Loading...
Minutes-PC 1991/07/01i. pCI'ICN AGFSIDA RA?JLAR MEE!'ING OF TfiE .ANAFlEIM CITY PLANNING CL~fhffSSICiJ MC)NDAY, JULY 1, 1991 AT 10:00 A.M. Pl~'~'~At~' PLAN RERIII1i PU9LIC FtEAR,IIVG (R19IdC TFS'1'ITXJINYJ 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. Gt~AffSSIC~.2S PRFSIIV1': BCUAS, BOYASRUN, FECDHAUS, ~rrvFU~ f~rINGE1t, MESSE, PERAZA PimC®URE ~ E7fPIDITE PLANNING Cgh¢lISST.ON PU9LIC FiFJIRIIJGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Addition+s9 time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Ccmmisaion, such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present hie case unless additional time ie requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what 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 t~ the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questi.one until the public hearing ie 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 nerved. 6. All documents are presented to the Planning Commission for revises 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 Y,e 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 (5) minutes to speak. --~a. .-,,,,,,,.,w,_... 1 - --- - - , :- , 1 i4 ,a ,. _ a ' Y ~ ~ ~ , ~ 4? 'C• ~~~ ~ ~. • , ~ ~ ~ .M14'.f ' r ~ ~.~'' y< \ ~';. ~ ~~ s ~+ . j` t` '~ i + ' f t ~. ~J ctk~,y~.. :, ~.; ~~;! , rY ~:~ ~. ,' #: . o,~ ~ ,. - , m y~ II u~~ ~a `. t ht W ~ y ~ C~ 4 r A-}.. ` -d ^ J1 ksf WI j.r ~ .k~i '~~ ~ , .i.h ~ F~ bR ~ ~ ~ ti` ~ i ~,4 4 ~;, ~1 .' .~ ~ V ~ 1 ~ ;~ : - ~~ ~ ~f 4 ~ t .. i 1 .. 55\\ ~I ~,~- a ~ Y7: i~ \ .2Y ~ ` ` ~ y v1 ~ `C ~ , ' i + ' ~ ~ ,.. ~ ,61 v'. 4 k = ~ • 1 ~~ 7 t: ,4 " .f. . ~ ~ ~ 1 I. Y.... y. .f.. "~ .y~i ~ 1 a'ja 7.4~ t ~~~ 1r ~.a .,~,i , _ ;k r i ~ i u ) ' . w~ + ` S1 L~ ~ {. •4. Y n ` 1 ',. 1 . ~~ y t y{~ y , ~~ f ~ )~ ~ ~ . s ~ ~ ~1 ~ 1 1'i 2~ 1~1~ • L ~ t. a; ~ 1 1 ~~'~ h .1 3 ~ LLf .N' r.~ ~ l ,d 1 F: t I~. • t ~. ~' ~: ~7 ~r.l t ti h.. ~~ ~ / 0. ~~ 1 ~ ) ,., ,~ ~4 ~ 1' 3 :~4 ; , \ „ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3d 1 r ~, . 1 L ,~~ • w~ ~, ^ ~ Y t ~, ~ x ,.. ~ "~~+ .. r (, A . AM . 'l y~~ ~ J V~ i ~ l ~~ f _ i y ~ - .~ ~i .. ' ~ - 4 ' .. 4}~~3 T ti.r.'~6C~ a Y. AX t v . f '~~~ :;jr `-lr ~' ~, p~+~a; ~~.d k. ,, ~.Mi'. u ri~; c'. '~y~t ~r; '^ '~' CAA CATEt~RIC.AL E~'PION C~,A^aS 1 Continued to lb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3381 October 7, 1991 CZVNER: STEWART GREEN AND ASSOCIATES, Attn: Rosalie McCormick, 2180 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, C.9 92806 ~ IOC'ATION: 2134 E. Lina~ln Ave. Pro rt ie a pe y pproximately 27.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Ave. and State College Hlvd. So permit the division of an existing retail unit. Continued from the Fabruary 11, March 11, May 6, and June 3, 1991 Planning Comm•.eaion meetings. CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ FGLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONERS COMMENTS: Ralph~s has approved everything and Mr. Daw from Public-Works Engrg. has submitted hie report to the Parke and Recreation Department. STAFF COMMENTSS Melaine Adams, Public Works-Engineering. Stated they can submit the median island plan and continue working on the I on-site circulation plant the City ie not waiting for any additional information and they have met with Mr. Daw. ACTION: Contim~ed to October 7, 1991 I I `~+~ 07/1/91 Paga 2 i .. ~~ ~:,~; 2a. CEt7A C~17'MX,tiR7CAL• II~Tfic!'•-CGA.~ i 2b. VARL~NCE N0. 4134 Continued to August 12, 1991 ~~, CWl~Rt CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT, 1065 Pacificenter Drive, #200, Anaheim, CA 92806 ': IOG~ITIQN: Santa Fe Paci.fiQenter. Property ie approximately 26 acres located at the southwest coiner of La Palma and Tustin Avenue. Waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs and minimum distance between freestanding signs to construct a 91-square foot monument eign. Continued from the June 3, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. VAftIANCB RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITIONS None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Gave brief history of project. Zt is Carl's Jr.'e understanding that this ie not a straight variance application; after speaking with staff, this would fall into the category of a sign plan amendment; they share Redevelopment's position on this, '' i.e., they expre:,eed it ie more of a eign plan amendment= do not - believe a