Loading...
Minutes-PC 1991/06/17(~ ACTION AGQ4DA REG<II,AR MEETING OF THE ANAFfi:IM CITY PLANNIlVG CSXNFIISSION MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1991 AT 10:00 A.M. ~,_. 06/17/91 Page 1 ~,~~ i PlZ~-'rM~ARY PLAN REVIII9 AJBLIC f1SAR1NG (PUBLIC TE5`1'1MONY) 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. ~ISSIONERS PRESF.N1': BOUAS, BOY11S'1LJN, FELDNAUS, fB;LLI'ER, FIENNINGQ2, MESSE, PF.l2AZA PFd~CEDURE ~ ~{PIDI'FE PLAAINING 0~+9~lISSION PUBLIC FIEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have 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 is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by t~:e length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in 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 its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents are presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public 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 items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (51 minutes to sneak. :h,~~ . ~ ia; 1a. RNVIRONMII~lPAL .IMPACT REEtOR!' NO. 273 (PREY. Cam'. j ~ lb. AF411IDMEIV'P '1t0 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1 Approved DES/ELOPMIIV'1' AREAS 1. 7, AND 11 .AND Granted ORDINANCE NGIS. 4860 AND 4861 ~Gb7xZi.tion Nays. 3 anal 5~ GINNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ATTN: STEVEN K. RIGGS, 19 Corgirate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ILJCATION: Development Area 1. - Subject area consists of approximately 137.5 acres generally bounded by the East Hills Planned Community to the north, Sycamore Canyon Development Areas 1 and 3 to the east, The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Areas 2 an 3 to the south and the Deer Canyon Open Space Area to the cueat. Development Area 7. - Subject area consists of approximately 30.02 acres generally bounded by The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 6 to the north and west, The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 8 to the east and The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 10 to the south. Development Area 11. - Subject area consists of approximately 26.2 acres generally bounded by The Summit of Anaheim Hills Development Area 101 to the northeast, The Highlands at Anaheim dills Development Area 12 to the south, and The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Areas 8 and 10 to the northwest. ~ " - Request for an amendment to Ordinance No. 4860 pertaining to The H1g2~lande at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) Development Areas 1, 7 and it Methods and Procedures for Specific Plan implementation (SP87-1 Code Section 18.70.030) to permit administrative review and approval of custom homes within Development Area 1 and to allow the processing of parcel maps prior to site plan approval for Development Areas 7 and 11. Request for an amendment to Ordinance No. 4861, Condition Noe. 3 ~ and 5, which roquire submission of precise plans prior to the submittal of tentative tract maps and tentative parcel mope for j Development Areas 7 and 11. i Continued from the May 20, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC91-81 ~~ "'~~~444 i t ~' 06/17/91 Page 2 '.rti H ~y, j'Y~r.' ~~~~' ,s ~ -. ' •',r ~::. i~'3. '. , .~= ~; ~X~ . y f y~,~~+ - ~ "l ~ ~ i F ~~t~ :x ~, _ ,. t,~'. `~ ,'. m3 47 ~d 1 `t ~~~~f'. s~~'.~t,.,'.., .. .-.. ti ~~ Y:; ~. C FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE "~'Y~d CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ,,~h T, ~' - '-cw. OPPOSITION: None ` `;*~ ACTION: EIR 273 (Prey. Cert.) -Approved Amend. to SP No. 87-1 -Granted Note: No appeal period for this item, it will go to directly to City Council for action. VOTE• 7-0 I I i 2a. F21V.IIYJNhiF,N1'AL IFi?AGT REF~RT N0. 273 fPREV. CERT. ) 2b. AMF8I~NP ~ SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1 ORDINANCE P10 4861 (Gbrxiition No. 43) ~. U$NII2: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660. LaCA?'ION: Subiect property (The Hichlande at Anaheim Hills_ Specific Plan (SP87-11 Park Situ conaleLa of approximately 6 acres Generally bounded by the Hichlande at Anaheim Hills Development Areas 9 and 10 to the north Serrano Ave. to the soot east The Hiahlande Road to the northwest and further described as The Hiahlande at Anaheim Hills Specific 21an {SP87 11 Park Site (Specific Plan document Exhibit No. 11A1. Request for an amendment to Ordinance No. 4861 (Condition No. 43) pertaining to the completion date of the proposed 6 acre park site. Continued from the May 20, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION N0. PC91-82 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMi~SION ACTION. NOT TO BE ~ CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. \` OPPOSITION• 3 OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Initial p'_an called for 1 year from the drawings to completion; 3 years from drawing to completion is excessive; the park should be started as soon as possible and completed within a reasonable time; they purchased their home because ~ the school and the park site were close; Presley has resources to continue to build homes in the area, but the park issue goes on and on; the park site was a selling feature for the Presley homes; if park is started in July, how will they be guaranteed that they stick to the time frame; afraid Presley will take to October of 92 to finish the park; acknowledge they need to extend the date; Presley did not petition to take down the hill until August, 1990, which was 2 months before the park was to be completed; City Council approved the removal of the hill October 16, 1990, and still nothing has been done. ~~, 1 ~ ','^. „~.. Approved Granted ~. 06/17/91 Page 4 ... .. ,. r :. . .. ,, :.. ~~~~. r PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: The process from the time they started the design of this site anti] they are now actually ready to start construction has taken longer than they had anticipated; they are n asking to extend the development time for the park from 1 year to 3 years; they are 18 months into the process new; they have development drawings completed and approved through the Park's Department; they are 608 complete with working drawings and they plan to start the rcugh grading on the park the first week in July; the park should be completed by the end of the year; have a 3 month period of maintenance following the tiTe the park is complete and then some additional things to finalize with the Park's Department before it is accepted; 3 years would give them enough time to get the park completed, still start construction withit: tho next 30 days, take care of the maintenance period and all of the things that are required in order to turn the park over to tj~.e Park's Department. REBUTTAL: Really felt the development of the park would be much further along than what it ie; originally thought the park would be installed (perhaps not unable) before they opened for salsa; timing has been their biggest problem and not because of their lack of effort, but because of other problems; they do have the resources and always had and would have started a year ago if they had the final approvals on the design development drawings; if there is a consideration to redo ~ their request from 36 uionthe development time to 30 months development time, that would be :ins with them; they did hope to have time to do the development and make sure it was o. k., qo through the maintenance period and turn it over to the Park's Depar%:ment. