFleld, Cerrftos, CA 90701. He referenced a
memorandum with 5 Code violations that are still on the property. There has been a mix up on
their part. He was under the impression they would be notified on the sfte. They can take care of
these Code violations wfthin 2 weeks.
Commissioner Boydstun suggested they continue subject item for 2 weeks to make sure the
violations are cleared up.
Commissioner Henninger agreed.
t,~,
END OF 5-A
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-07 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Approved
NO 3463 -REQUEST FOR AONE-YEAR RETROACTIVE (to expire 11-5.94)
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION OF
APPROVAL: Lisa Marks Webber, 2166 PacKic Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA
92627, requests aone-year retroactive extension of time to comply wftt~
conditions of approval for Reclassification No. 91-92.07 and Condftlonal
Use Permft No. 3463 (to permit a 3-story 106 unft condominium
complex) to expire November 5, 1994. Property is located at 2144 W.
Lincoln.
`,.~
04-18.94
Page 15
~i
j
t
r
fa
i.
P~
Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest. (He !Nes within 1,000 feet of the development).
Frank Radmacher, landscape architect for the project and for Presley Development.
Commissioner Henninger asked about oleanders. He thor~.Iht oleanders were nci the most
appropriate shrub to use.
Mr. Radmacher gave an explanat!on as to why the oleanders would be most suitable for the project
and gave some other alternatives. They could condkion the homeowner's association to maintain
the trees in a certain fashion including the pruning and making sure they are kept with a clean trunk
and a round head.
w. It was determined by the Commission after some discussion that the oleander would be suitable.
l
END 5-C
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3307 -REQUEST FOR Terminated
TERMINATION: Charles A. Bonnett, 10990 blamer Ave., Ste. "D',
Fountain Valley, CA 92708, requests termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 3307 (to permit a 2400 square foot mini-market with fast
food with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Property Is
located at 3010 West Lincoln Avenue.
TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC9449
C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 12697 - REVIEW OF FENCES. WALL. Approved fence,
AND RETAINING WALLS: Presley Company of Southern Calffomia, 19 wall and landscape
Corporate Center, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review of plans for
fencing plans, including retaining wails and landscaping for Tentative Tract No. 12697
Tract Map No. 12697 (to establish an 11.42 acre, 12-lot (including 4
lettered lots) 240-unft condominium subdivision). Property is located (Vote: 6-0,
wfthin Development Area 7 of The Highlands of Anaheim Hills SpectFlc Commissioner Taft
Plan SP87-1. declared a conflict
of Interest)
04-18-94
Page 16
4.../
E. VARIANCE N0. 3882 - REt~UEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION Approved
OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (to expire 12-19-94)
Dwight R. Belden, B.R. Properties, 450 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 304,
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7640 requests extension of time to comply
with condRlons of approvFd for Variance No. 3882 (to construct a 3-
story, 70,000 square foot commercial office building with waiver of
minimum structural setback) to expire December 19, 1994. Property is
approximately 3.6 acres located at the northeast comer of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Riverview Drive.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adJoumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 2:45p.m. to the
May 2, 1994, Planning Commission meeting at t0:00a.m.
04-18-94
Page 17
M
,