variance ie needed specifically for their application. Thev !lave presented a comprehensive revision to the eign plan within the last 2 weeks and it incorporates their request today and in addition, it addressee specifically the dinner house restaurant and the hotel= to hie knowledge there is nn consideration or application for the inlyinq tenants. He passed out a booklet having to du with the value of aignage to an operation such ae Carl's Jr. He ex:lained every store stands alone and ie a separate investment; signa~;e will have a big impact on this particular store. i COMMISSION COMMENTS: Meese - There is a freestanding restaurant that ie suppose to come in plus the other businesses and none of those are included in the eign plan; if the other tenants were shown the report, they would be in front of the Commission asking for aignage; x;~ he would like to see a complete eign program before they authorized Carl's Jr. to put in a monument eign. Applicant - Carl's Jr. would be willing to condition any approval ~1 hey might receive today on subsequent conditions the Commission may have on the overall eign plan when it is brought before them including removal of the eign, however, they hope that will not be • v the case. 07/1/91 Page 3 - ~r Boydstun - Thie should all go together as a package. Feldhaue - Applicant mentioned they had a million dollar investment and it seems to him that they would have had the sign assurance ~~ before they invested that amount of money. Applicant - They have a real estate committee comprised of top management people from Carl's Jr. and they approve sites subject to many conditions; he ie pleased that they are doing this subject to eignage more frequently. Peraz:~ - Hie concern is for the other businesses who also will want eignage, would like to see a total plan first. Mesa! - All we have is an outline of a plan and have been asked to comment on it. Applicant - They have a bigger issue at stake with the General Plan and not just the sign plan. Melee - Could condition it on some kind of true application for some kind of overall eignage program by Catellua and if it swinge it stays and if not it moat be removed. Feldhaue - if you place a contingency condition like that, it will never be removed. I Boydstun - What if they put a time limit on it and then have them ~.. come :.ack and reapply at the end of that time. Hellyer - Asked what Redevelopment's position ie on this? McGhee - Redevelopment was not available for comment, however, they are recommending denial of the request for this proposal. They suggested this was not an appropriate request and they were not supportive of the sign at that location. Applicant - Met with Brent Schultz, Redevelopment, and he expressed concern over the nickel and dime effect of constantly coming back with more eignsge; he was also not aware that Catellua was in the process of submitting the overall sign plan and that was the primary opposition Redevelopment expressed to them. Discussion took place regarding current eignage. Hellyer - They have signage and there ie no doubt in anyone's mind ~4" that it ie a Carl's Jr. when they drive peat the area; could not vote for the waiver because of the precedence it would set. McGhee - Staff's concern is the proliferation of signs and the master ~ plan. ~ Applicant - Due to the fact they have not officially paid the fees, he would like to request a continuance of Chia matter; is tryi:i~3 to avoid getting dragged through a 4-6 month process on a Specific Plan Amendment. 07/1/91 i Page 4 r~' py .~ ~ ~~ ~,6w. ~yh Y 4. _,~,:. .: ~,,.. ,.;; y ~~~ ~ ~ ; yw~ , r ~,c ~;.r. ?~' ~F . ~~ 1}^r,,. ~7. r ~Q r ~'~ ~krih ~r ~' ~ 4. `1~.. ' l c.i'~yX.. . j . V,'Y V Q'd5fy4 yy~...... , k ~. 7''. .: ,i5.," 6' ,~. ~. It ~, McGhee -staff received submittal last week] there were no fees filed _"'i>. with it, therefore, at this time, staff ie not considering it as a {`K, i_ formal submittal] it was submitted for their review to determine whether or not all of the information ie there in order to bring before the Commission] at this time there is no scheduling. ACTIONS Continued to August 12, 1991 otes Commissioners Henninger and Souas declared a conflict of interest due to the fact they hold stock in Carl's Jr. and, therefore, did not participate in the discussion. "'~~; ,,.