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The delay was not entirely Presley's doing; ie another date available ae to when the park could be completed not including the maintenance period; would like to see park completed in December 1st; where have they been the last 8 months; they have been able to take down the hill since last Octob':r; homeowners are deserving of some sort of expediency. STAFF COMMENTS: Dick Mayer, Park's Department, has been working with Presley to try to expedite this project; have reviewed the first phase of the architectural drawings; they have processed the rough grading plan for approval and they have been working closely with Prealey's landscape architect, consultant to complete the drawings for the rest of the park; they have been sending that to nim separately to get the small stuff out of the way eo he could concentrate on the larger stuff like the grading plane for the final part of the park; April ., doable and they are concerned about takinr; too much time from them in order *.ci give them a full and cempiete project.; completion of the park facility by April 92 with the 90 day maintenance period inclined is doable; park should be completed in December (not. including maintenance period). ~.~. I 06/17/91 Page 5 _ -~~, _ _ _ s ~``.. S~ t t_ ~' :4~ FiP" ~1. ry ~4 L hM: . ~ar4~~,: ': ,, ,, ~ 4,~. G 4~ +V ~ " } J 'Sa~jy 1. ' ' - ~~~' • ~\- "tivx t ;.ice; s 7 ~~ ~,•, •t ~ 't . ". ~. ACTION: E7!'6. No. 273 (Prey. Cert.) -Approved "`-~j~. ys ~ ~" Amend. to SP87-1 With recommendation on page 4 of the staff report being eortt~naed-tc~ ' ~ ~ i changed to read that the Park site development must be T~:7= `; _ ,J:. completed within 27 months, not including a 3 month ~ maintenance cycle, from the issuance of the 201st building permit. Note: This matter will go directly to the City Council. VOTE• 7-0 I r- i 06/17/91 Page 6 3a. IIWL'3~Nh7N3~llAL IMPACT REROFR' NO. 308 Continued to 3b. GIIPERAL PLAN .~VLNLFI~'P ND. 320 July 15, 1991 ~ 3c. RECLASSIFICI~'t7AN N0. 90-91 26 3d. WAIVII2 OF Lt3DE RFXXIIRII~Nl 3e. Q7NDITIONAL USE PERMI4' NO. 3415 ~~ CWNER: IDM Corporation, 5150 E. Pacific Coset Hwy., Long ~ _. Beach, CA 90804 LOCATION: Property is appraatimately 7.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Bzaokhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue. To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate subject property from the existing General industrial designation to the Medium Density Residential designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-26: To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) zone to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3415: To permit a 338 unit, 3 and 4 story deck-type "affordable" housing apartment complex with waivers of minimum building ::its area and permitted identification signage. (/^ Continued from the May 20, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. `' GENERAL PLAN Al~NDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ~~ I 06/17/91 Page 7 ~. z<-.~...r '~/: ~,~ ~ ~~; "~.. `,y f 1' 5 ?k ' ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Eric Nicoll, Housing Development Manager. He ~, ~ stated current proposal is a 338-unit deck housing all 1?ailt above grcle; 2^i of the unite would be set aside ae affordable unite if bond financing were used or 128 of the total unite if just the density bonus program was used. The affordable rents are: "x456/month for a bachelor unit, $522 for a 1-bedroom and $587 for a 2-bedroom; this would be in place for 30 , I years with an affordable housing agreement. if bond financing is used then a lower interest rate ie achieved. They looked at the design review and there were several items they were concerned with. 1) The project ie 1008 above grade which met the deck code of having an additional 10-foot setback; they felt aesthetically se well as functionally, it would be much nicer to have the project parking garage at least semi-subterranean which would mean at least a 5-foot above grade parking structure. The developer did agree, in writing, to lower the parking structure to 5-foot above grade. 2) Interior court yards are not linked to each other through a common pedestrian accessway; there should be some way of linking the 3 separate building groups. 3) The unite facing the tow yard and storage yard could possibly have a negative view looking towards the other industrial uses in that this property is going from an industrial zone to a residential zone and felt this was critical to the success. The developer hoe agreed to reorient the views or window placement on those units facing the tow yard and storage ~ yard. 4) Another concern ie the parking area for guests and at this point it would be very difficult for the guests to get from the surface parking area to the resident's unit when they come to visit. Again, the developer, through a letter, has agreed to provide additional access points. They support the land use change to residential as well as the EIR and they do help meet their housing goals for providing additional housing. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division, Manager, stated the Planning Department's major concern deals with the density of the project which is 45-unite per acre; the closest property of a medium density would be the property to the south of Gramercy which ie approved for 22-units per acre. ~, li 06/17/91 ~' Page 8 ~, jN. ,. ~ .: Y~. OPPOSITION: 6 Opposed There ie an extremely high vacancy rate in the west Anaheim area; there. ~ are 3 or 4 other projects that have been approved, but not yet built, eo do not see any need for any large apartment complex in their area; this is a fancy warehouse for people; schools, Police and Fire Departments already cannot handle the load; they are being told to cut their water usage by 158 or face heavy fines and this developer wants to raise the water usage on a piece of property by hundreds of percent; need a balance of homes and apartments; it is currently 708 condos and apartments and approximately 30B single-family homes; need commercial and industrial buildings to make a liveable community and not all apartments; money could be better spent by promoting some industrial buildings and getting some companies in that can give jobs to people in the area that are unemployed; urge Planning Commission to not allow this zone change. INTERESTED PARTIES: Dorothy Drew, Anaheim City School District. For the record they would like to state that they have entered into an agreement with IDM developers to mitigate some of the impact that their development will cause to the school district. She explained the mitigation was above and beyond developer fees. John Brown, attorney and special council to the Anaheim Union High School District; not here to oppose this project. Applaud IDM's efforts to attempt to mitigate impacts on both of the school dietricte. They are of the opinion that the impacts on the high school district are significant, are serious and have done their beet to call those impacts to the 'r~ attention of the Planning staff and they have been responsive. The High `'" School District has, at the present time, has been unable to reach the same sort of mitigation agreement it would like to see in place. There is an unsatisfactory system for financing public education for the State of California; they are applying, ae necessary, a band-aid kind of response to growth of this density and character; mitigated projects could be adequately served by the Anaheim Union High School District, but that mitigation is going to have to achieve a level far beyond the $1.58 prese;:tly split between the elementary and high school district in Anaheim. if require a mitigation agreement fully mitigating the impacts on the AUHSD today, they would interpose no objection to the PC approving the matters before them. If not they would join in and support the staff's recommendation that this matter be continued. Made it clear that it was not for the purpose of opposing the density; affordable housing ie something that is needed. REBUTTAL: Have attempted to understand the high school's issues in terms of the impacts; when they first went through the EIR process, there did not appear to be any