~, \ I 07/1/91 Page 5 [,~,~ ~.s: ' t't5xfi 3a. (.3bA I~RVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Continued to 3b. Ct~NDITIONAL USE PEliFlIT NO. 3299 (READVERTISED) July 29, 1991 3C. TENTATIVE TRACE MAP NO. 14406 (READVERTISED) ~~ CWIVII:: Q.M.P. PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Maesoud Monshizadehi, 1571 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim,CA 92802 LOiCA1'IQN: 1575 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 2.21 acres located on the north side of Katella Avenue and approximately 314 feet east of the centerline of Carnelian Street. An amendment to the conditions of approval pertaining to recordation of CCflR's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions). Continued from the June 3, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. I ,~` 4a. CEbA NFX~ri'IVE DEL^T~AitA4'ION Continued to 4b. OONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3419 July 15, 1991 O;VNER: JACK HEINRICH, 12836 E. Alondra Blvd., Cerritos, CA 90701 AGQV'P: SAM E. ARHUTHNOT, 6631 N. Cherry Ave., Long Beach, CA 90805 LOGI~7ON: 5?5 S. Anaheim Blvd. Property ie approximately 0.66 acre located on the west side of Anaheim ~ Boulevard and approximately 330 feet north of the centerline of Water Street. To permit a car wash. Continued from the June 3, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ~ 07/1/91 Page 6 ,,: _ ,.,.. _. sM ~, ~.. L. 5a. CEC.LA N~'1yE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVIIt OF ODE RECJUIRIINFIVT 5C. LYxIDIR'IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3424 CfV[~R: GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH, 2530 W. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AGQ~'P: DAVID A. KAECH, 23161 Mill Creek Drive, Ste. 270, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 I,OC.~!'ICN1: X530 W. IS Palma Ave. Property is approximately 2.5 acres located on the south Bide of La Palma Avenue and approximately 665 feet eset of the centerline of Magnolia Ave. To permit a preschool in conjunction with an existing church and the construction of two 1,493 square foot (each) modular housing units for pastors` quarters with waiver of minimum required yard, minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height. CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-95 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSZOt7 ACTION. NOT TO UE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITYONs None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved Waiver of Code Rewirement - Approved (Change parking from 115 spaces to 140 spaces) Conditional Use Permit No. 34?4 - Granted (Delete conditions 3, 4, 5 an6 9) VOTE• 7-0 r ~ yh'[~5rµ1~ 'd... Approved Approved Granted i ;~..,,~ ;,:~ 6a. CEt3A 1~'IVE DECLARA'1?ON r~,Ncuvca. 6b. WAIVER OF WDE RECXIIRFI~~SV'P 6C. Q~NDIR70NAL USE PERFlIT ND. 3426 ~. CW[~1E12: Euclid Shopping Center, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGII~TP: SGPA/Architects and Planning, 2603 Main Street, Ste. 810, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCA'!'IQN: 1650-1696 West RateIla Ave. Property is approximately 18.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit the expansion of an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USS PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-96 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: On page 3 of staff report, no. 7 discusses the existing driveways and proposed driveways; the 2 proposed driveways on Ratella are merely relocations of existing driveways and ~` are not proposing any additional driveways for the project. There are 3 conditions that adversely affect exiatinq tenants in the center. Condition no. 2. Concerns elimination of moat northerly driveway on Euclid; the problem with the wording is that this driveway is the driveway that accesses the exiatinq bank's drive-through and if that dri~•eway were to be closed, it would shut down their drive-through. There ie another driveway for the center about 30 feet to 40 feet to the south and the owners agreed to close that one and he thought they had an agreement at the IDC meeting that would be acceptable. Condition no. 12. Refers to freestanding signs or. subject property conforming to B feet in height; this condition applies to the relocation of 3 existing signs on the site which a.