impacts; thq initial indication was that there were goinry to be 10 to 12 high school students that would be impacted; they continued this 2 weeks to try to get same additional information from them on the mitigation they were requesting. ;, ', 06/17/91 Page 9 Via, ,. } COMMISSION COMMENTS: Peraza indicated he was under the impression from previous times that there was no apace at Gower Elementary even for portables and now he is seeing mitigation money. It ie noted for the ~ record that Me. Drew left the hearing and was not present for further comments. Petitioner. This money will be sufficient to buy and operate portables for all the deficiencies for next year's school children; there are ' several different locations and they seemed pleased that this would be sufficient money to handle next year's overcrowding; he was not involved in how they planned on using the money, but they felt it would go a long way; this is all in addition to their fair share of the school fees. Mr. Brown, now on behalf of the City School District; he ie the attorney for both the elementary and high school districts; have represented them on school fees for the past few years; they are preparing for what they think will be another boom in the history of the Anaheim Union High School District with respect to the capacity of their facilities. The mitigation agreement in this instance, for the elementary school district, is such that it is willing to go on record that it provides sufficient mitigation for them; it does not completely mitigate all impacts and they do have some flexibility with respect to changing attendance boundaries which they are doing now to effect full utilization of the portables that they will be using; this is one of the least satisfactory partnerships, in their view, in the state, i.e., the ability to try to get school districts into the loop, understand how they work as cities, understand how to plan for the demands of affordable housing, plus all of the other demands placed on the planning process. ^, Boydetun. Are some of the schools on all year round session and if so, `~ when will the portables be available? Mr. Brown. Portable facilities can be made available on a current time frame, i.e., they can purchase and erect portables in time for the new school year. Boydetun. Are you going to be changing school boundaries this year? Mr. Brown. School boundary changes are an ongoing process of the ability of the school district to meet the needs of the public education services. Only authorized to tell them that the district feels, that by reason of the developer going significantly above and beyond the $1.58, that they believe it will provide significant mitigation above and beyond the $1.58. '¢?~. Boydetun. Ie that $1.58 figure tied to the number of units? ~~~ Mr. Brown. It ie tied to their beat current generation figures based upon their student analysis of what it is going to take to house the students during the next fiscal year. ~I ~' 06/17/91 Page 10 f ~~ Boydetun. If less unite then leas dollars? Mr. P-~wn. IDM may want to re-examine the terms and conditions of the mitiy>_ion agreement and certainly if the project were significantly down sized. ~ i i Boydetun. What is their ratio for children per unit? Mr. Brown. He can only address that with respect to the high school district. There were good negotiations with IDM Corporation on behalf of the city school district and that those negotiations resulted in a draft agreement which was ultimately presented to the school board and ratified and approved by the school board which in turn authorized staff to make the statement that was made here today. Meeee. This states that as a result of the agreement, that all impacts will be mitigated, although when Me. Drew made her presentation, she indicated that some of the impacts were mitigated by the agreement. Mr. Brown. If they are reaching a historic new plateau in their relationship in that they can effect a private, public partnership to more fully adequate these school impacts, they would embrace that wholeheartedly, but they would tell them that this is an historic moment in which to attempt to insure that live:ability is something other then sending your child off to a grossly overcrowded, undermaintained and grossly inadequate public school facility. Boydetun. Can this money be used for anything other than buildings and housing? Mr. Brown. They are committed to using this money for facilities. Boydstun. And you cannot change that? Mr. Brown. They could renegotiate the agreement. He clarified hie authorization really extends to the Anaheim Union School District. They are using a time frame of 10-15 years to determine impacts on generation. The current generation figures are expected to be 47 additional students at Brookhurst Jr. High School and 101 at Savannah High School and those figures will not bring those facili~ies to capacity. F^ldhaue. The student generation factor for apartment dwelling is much higher for an elementary aged student then it is for a high school student. Mr. Brown. Reiterated that he hoped the Commission would continue this matter so they could attempt to try to adequately mitigate the issues. Meeee. Agrees that they have a fundamentally unacceptable method of financing public education, and does not want to see this forum become the means for financing public education. REBUTTAL: Mr. Nicholson. If you review the General Plan for the City, the need calla for additional housing unite in excess of 8,000 and this does go to meet that. Their current market study indicates there is a ~ strong demand for Chia type of housing in this area. In terms of overcrowding of unite, they do net allow that in any of their projects and they have a limit of 2 persons per bedroom; they have also agreed to a f. ~~ it ~,.~ condition to be included in terms of a CC&R eo they do not get that overcrowding. Have not seen the background information on the high school figures that are now newly generated, so it ie difficult to respond. 56$ of this design is bachelor and 1-bedroom; there will be very few in that category and will leave only 45B of the project in 2-bedrooms where children may actually be. Their product is not a family oriented product, it is deck housing; they do not have any 3-bedrooms or any large units, so it ie not conducive to having children although they do not discourage children. Boydatun. With the redesign, are you going to get rid of the corridors in the area? Petitioner. Will attempt to break it up more. Boydatun. Are you going to have play areas for children? Petitioner. Interior court yards are passive and can be play areas; do not see half being children. Feldhaus. The EIR does not properly address the subject of security for that many units; the neighbor to the south talked about having an on-site security and they were more than willing to do that. Petitoner. Do not fee]. that there is going to be a problem, however, if ai problems occurs they will address the issue as they have in other projects. Feldhaus. Do not want to continue to over tax an already over taxed Police Department. The subterranean parking could cause a security threat. Petitioner. Can install surveillance camerae in order to deter that. Boydatun. Has a problem with the density and the access to the industrial area to the east; right now the access is on Gramercy or Valley and with the traffic for this many units coming in, this could cause a traffic problem. Petitoner. Have had many meetings with the Traffic Engineer regarding this issue and he does not feel there ie an access or parking problem. 06/17/91 Page 12 k~"r '``r'.:F:F4 ;''.+ ;: `;M. .,ti, ;;,. _ iy''kt STAFF COMMENTS: Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, has reviewed this matter extensively and they do not think there ie going to be an access problem regarding the industrial and the housing element in the area. In n order to mitigate that area, they are going to restripe Gramercy Place and will install NO PARKING on both aides of the street. They will provide 2-way, left-turn pockets, so this will solve the problem if anyone wants to make a left-turn in on anyone of those 2 aides, therefore, there would not be any problems. eoydetun. Hae there been any comments from the Police Department with this many units going in; they have lots of problems south of Cerritos. Debbie Fank. The Police Department reviewed it and the only comment they had was to provide security parking and they felt that would alleviate their concerns. Boydstun. What about tt,e Fire Department? Debbie Fank. - No comments. Hellyer. Petitioner asked for their opinions on the density issue. Density is a problem for him and feels they are at twice the density then what they ought to be; he is well aware of the housing and job imbalance, however, the imbalance is on ownership; there are a lot of apartments and what they need ie ownership opportunities; ownership would be great for Anaheim and the petitioner. Amazed the school district is embracing this, but apparently the mitigation has been adequate to where they are willing to buy off on i*.. Have always been an advocate of home ownership in the area and asked •t~1e.n`.o reconsidered their project. C , Peraza. Density :a a real issue with him also and the apartments will generate children because the apartments south of Crescent have many children. Meese. Hae doubts about what the age group of those children will be. Unless he sees some numbers to the contrary, he did not think there would be that much generation for Jr. and High School children. There ie a density problem. The neighbor to the south ie approximately 22-1/2 unite per acre and t.hie project ie twice that dense and a project of that density is not what the Commission is looking for. Henninger. Have been down zoning the RM-1200 in many areas and here they are asking for a zone change to RM-1200 and a density bonus on top of that; that ie somewhat out of step with the direction they have been going in. The interior walkway is a building style they have not seen much of in Anaheim and ie somewhat out of step with the type of development they have seen in Anaheim; you see more garden type apartments rather than the interior hallways; would like to see that feature removed from the plan; the open apace does not seem to be very usable; grass islands are raised in planters about 4 feet off the walk way and would not be very usable in terms of play areas. 06/17/91 Page 13 ,~• Meese. A little high on bachelor apartments by a couple of units. Henninger. Comments made by Housing's consulting architect--talked about ~ the need for some connections to make some sense out of the various recreation areas, i. e., some way of connecting the pool and the major intensity recreation area with all 3 of the buildings and the fact that there are too few accesses to the underground subterranean parking; visitor parking is somewhat out of site and out of mind and visitors would not readily find that and choose to park on the street. Masse. Agrees with Henninger regarding the parking issue. Bouas. Density ie mo<e then they are looking for within the City; does not feel that there will be as many children ae everyone thinks, but will have them in the affordables and that will add to it. Need affordable houaina, but the affordable bonus concerns her because that dose bring families and more children. If have density bonus, then need to have less unite. Petitioner. Time has passed since they began this project and they did have good intentions when they purchased this property to be compatible with the neighbors and thought this ie what they wanted. He went through some density issues. Need to look at quality and liveability of the project, the open apace created, the building coverage, parking, size of units, the amenities provided, the adjacent land use, support of the adjac~.nt homeowners, the EIR, and the prior approvals that were given ae to what was once thought was good. Henninger. Would like to see the design aspects cured; they have included ~~ those for reasons of de:~sity and curing them might imply having to reduce '- the density; it is not just the density issue, but the design they have come up with. Petitioner. Most all of the s?gnificant issues, through redesign, will go a long way to alleviate some of the Commission's concerns. Bouas. Asked about the Lonq Beach project and Mr. Nicholson offered to have the Commission tour that project. He indicated he would provide tha address of the Long Beach project for those Commissioners that wanted to tour that project. Eric Nicoll. Suggested a field trip to the Long Beach project and one to '. a deck project ti.~t has been built by IDM. Eric Nicoll. Stated 2 additional design comments have been received at 1's`~. this meeting and that would be the interior corridor which Planning staff has recognized as a problem ae well as the elevated areas in the court yards; how are those goi~.g to be accessible to children that want to play in them. Mesas. Asked that they also look at the accessibility of the on-grade ~, parking. Continued to 7/15/91 for design changes. 06/17/91 Page 14 . -I 4a. 4b. CEbA MI'l7GARrED ~,~+~ IpN No Action GtaNDI!(70NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2473 C.YaIIted FDR AFII3VDMIIV'1' !t7 GC)NDITI(XVS ~, /"~ CAR: WEST ANAHEIM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, DBA HUMANA HOSPITAL, Attn: John Hanehaw, Exec. Dir., 3033 West Orange, Ave , Anaheim, CA 92804 ILX.ffi70N: 3033 W. OZ'ange Ave. Property is approximately 9.2 acme located at the northwest corner of Orange Ave. and Beach Blvd. Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2:'73 pertaining to a reciprocal parking requirement on the south aide of Orange Ave. and the requirement to provide additional parking in the event a traffic study so warrants. Continued from the May 6, and May 20, 1991 Planning Cemmieeion meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-83 FOLLOWING ZS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ~•~ PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Have worked with ntaff and request approval •- of the project. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Ie there a condition that requires the parking lot to be improved, i.e., the 711 South Beach parking lot? Parking lot not capable of taking very many cars right now. Overby. if they employ that service, it will be repaired and brought into parking service. it would be agreeable to them to add a condition that the lot be repaired prior to parking service. STAFF COMMENTS: Melanie Adams, made a change to the proposed condition that is listed on page 4, paragraph 10. They list as item (d) an alternative to poet a bond to guarantee construction of the parking facilities within one year. Request that this option be deleted because it appears that it will leave a t?.me frame where they have a promise, but no facilities; and secondly this bond would be for a private improvement, one which they would not like to have osted• would like to see that the facilities be provided and not P~y~ P leave room for a gap in services and the bond would may not be their bent option in this case. ~j Boydatun. Do you want to delete item (d)T Ma. Adams. Yes. ~ ~M; ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration (prev approved) - No Action Conditional Use Permit No. 2473 - Granted ~ (Delete item (d), page 4 , paragraph 10 of the staff report) (Add a condition that the psrking lot will be repaired prior to usage VOTE• 7-0 i 1 06/17/91 Page 16 ~r+^5 S.kiK.x. rr . ~ .,~~ ~.: yv. t y', •~: i td~i•, ;S~ .' • ~~~~c' i~y'~ . .. `1 ~ :, • rW(: t' '~~ 4~_ ~ ~. ~ 1~'. L sa. CmA Rrxu4'I'rJE nroN 5b. RE~LASS*L7CATIOIV N0. 