*.e for existing tenants and they accommodate Howard's Restaurant, L.A. Fitness, i Table and Savon• although these tenants will remain in the Kng 9 r center, they are not active or financial participants in this project to improve the access, circulation and look of the shopping center to increase the revenue. The current lease agreement, and these tenants are based upon these signs as they exist regarding the height and the size. They have agreed to allow them to be relocated to accommodate the revision to the parking lot, but have a big problem if they lose the height which is about 15 feet. Request that the relocation of existing signs be allowed and perhaps any new signs applied for 1n the future conform to the 8-foot height. 07/1/91 Page 8 _. ... _. ......... ...._......: ~:,:~~ .,:.a. Condition no. 15. Refers to a minimum 10-foot setback; has no proLlem with that and are accommodating that everywhere on the site except 2 areas; one they will revise to accommodate the 30-foot ~ setback and the other one ie a detriment to Building D; it is currently 6 or 7 feet and would require closing t.!,e cross isle that goes in front of the building parallel to the Katella frontage and doing eo would cut off access to the Italian restaurant and the drive by traffic that goes by there. That lease hoe just been renewed. Request that Building D be exempted due to the existing tenancy requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner, explained this ie not a waiver; at this time Cade allows an encroachment into the 10-foot landscaped setback up to 3 feet with the parking area= they have yet to amend that Code to require a full 30 feet of landscaping. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they agree with the applicant and they can go ahead and close that one driveway; can combine the 2 driveways and make it one driveway or they can widen the existing driveway a little bit, but there should only be one driveway allowed. (It was clarified that it ie the second moat northerly driveway that shall be closed). Melan_e Adams, Public Works-Engineering, made the following correction to condition no. 13. She explained this property already consists of 8 legal parcels, so would like to strike the wording, "in the event a parcel man to subdivide eubiect nronerty is recorded." "`""`-"" '" ' Ad3`tfie' folZbw~:lq conditi'tsfi:""fihis'was diecuesed• during IDC, but- dfi3-- ~ not make it into the conditions; it is concerning the condition of ~ private sewers on the site. Currently there have been several backups on the site causing problems and it is causing a public nuisance; looking for ways to separate out these lines eo that several laterals to the public sewer be provided rather than the limited number right now which appears to be causing some of the problems. To the extent that it is possible, would like to see that each parcel has its own lateral to the public sewer. Read the following condition into the record: "That prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan shall be submitted to the Public Works-Engineering Department delineating the existing and proposed on-site private sewers in laterals to public sewers. Separate laterals shall be provided for each parcel or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer." Applicant - Stated he thought the reason it did not get on the list was when they researched that with the owner, they discovered it had to do with the Kinq'e Tabls and Howard's Restaurant only and that they had recently had those lines cleaned out and alleviated the problem] the gentleman they spoke to did not have a problem eliminating the condition. 07/1/91 Page 9 ~r.~: Hellyer - Could they both agree to some language that indicated the sewer capacity must meet the City Engineer's approval, otherwise they would have to take steps to meet that approval. Applicant - The owner ie not comfortable with that because they have a lot of lease restrictions with some of the existing tenants that would preclude being able to go back and do some things to their buildings. Depending on how calculations might come out, it may look like there was a problem when the only problems that did occur were at the 2 restaurants where the lines were somewhat plugged up and had been snaked out. The preference would be to eliminate the condition and to monitor the situation. Bouas - If the 2 restaurants are still there, that problem will arise again. Applicant - They are more cognizant of the problem and will have an ongoing maintenance of those lines. Hesse - What