90-91-18 5c. WAIVER ~F' (~lE REXJUIItII~l~11' Sd. ~',~ITIONAL USE PE[7~II'P ND. 3364 5e. WAIVER GF QXINCIL FiOLICY NO. 543 CW[~IER: Dr. Myron Simon/Mr. Stanley, P.O. Box 3182, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGF3Pl: JOHN O. COTTON, 1408 Third Street Promenade, Third Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90401 I(KyY!'IQN: 1334 Wi?St L8 Pa11r-~ Ave. Property ie apprcximately 0.72 acre located on the south side of La Palma Ave. and 75 feet on the northerly terminus of Loara Street approximately 131 felt west of the centerline of Hermosa Drive. RS-7200 to RS-A-43,000. "~ construct a 55-unit deck type "affordable" senior citizen apartment building with waivers of minimum Yot area, maximum structural height and minimum site area pe~.~ dwelling unit. Continued from the December 3, 1990 and '~ebruary 11, 1991, March 11, 25 and E:ay b, 1991 Planning ~oauniesion meetings. RECLASSIFICATION REBOLi3TI0N N0. ~. ~. ' ~. L,_J 06/17/91 Page 17 ya ~; ~; ...::vas 6a. CEbA NF,GAl'1VF' DE~ARA4'I0PI Continued to 6b. WA•~~2 OF CEDE REYXJIRII~ll July 15, 1991 6c. Gt~NDITIGNAL USE PEFhII'P NO. 3414 (READVEIa'ISID) ~ .~dNER: University Cinema, A California Limited Partnership, Attn: Bruce Sanborn, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 r IlJCATION: 5635 Fast Ia Palma Avenue. Property is appzaxim3tely : 5.54 acres located on the north side of Ia Palrta Avenue and approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of Tmr'rial H~.q}sray. To permit the expansion of a multi-screen indoor theatre complex and to construct a 29-foot high parklnq structure (160 apacee) with waiver of minimum number of parking apacee, prohibited roof mounted equipment and minimum landscaped setback adjacent to railroad right-of-way. W/ ~j ~ Continued from the June 6, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. , j/" CONDITIONAL USS PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWZNG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~• ~N~ OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Clarified they are asking to expand the movie theatre based on Code; they are not really asking for a variance, even though the City states that they have to show it that way because of the overall site; the original theatre was approved on a variance; they would like to add seats per Code with the proper parking ratio; the e:rtreme would be that it be done in phases; reatriping compact apacee for better usage of parking. He referenced condition no. 22. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, explained if they do not pull the building permit, they would like this applicant to make the ! improvement on hie aide of the property, i.e., to rebuild the driveway and also to make the street improvement on La Palma ae required by the City Engineer. nd if 3 ~,•~ k ~ years a Mr. Sanborn. Would like to ask that it be bonded for , they do not start construction within 3 years then they will do that. He explained they recently discussed an access easement with ~~ them and one issue is left to be resolved. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the access. ACTION: Item was continued to July 15, I`391 in order to resolve the access issue. 06/17/91 Page 16 7a. ENRIl3aNF~SfPAL .IMPACT REEnKP NO. 305 7b. WAIVER OF WDE REK7UIRII~7~11 n 7c. OJNDZTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3423 7d. TENTATIVE PAI.CEG MAP N0. 85-159 _e OWNER: City Of Anaheim, C/O Robert ZurSchmiede, 300 S. Harbor Blvd., Ste. 900, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGQ~ll': CULBERTON, ADAMS, AND ASSOCIATES, 85 Argonaut, Ste. 220, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 LOCATION; property .ls approximately 12.39 acres located at the narthwe_st corner of Weir Canvon Imad and La Palma Avenue. To permit a Commercial/Retail Canter with building heights in excess of 35 feet, and a service station and a freestanding drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum landscaped setbacks and minimum structural setback. To establish a 5-lot commercial subdivision. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. X91-84 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE ~~ CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTE:. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Rob ZurSchmiede, Community Development Department, representing the property owner, the City of Anaheim. This is a City owned parcel at La Palma Ave. and Weir Canyon Road; proposal is for 122,000 eq. ft. neighborhood shopping center consisting of shops, major tenant spaces and pads; have met with neighbors to the west of the site disouaeing various design aspects of the project; discussions with the neighbors resulted in several additional conditions which they would like to propose that are not part of the staff report that relate to development of the site; copy is provided to staff. The request for today would be for the Commission to take action on this item. They feel the remaining issues involving the concerns of the neighbors are definitely solvable. He deferred to the neighbors on this issue. indefinitely U~G,. / Fes' 06/17/91 Page 19 ~AV :~. a: 1, Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, read the following conditions into the record: ~ 1. That prior to issuance of building permits, a revised vehicular circulation plan, which eliminates through vehicular access along the proparty'e western boundary shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Traneportatio.: Manager for hie approval. Said revised plane shall be ' prepared and consultation with the neighborhood representatives from the residential tract located west of the project. 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan to provide a 30-foot deep buffer to those properties located on Woodsboro Pvenue with sound attenuation walla and landscaping shall be submitted to the City for its approval. Said plans shall describe all proposed conveyances and show detailed improvement plane for walla and landscaping. The coat of said improvements and designs of the same shall be born by the developer. 3. That the delivery hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday, B:OU a.m. to 6:00 p.m, Saturday through Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday delivery shall be permitted for the market only. An electronically controlled gate equipped with a knox box device shall ~ be provided to eliminate vehicular entry except during approved delivery hours. 4. All loading areas shall be screened and acoustically sound attenuated. James Walker Ray. Have agreed that alcoholic beverages will not be sold at the gas station proposed for the corner and clarified that the gas ~' station will not end up as a mini-mart with beer and wins. They have l_ agreed to give each of the homeowners that abut: the property, an additional 10 feet of rear yard. They iieve agreed that the wall which separates the center from their expanded back yard will be 8 feet tall provided the City approves that height and that tha homeowner side of the wall will be of either slump atone or split faced material which ever the homeowner desires; they will also extend the existing aide yard fencing t tho new wall and duplicate the preee:it material; they have agreed if the grade differential from the homeowner's aide of the proposed rear wall an the existing grade at the rear of the individual yards exceeds 5 feet, then they will provide an 18 inch high wall inside of the a-foot wall in ~ order to create a terrace which would allow a greater level area in the rear yard. Agreed to provide each homeowner a lar.