about the large new building they are going to erect--will they have their own lateral? Applicant - They will have their own lateral and will also have a grease trap and a grease interceptor which would keep the lines fairly clean. Adams - Would definitely be for the new buildings, however, would be looking for possibilities for the existing buildings so they could straighten out the whole network so each parcel has its own lateral. ... Applicant - There are several parcels and one of the conditions is to do a lot line adjustment or a consolidation because there is one owner and will not sell their parcelef they will remain the only responsible party for the maintenance. Adams - Rather than adding the separate conditions in condition no. 13, thoy could include a provision about maintenance of the on-site sewer syetemj currently the owner ie holding all of the property together and since they are legal parcels, he still does have the opportunity to sell anyone of these parcels at any time. Applicant - Hight add the word "utilities." Adams - That would be acceptable. Hellyer - He referenced Building D and asked if they would agree that he could fix it up as beet as he could given the fact there ie not a lot of depth there. Applicant - will be going through a landscape plan for the center because the parking lot is significantly redesigned and there are a lot of new islands, so ae part of the new frontage, they would want to include that. "l ~./ ,:it... 07/1/91 Page 10 >~~ Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, asked for clarification on condition no. 13, page 7 with regard to the covenant that is being requested in this instance with the added language providing for ~ maintenance of sewage. This will likely need to be in the form of some type of CC&R's since there is one owner and a single owner cannot grant themselves an easement; you cannot have a reciprocal access agreement with yourself, so it would have to be some type of CC&R recorded against the property, i.e., some type of covenant that is for the benefit of the entire property that reserves easements for everyone and also provides for maintenance of sewage; in the form that it ie stated in now, requiring reciprocal access and parking suggests there is more than one owner. Just so it is clear that there is going to be some type of CC&Ra that are applicable to the entire property and will have to be made applicable to the leases that is on the gcoperty now. Applicant - There are CC&R's that are already in existence and they believe they cover all of this, however, it will be submitted for verification. Hellyer - Are we adding a condition that says new buildings will be served by new sewer laterals? Adams - That would be preferable. Henninger - That would be in addition to the new language in condition no. 13 which adds to the concept of utilities. Henninger - In no. 12 they ask for the ability to relocate exietinq ...._._..._ _...._..._.__._.,......_.. l e~gns. ..__ ._.....__._..... - .._.. -- -- .. .__.__......._.. .._.. _...~..... ~_......._._..,.. Bouas - Propose they have that ability. w Henninger - On condition no. 15 should be exietinq 6 to 7 feet in front of building D only. ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved Waiver of Code Requirement - Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3426 - Granted (With changes ae mentioned above) VOTE: 7-0 I 07/1/91 Page 11 7a. CMZIA CATE2~RTCALrEl~T CLA.S li 7b. WAIVER OF CLYDE RFS(IIRII~IP ~- 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERM.I'1' NO. 3427 OWNER: THE INTERNATIONAL SALVATION CHURCH, 6435 Roland Street, Buena Park, CA 90621 AGEN'P: JOSEPH E. PLEMONS, 627 "B" Irvine Ave.,Newport Beach, CA 92663 I.OCA2'ION: 724 NOrth 4bpPka Street. Property is approximately 0.12 acre located approximately 330 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street. To permit the con.atruction of a 1225 square foot single-family residence and to establish a 755 square foot "granny unit" with waiver of maximum number of bedrooms and open apace requirements any minimum aide yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. _._.....`.~.._..- _.._........~...._.~.._..._. .OPPOSITION..-..hone ....__..__._.._._.__ ..`----.. ~~ PETITIONER'S COMMENTSS Waiver B can be modified to meet the 5-foot requirement= is planning on moving his 82 year old mother into the "granny" unit= the other structure would be for a church member, but did not know if it was a specific church member that they had in mind] he clarified it would not be a rental. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Not in conformance; needs to look to their neighbor with more eeneitivityf staff has the old study and it has a lot of good thoughts on the design for that area. ACTION: Continued to July 29, 1991 ~~ W 29, 1991 07/1/91 Page 12 S. '.Ir~f ~. t~rfc. ~ i ga, CQ~A I~'IVE DECGARATIQN (Previously Approved) eb. Q7NDITIONAL USE PERMI'P Nth, 34.73 (Readvertised) GWNER: NORBERT WATERS, 12132 Morrie Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92640 IL7C1Y!'IQN: 2521 E. Ball ld~ad. Property is approximately 1.89 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street. Request for an amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to landscaping. CONDITIONAL US8 PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-97 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 1 Opposed 1 Concerned individual OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Landscaping and condition of property ie a major concern to the neighbors; ::o:sld like to see the air conditioning unit enclosed that bac!ca up against the residential properties; would like to see improvement on the blacktop; have no problems with the addition or remodeling, but would like to see an ~ overall improvement in the shopping center. l . PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: There is a condition that indicates a SO-foot planter strip, but when this was approved, there was not 10 feet to give and that would make it a substandard lot; there is a street widening project that will take 3 feet; spoke with Mr. Daw from PWE and also Leonard McGhee, Planning. Asks that conditions 2, 4 and 7 be deleted; would like the last sentence in condition no. 1 regarding the trash oncloaure delete3; has a 2-bin trash enclosure for the restaurant and the other bueineseea with only 1 bin in the enclosure and it is picked up 4 times a week; there ie a problem with unauthorized dumping on hie property by other persona. REBUTTAL• Involved in litigation with hie partner and goes to trial July 29, 1991; cannot improve the parking lot or improve the front of the old building until that ie done. Will go ahead and screen the back of the building; understands resident's concern regarding this issue. Meese. if lawsuit comes out negatively, is petitioner Baying he will not be able to have the parking lot improved? Aleo what dose this issue have to do with the lawsuit? Approved Granted 1 yr. 07/1/91 Page 13 ~~r ~. "',I\~. r,,, Waters. It breaks the lease he has with the other co-owners. At this time the co-owners would not spend any money to improve the parking lot. ~ John Poole, Code Enforcement. Photos were distributed that were taken on petitioner's property in June, 1991 and it pretty much depicts what it looks like now. The trash dumpeter is not maintained, i.e., ti,e doors are always open and the trash is not in the trash bin; asked to have the mechanical equipment screened and tied into a time frame becausa they have had previous discussions regarding this issue and it remains unscreened; still no handicapped parking stall and ramp in the west portion of the propertyi there are still pot holes and heavy deterioration throughout the west parking lot; they are going to widen the street and he has made suggestions to him where he could, at rather minimal coat, get the pot holes fixed, slurry sealed and stripe the parking lot because they will not go all the way back Into hie property and it could be accomplished rather inexpensively; he has been given notice to replace the door for the gas water heater which has not been done= there ie trash throughout the property, especially the east end, and he has been given notice before; there is a house car that has been there for at least 2 months that ie parked in the front parking area and the registered owner ie a D. Waters; there have been complaints of construction trucks parked on the property;. things could be accomplished with some management techniques and not much money. Mr. Poole indicated he ~' would show Hr. Waters the photos. Hoydetun. Trash enclosure ie a matter of housekeeping; she has a commercial building of her own; they keep the enclosure locked; the tenants have keys and they screened the top which ended unauthorized