~ecape allowance to improve their new expanded rear yard amounting to $1.50 per eq. ft. of ne yard created. `~,,. Bill Taraschi representing the homeowners. Thought they had an agreement ,,~ a while ago; report staff prepared does not have some of the verbal agreements they had between the developer and Redevelopment. ~~ ~, 06,17/91 Page 20 ;~. If they agree to these things they will go ahead and support the project. There ie a problem in the traffic area. Concern expressed going southbound over the bridge which turns into Weir Canyon; there is a right ~ hand turn lane which allows them to turn west onto La Palma to get into their neighbors; staff report indicates that the right 'land turn lane will now be a straight drive through, i.e., they will have an option of driving straight or turning right. There is a deceleration lane being put in which ie about 1,000 feet on La Palma going west from Weir canyon to the entrance of their neighborhood; La Palma going west hoe no traffic problem, but La Palma going east has a terrible traffic problem. Mr. Zurschmiede For the record they are working on incorporating the County owned parcel to the west cf the City owned site into this development; the County hoe been responsive; there is not an agreement as of today to incorporate that sits; they ive indicated an interest in leasing it ae opposed to a sale; if project is approved, they anticipate •,•eturning to the Commission with an incorporation of that Bite; this was one of the reasons they asked for an indefinite continuance on the tentative map that was associated with thin item. OPPOSITION: Concern expressed regarding the Carl's Jr. at Imperial Hwy and La Palma; they view that as a major attraction for kids which they feel is a negative aspect of that shopping center; would like to limit hours of operation for fast food facility at the proposed location to 11:00 p.m. so this does not become a major congregation area for kids. Hellyer. Suggest that they contact Carl's Jr. regarding a security officer as they are very open to doing the right thing. '"' REBUTTAL: Mr. Ray. Homeowners have coneietently requested that they ~" agree to some hours; he explained to them that ie difficult to do because moat users are very relucta:rt to allow provisions in their lease which limit them. His experience with Carl's Jr. is that they are responsive tc rowdiness; with respect to the gas station, they expect to have a major filling station company who would keep a good, clean operation; do not have the same perception of limited hours on these 2 uses, however, he does respect the homeowner's concerns. Mr. ZurSchmiede He referenced the north property line shat abuts the Southern Pacific Ra3,lroad. He proposed ar additional condition that a buffer be included for the neighbors since their individual yards would bi involved and then submitted to the City for its approval both from a design of the buffer and nn how the property conreyancee would work. It is their proposal at this time that the land itself would be conveyed and feed to each of those owners; they are proposing a full plan prior to building permits. Bouas. There would have to be trees, etc. for a sound barrier. Henninger. Will this be reviewed by an acoustic Engineer? Mr. Zurschmiede That would be part of the plan. 1~ 06/17/91 `-' Page 21 n. ~, ~'~ ,~ Ray. The EIR consultant engaged a sound engineer and the sound engineer's report was an integral part of the EIR. The acoustic engineer studied the condition in the rear yards and concluded that the Bounds would be dramatically less ae a result of their development; the building would screen the freeway and sounds from La Palma. He stated he had no problem with providing additional sound engineering. Meese. Will northwest parking area be used for employees only? Mr. Zurschmiede That is correct. STAFF COMMENTS: Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, took into consideration not only this project, but all of the ranches when they are completed including Mountain Park; came up with master plan for the whole area from north of La Palma to Santa Ana Canyon; this ie a preliminary design and they will be working with the City of Yorba Linda to finalize this. Regarding concern of those traveling southbound on Yorba Linda and Weir canyon and making a right hand turn lane--this ie due to the heavy demand for southbound traffic; it is good to have a right hand turn lane only right now, but when they make the improvement and provide an additional lane of traffic on Weir Canyon, they will have 3 southbound lanes and 3 northbound lanes; this will improve the whole area drastically, therefore, it will make it possible to also make a right turn lane only. Would be :willing to go over this plan with the neighbors and answer any questions they may have. They will have an optional right hand turn and through lane. Must give consideration not only to the right hand turn lane on!.y, but the overall capacity of the intersection. A lengthy discussion took place regarding this issue. Hellyer. What is problem with adding a right hand turn pocket? Yalda. Not enough room because the street is to its ultimate and it cannot be widened anymore than what it ie. Hellyer. What about taking a dedication? Yalda. Cannot take a dedication on the east aide and already have on the west side. We are talking about 80 cars only. He went over the study. Meese. If later on they need to take away the straight ahead arrow and just leave the right turn arrow, can they change that. Ya.lda. Absolutely. 1 06/17/91 Page 22 `a,. rrx,~ ',:';w: ,,. ; ,~, ,,;~ ~, Melanie Adams, Public Works Department. The applicant has stipulated to the concept of moving the lot lines giving the homeowners an additional 10 feet; remind them that beyond the 10 feet they will need to move the ,~ property line an additional 3 feet from the top of the elope to comply ' with the setback requirements of Chapter 17.06. Would like to add to that condition that the lot line adjustment be ' recorded prior to issuance of the first building permit. Made the following corrections to tr.~s staff report conditions of approval starting on page 16. Conditions 12, 13 and 15 relate to street improvements on La Palma Avenue. Add the following languaoe to each one of the above listed conditions: "That prior to issuance of a building permit, street improvement plane shall be submitted to the Subdivision section and bonds posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer in a forn approved by the City Attorney." i Delete condition no. 22, page 17 ae it is a duplication of condition no. 7. D. Fank. Both conditions are needed; Could combine condition nos. 22 and Page 18, condition no. 27. Change first sentence to "That pr:~.or to the issuance of a grading plan approval." C Condition no. 28 ie no longer recuired. D. Fank. it is still a mitigation measure; the EIR evaluated the proje•~t totally ae parcel A and B, eo in terms of the overall project analysis, it will remain ae a mitigation measure. Meese. Cannot put this condition on this project. Me. Adams. For clarification will this be required before the first building pernit or building pernits associated with the County parcel? D. Fank. Only with parcel B. M. Adams. Change all remaining conditions that say "That prior to '$y, issuance of a grading permit" to "prior to grading plan approval." A''4~, The following conditions are duplicates: Condition no. 71 ie adequately covered by condition no. 72. ~ Condition no. 76 is adequately covered by condition no. 72. ~ Condition no. 78 is in conflict with condition no. 72 which is their recommended condition of approval. ~~. 