dumping. Wate~e. Entire building has been water blasted to prepare for painting= he referenced the photon and agreed the trash enclosure is terrible; wanted to replace the entire asphalt and has received bide. Eoydstun. Eut nothing has been done. Hellyer. Agreed a year ago to do the site screening when application was before them for the monopole. Souse. Asked for clarification ae to how many trash enclosures he had. ``4~ Waters. Has one for the old building and a double one for the new building; the restaurant ie part of the new building. i 1 Eouae. How close is that to the restaurant and how many tenants ~ use it7 Waters. Approximately 50 feet and 7 tenants use it. ~ ~ Bouae. Could you put in a second trash bin in the enclosure? 07/1/91 ~ Page 14 Waters. Yee I H Can ut a screen over it and lock it. ti ~l Doss: p ~ Waters. Concern expressed regarding the trash pickup. Boydetun. Unlock it the night before. Feldhaue. Petitioner h~+s copy of all the problems; he has been notified regarding these unresolved issues and he has failed to do vise as to how to anything about them= this body should not ad accomplish these things; Code Enforcement has given petitioner ample opportunity to do aomethinq to the property. The request today ie a petition for amendment to conditions of approval without having to provide landscaping= in addition it is a run down, shoddy looking property that needs to be properly maintained and managed. The City does not get involved in civil matters; right now they need to address the request for the landscaping amendment and also petitioner must comply with the problems associated with the condition of the property. Peraza. Would like to see a time frame on some of the issues that have to be accomplished such as site screening, trash pickup, handicapped ramp, and parking lot improvements. Henninger. When will petitioner paint building? ~~. l Waters. 2 weeks or lase. Henninger. When could roof-mounted equipment be screened? Waters. 2 months. j I Hellyer. When will asphalting be completed? Waters. Referenced lawsuit again. Hellyer. You are waiting until results of lawsuit? Waters. if lose lawsuit, can go inexpensive way. Henninger. Has 2 options: can patch, slurry seal and reetripe or can remove asphalt entirely-, Suggested a condition be placed on one or the other with some time frame. Waters. Condition upon result of lawsuit. i Hesse. Cannot do that. Hellyer. Will 2 months be adequate Dither way? ^`~ 07/1=91 ~ Page 15 . _.., _ _..... _ ;s;x~ ~~~ '~~; =f; ,;,,~;4: _~ R /1 ;~~ ry./ Waters. 90 days. Waters. Expressed concern regarding trash enclosure. Henninger. What would staff think if we deleted the last sentence on condition no. 1 which still would require that petitioner produce a trash storage area acceptable to Streets and Sanitation; if they work it out and it turns out he does not need that, he would not have to have it. Meese. He could work it out within a time frame of 60 days. Henninger. It is timed in condition no. 6. Hellyer. Should we go along with staff regarding 8 feet of landscaping? Meese. He would lose 3 feet with the widening of Ball Road. Feldhaus. Lets qo with 5 feet. Henninger. Would follow staff's recommendation on page 4. Melanie Adams, PWE. Currently construction on Ball Road improvements is scheduled to start in November of this year. Meese. Asked for clarification if Mr. Waters understood what they meant by landscaping? Waters. Got hie idea of landscaping from looking at the center medians in the City of Anaheim; hie ie all irrigated. Henninger. Make following changes: 1. Add condition to paint old building within 2 weeks. 2. Add condition to site screen roof-mounted equipment within 60 days. John Poole. Reviewed hie parking plan and cannot figure out how many parking spaces he has even in the new portions thought he should have added some more on the east end, but since nothing is striped out, it is hard for him to figure out what he is doing. 3. Add condition to reasphalt or patch, slurry seal and restripe within 90 days for entire parking lot. 4. Strike the last line on condition no. 1. 5. Will accept Planning staff's recommendation with regard to conditions 2, 4, and 7. 6. Amend condition no. 3. Ask that this landscape plan and irrigation plan be brought back to Planning Commission for review within 120 days. x~ ~, , r1 a~ yaks;. ~,, '. .~~,: ,.~~~ :~~ ~~" ~;• ,~ ~' :, • ,r i ,: ti4~~1 M1M.': •~~~'~ ~~ .\•~` ~~ ~'!,1 ~~~ _.) l' ~~ '~~~ }~'{~' LS ~~~ ~U a~ . ~,al.trt- 7l f}j^~A~y' 4n f h .,~1~~~ ~:. `~. ~~{ '~ ) ~ .. x', t ~. i comes before them. VOTE: 7-0 Meese. For clarification, the 1 year CUP ie for the restaurant to . ?~• serve liquor in their new addition. ~: CA TICK: CEQA Negative Declaration (Prey. Approved) -Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3413 (Read.) -Granted 1 yr. (Subject to revised conditions and stipulations as mentioned above) j Note: Commissioner Henninger suggested staff bring an update for compliance of these conditions including a report from Code Enforcement regarding these activities when the landscape plan ~rr ` ;, ~, ti~~ ~r ~- t~., jyw`•gi ~~ ~. . '~e~3. !"ti+• r 4 ~' {~ ~ fq5 ~.-r ;,, ';* `+~ 9a. ~A I~4VE DDCLARA4'ION (Previously A~vedJ Approved ~ 9b. CtxIDITIdIVAL U,SE PEFd~fP!' NP7. 3244 (Readvet't3sed) Granted ~ ~~ CWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS, INC., Attn: Bettina Scholar, 17702 Cowan, Ste. 100, Irvine, CA 92714 i AGQV'P: ROBERT GZFFIN, 1 Park Plaza, Ste. 1000, Irvine, CA 92714 ICaCA'L7QN: 5550-5690 Santa Ana Canyon Id~ad. Property is approximately 9.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Request for an amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to required street improvements. CONDITIONAL U88 PBRMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-98 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE ~ CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION• None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved Conditional Uae Permit No. 3244 -Granted (Payment lowered to 258) j ~ VOTE• 7-0 i i -.' ._ 07/1/91 Page 18 ,.......... ..;.Kr~;,y.. 10. .EL~RT AND RECX1vAfF3VDATIONS A. axVDITIONAL USE PERMT' ND 3161- EXTE[~ISION OF TIME: Approved ~, . Christine Felix requests a retroactive extension of time ~ ~ ~, P . to aamply with wndition: t of approval . Property is ~ _Z z _ c~ Z located at 121 N. Beach Blvd. ~I I B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 12686. 12687 12688 - EXTFIVSION_ Approved of TIME: Presley of Southern California requests 2686 ~ ~ V,f1 ~~ , extension of time far Tentative Tract Map Nos. 1 12687, 12688. Property located at Highlands at Anaheim r (o - ZCi "~/~ Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) (Development Areas 2, 4 and 5) . C. VARIANCErJO. 1175: Request by the City Of Anaheim to Approved schedule public hearing to oansider revocation of Variance No. 1175 (to termit the operation of an Italian restaurant serving beer arxl wine with meals) . Property is located at 900 S. Anaheim Boulevazd. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3318 - REQUEST FC)R NDNC PId~ Granted Ti1NC RESbL[71'ION: Rb auzect arnerx3nent to auditions of approval contained sn Resolution I~ 91-78. Resolution No. FL^91-99 ^ ! ; E, QINDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3325 - REOUES'T FOR APPR7VAL OF Approved Rrocm~,~, Ct7NFORNADTCE WI4H APPId7VED PLANS' Chet Van Fassen, requests far approval of suhstantlal confazmance with previously approved plans. Property is located an the northeast garner of Hancock Street and La Palma Ave. F. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-49 AND VARIANCE NO. 4042: William W. Rine, Grimmvay Aevelopment Co., Requests review of Specific Plans. Property located at 2518, 2520 2532 and 2540 W. Orange P.ve. ', `~} ~~ "~ 1 ' 07/1/91 V Page 19 u. Fxratrc .nar~sr: Discussion: Gbntinued discussion of Investrrent Ap3rtraent n Gbncept (airspace) sub-division of apardr~nt aamplexes far sale to individual investazs -° (aantinued fin 4/1/91 workshop and Planning ~enission meetings of April a and April 22, 1991) . A discussion talc place regarding the abo~.e mentioned wetter between the applicant and the Planning O.xmnissian. 21he Cxanmission e;~ptessed their amcetn regardirxa owner occupied units and the passibility of displacing any of the exacting tenants. The uxmnission suggested that the applicant prepare a draft ordinance far review by staff and the various departrmnts that might be anvolved and then to the City Attorney's Office far final review. ACI7CXTldVA1FN": The Planning mission meeting adjcuxned to 3:00 p;m., JUly 8, 1991, to the Planning Oamrnission Work Session to be held an the Oaancil G7~ambers. l i~ ~~~ ~~ I I i __ ... .. :._ . .._ ..._.._. ~Stt ... ~- xr,~~r ;*~vir 07/1/91 Page 20 ;~ ~4 r~; '~ ? ft ~'