06/17/91 Page 23 Condition no. 79 ie adequately covered by condition no. 72. Condition no. 82, the last sentence should read: "approval of the Chief ~ Building Official." End of corrections. D. Fank. All of those conditions that are also mitigation measures will need to be revised eo when the mitigation monitoring program is adopted they are the revised version of those. Janet Baylor, Fire Department. Has a concern in regards to the on-site acceseway; in the YDC meeting she did discuss with the developers on providing a minimum 20-foot acceseway which is in the conditions. This ie the first day she has seen the revised plane and at this time she cannot comment and dose not have the means to look at the turning radius of that acceseway and she would like to poet No Parking lanes where the lane narrows down and look at where the dock and loading areas for each one of those buildings will be to see if the actual delivery trucks would encroach in that acceseway. At this time she would be favorable to a condition stating "that prior to ,Su±lding permits, an approved plan for access through the site from the Fire Department" be added. The above mentioned condition was agreeable to the Planning Commission ACTION: EIR No. 305 - Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 85-159 - (indefinite continuance) Waiver of Code Requirement - Approved (Waiver "A" Change structural setback to meet the minimum of ~ 60 feet on Weir Canyon) l~ Conditional Use Permit No. 3423 (Granted) (With changes to conditions ae mentioned above) U-~ ~. ~ ~ 06/17/91 Page 24 ~'~'=t~. L{ ~:~': t,: .. ~- t [i e. S%~x2 8a. CEbA NEGATIVE DEY:GARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPR7VID) APA~'~ ' 8b. WAIVER OF Q7DE RECXJIRIIt1E4Tl APP~'~ 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERhlI4' NO. 3363 (READVERI'ISID) C;tatlted ~I CW[VER: CANYON WEST and VINEYARD MIIiISTRIES, 333 E. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 ~, AGGE[1r1: PHILLIP SCHWARTZE, 27132-B Paseo Espada, Ste. 1222, Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 n Sa gg ~~ LOCATION: 5~F00-5340 East La .calm 1t~. Property is approximately 16.8 acres located on the south etde of La Palma Avenue and approximately 141 feet west of the centerline of Brasher Street. To permit a school uae in addition to a previously approved church, and to amend the conditions of approval pertaining to limitations on the duration of churches in the Canyon Industrial Area as authorized by ordinance No. 5224 with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~/ ~1 CONDITIONAL US6 PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-85 ~ ~~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None i^ ~~-~ PETITIONERS COMMENTS: Have revised the plane and are moving things from one building to another and much of that was in response to the Fire Department; have deleted their request for the school. He referenced condition nos. 6 and 7 on page 7 and asked that the centerline of Thrasher be done at the same time that they do the traffic signal. This way they could accomplish that at one time in lieu of putting it in at the time of building permit. When warrants are there then they will be doing everything at one time. i Parking requirement changed because Code requires more parking for fixed seats in the sanctuary and, therefore, they added the additional parking. t2~ . l 06/17/91 -~ Page 25 _ .,r . a: . J~ ACTION: CEgA Negative Declaration (Prev. approved) - App: Waiver of Code Requirement - Approved /' Conditional Uee Permit No. 3363 (Read.) - Grantee 1 , (Tie together conditions 6 and 7 and time to war: (Strike the word "uneubordinated" in condition n: second sentence). VOTE• 7-0 ~~ ~' 9a. CEbA NFF~'IVE DEL^l.BRATION pptuvnu 9b. WAIVER OF GDDE REt7UIRII4F1P1' pproved 9C. Q~NDITIONAL USE PEI7MI'l N0. 3409 ~^ G ranted Qa~: GOVIND BHJAKTP_ and SUMATI, 3351 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 AGNIPP: D. W. KIMMEL, 1142 N. Brookhuret, x`126, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCA770N: 3351 West LinCC>ln Ave. Property is approximately 0.71 acres located on the north Bide of Lincoln Ave. and approximately 975 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street. To permit a 24-unit addition to an existing 18-unit motel with waiver of ;naximum structural height and minimum open setback. ~/~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-86 I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved (~• Waiver of Code Requirement - Approved `~ Conditional Use Permit No. 3409 - Granted VOTE• 7-0 06/17/91 Page 27 li~~,. ~ l~'.' ^ ~ fF~, ~t^ ~. ~ 5.~. _ _ 't'Sf ,` ~y' '''F.:. J~ i; s: 11n^ ? "i; 10a. GSA N!X,1~CIVE DECGARA470N Approved n lOb. CONDITjONAL USE PERMP!' NO. 3420 Granted 10C. Q7ND1'1'jONAL USE PEI7MI'1' N0. 3081 (READ(7Ela'ISED) Granted CWNElt: DOUG SOON PARK, 2712 Wyckersham, Fullerton, CA 92633 AsENP: STEVE LALLY, 2111 Business Center Drive, Ste. 100, Irvine, CA 92715 I~OCA'!'ION: 1523 West ICatella Ave. Property is approximately 0.57 acre located at the nertheaet corner of Katella Avenue and Bayless Street. To permit a convenience market and request for an amendment to •the conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operations. PC41-87 REBOLUTION NO `,~~' / . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N'-" ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-88 I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO SE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION• 3 ~ OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Concern expressed regarding hours of t"'~ operation. Suggests that facility be open only to approximately 10:00 p.m.; no feet-food or alcohol; concern about a fence that was previously damaged; would like petitioner to fix it. STAFF COMMENTS: Johr. Poole, Code Enforcement, cannot leave a fence in disrepair regardless of the use and that commercial property would have to be separated with the fence so they will look into it and see that the fence is repaired; they do need to get landscaping cleaned up and irrigated. ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 3420 - Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3081 (Read.) - Granted 6-0 %4~ (Feldhaus absent) "~ Hours of operation to be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. with one +k hour to close (closing time to be 10:00 p.m.) l Applicant to stipulate to landscaping 1 it was noted that the applicant said he would fix the fence in ii question. ~Tyz a VOTE: CUP ~349~P• (6-1) Boydstun NO _A~ y- CUP 3081 ( ~ Feldhaus absen ~ ~G~~~-~.J ~~ `SJ ~ t i 06/17/91 ~ Page 28 .... * i.~ ~i lla. CEUA NF~A'1'IVE DEICGAR'P170N - -- ----~ 11b. WAIVER OF DUDE RF.OUIRFl~1~'P iic. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3421 U4l'TER: ANDREW Y. LUI, 500 N. Brookhuret St., Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 500 N. Hrookhulst Ave. Property ie approximately 1.2 acres located at the northeast corner of Alameda Avenue and Brookhurat Street. To permit a public dance hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USS PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-89 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 1 letter submitted in opposition 2 present in favor PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: To permit the imposition of a cover charge from approximately 510.00 to 525.00 to the same type of operation that Mr. Lui has had for a number of montY.a; charge to cover entertainment such as live bands, etc. {~` An easement on another person's property that runs with the land and ~ that is unsubordinated to all of the other deed of trust holders ie very difficult to obtain; the person who owre the office building may want to sell and that ie quite a burden ~n hie property. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion took place regarding a reciprocal accesement agreement. Perhaps they could satisfy this by providing a written agreement to the City from the property owner agreeing to 1 yr. so it rune with the CUP; the agreement becomes a condition of the CUP and if they do not maintain it or the office people say they want to terminate the agreement, then some alternate arrangement would have to be made. STAFF COMMENTS: John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager, stated one of the things omitted in the staff report was a time recommendation far the amount of time the public dance would be approved for the term of the CUP; this type of activity can cause problems; these have been no problems with these particular people, however, there hoe been some problems south of Brookhuret, so staff would recommend that the CUP be granted for a period of 1 year and if everything ie o.k. after 1 year they would give a recommendation for a longer period of time. ~' (1 Yr.) P/,~ rh: ~:,~~•: u5, t,• ~.~ i tf,~~, ' .qY, ~'! ~ ~ Z:~~ 1 ~y~~~ ~ _ icy z ~x„~ :. s~ ~ w.. 1 ? ~~-~ ~s~> .i}~C': lr~~ , RR'g( ~. c :, ~ ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved ~iaiver of Code Requirement -Approved '= Conditional Use Permit No. 3421 -Granted for 1 year or t~, ~~ Note: Condition no. 3 was amended to read as follows: ~ I i "That a parking agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney shall be obtained. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoninq Division." VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Feldhaue absent) ~; V I ~_.. -__..._.._.. -...._. x ., 06/17/91 Page 30 r~. ~. l ~' ~/ 1?a. CEDA NFX,ATIVE DECC,ARATION ~rr~~•a~ ~ fib, RE~GA,SgTCATIgY N0. 90-91 28 Granted Initiated by the City of Anaheim Planning Commission IA!C1~l7QN: 300 N. Anaheim Blvd.. Property is appzoximately 0.15 acres located on the northeast corner of Anaheim Blvd. and Cypress Street. ~/~ From CG (Commercial General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC9 -90 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved Reclassification No. 90-91-28 VOTE: 6-0 (Feldhaus absent) 13. RER~RT' AND RIIDVDATIONS ~' A. Ct7DIDI'1'IL~TAL USE $ERMIT NO 33]2 REOJEST FnR RETIdOAGTIVE E7f'i'IIVSION OF TIME 2t9 COMPLY WI'1'H COAIDITIONS OF APPR017AL AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ND. 2869-REOUEST FOR TERMINATICKN: (1) Thomas Aguirre requests for a retroactive extension of time for Oonditional Use Permit 270. 3312. alp ~ 9 ~ ~// (2) requests Termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2865. Property is : c:.ated at 219 N. Euclid Street. Termination Rzsolution No. F~91-91 B. THE SUMMPl' OF ANAHEIM HTT•TC (SP88 21 DEJEf<)PME~lP AREA 104 ~ } 1 REOUESIS REJIBV AND APPROVAL OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE ~ I K c ! WPl~l-PREVIOUSLY APP%~ID PRECISE PLANS FC)R VESTING _ ' 9y A ~~, : TE.Nl AT ~ ~ NO. 14ti reviousl e with f 1 ,\, 1 ~ p ~ ; ornianc p a~n a ~;;~ (;; approved precise plans far Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14. .~ property assists of approximately 8.62 acres generally .bound by The Summit of Anaheim Hills Development Area 103 to the nortlsrest, The Summit of Anaheim Hills Development Area 202 to the northeast, The Summit of Anaheim Hills Development Are ;'~, 201 to the east and The Summit of Anaheim Hi71c Development A 1 , 104 to the southwest anal further described as Vesting ?'entati , Tract Map No. 14190 within Development Area 104 of The Summit Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88 2). ~/~1 ///~ C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3304 REO[IFS'15 FOR APP%JVAL OF ApprCyved SUBSTANTIAL QINFORMANCE WITff APPId7VID PLANS: Joe Carroll, dilly/Carroll Properties, Inc., requests for approval of ;y~ substantial a:nfarniance with approved plans. Property is (~ 11.9 acres at the southwest c»rner of Weir Canyen Road and Serrano. D. P~A1SID MI1~ USE (SOUND ATTENTION): E. PldOF23SID AhSE1VVA~fENT '!O THE GRADING ORDINANCE: droved far db f1VF.L I 06/17/91 Page 32 CtiRRFXR'ID PAGE T!~ FOQ,iAiPIIJ6 POBI.IC RFC iPILS, IUl' HE WARD BF.ECItE 6:00 P.13. e ~ 14a. IIW.i%)NhffiPPAL Ih1PAC1' REEt3HI' NO. 302 14b. G~4FRAI, PLAN AhffiVL1~LG1PP NO. 318 continued to i 14c. MOUNTAIN PARR SPEIOIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4 June 24, 1991 DFF+SIGN AIQ~IATIVE (INCLUDING at 10:00 a.m. A HIELIC FACIL2Y'TES PLANT 14d. MOUNTAIN PARR SPFZIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4 ZONING AND DEVII~OA~1' STANDARQS CL~VNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY, P.O. HOX 1,550 NEWPORT CNTR. DR., Newport Heach, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904, ATTN: Jay Pierce, Foothill Community Builder LOCATION: Subiect nronerty. which is described ae_the 3 179-acre Gweum Canyon nrooerty, is unincor- norated land located within the County of Orance in the City of Anaheim's sohere-of-influence, and Generally bordez•ed on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR-911 and the GvDeum Canyon Road inter- chance, on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills and Sycamore Canyon develonmente in the City of Anaheim, on the south by unincorporated nronerty within the County of Orance in the City of Orance's sphere-of-influence, and on the east bv_ ir' unircornorated nronerty within the City of Anaheim's t where-of-influence. Request for an amendment to the Land Uee, Environmental Resource and Management and Circulation Elements of the Anaheim General Plan and adoption of the Mountain Park Specific Plan to serve ae preannexation zoning and subsequently regulate the development of the site. A Fiscal Impact Report has also been submitted as part of the project application. The General Plan Amendment request includes, but is not limited to, proposals which would amend the existing Land Uee Map to establish revised boundaries and acreages for Hillside Low-Medium and Medium Density Residential, school, park and open apace land use designations, delete the Hillside Estate and Hillside Low Density Residential land use designations, increase residential densities to allow for a maximum of 7,966 dwelling unite, and increase General Commercial acreage from it to 179 acres; amend the existing Circulation Map to eatabliah revised alignments and road classifications for Gypsum Canyon Road, Weir Canyon Road/Jamboree Road, oak Canyon Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road, add new secondary and collector roadways, and. delete Coal Canyon Road within the project area, amend existing bikeway and riding and hiking trail plane to eatabliah revised alignments and classifications; and, amend the existing Environmental Resource and Management Map to ~ eatabliah revised boundaries for open space, sand and gravel operations and agricultural preserves. -- 06/17/91 Page 33 ~'/ ~' ~ I _. _. _, .. .... _ ._ " tS1. ';l The proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan (including Zoning and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan) would r~ provide for the development of up to 7,966 residential dwelling l _ unite, 179 acres of commercial uses, interim sand and gravel mineral extraction, three elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, a City maintenance yard and facility, a ~ i potential fire station site, a potential electrical sub-station site, three neighborhood parka, two community parks, a community center and open apace. Related actions will include the Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) consideration of an application to annex the project area to the City of Anaheim, requests to the County of Orange for consideration of amending the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and Master Plan of Bikeways components of the County of orange's General Plan Transportation Element, cancellation of Agricultural Preserve Contracts, request for a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Foothill Community Builders (the project applicant), infrastructure I financing programs, subdivision plans, grading permits, and other actions related to the proposed development of the Mountain Park Specific Plan community. I Continued to the June 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. GENERAL PLAN ANENDNENT RESOLUTION NO. SPECIFIC PLAN R880LUTION N0. ~~ SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND ~~ DEVELOPIO3N'P STANDARDS RESOLUTION N0. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., June 24, 1991, in the Council Chambers. i I ~,~V4 • ~~.