Loading...
Minutes-PC 1992/07/27 n~9~'t ~ S l ~ 4 2~ ~ J _ - •,Yat :l f~~ ~. ~-, ~' ' ' ACTION AGENDA .n: ,: ~~~~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION y ~ . ~::~a'. ~ MONDAY, JULY 27, 1992, AT 10:00 A.M. ~~ t<~ PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING '''~' ' (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) ,f~~.,.: i ~ ? 10:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. :K~~i' - '~ - ' PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING ~:OMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ~~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, PERAZA, ZEMEL "~ COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MESSE 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request lf, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration. 2 In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless addftional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's consklerations 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 to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is dosed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends of faime:~s fo all concerned will be served. 6. All doc!am~ nts presented to the Planning Commission for review ir, connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public recurd 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 wfthln the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximurn of five (5) minutes to speak. Anyone wishing to speak should f~l out th~~ forms available in the rear of the Council Chamber and submit them to staff prior to the meeting. 072792.WP ,. ~~ ~ . __ fi~"~~ 3u7.Y~1 ~~~ Y. ' ~ 1~t ti" - - ~ ~ ~> y ~ ~53 ~ K IT i e ~ { ~~~, ~~ ~r~: u_ 18., S,E!]A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 No Action A.1~li. ;;CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. s22a (READVERTISED) Mod(fted pgF ~-.. 4h"i u~'? ' INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim BNd., Anaheim, CA 92803 ~`r ~~ OWNER: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, 17911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA r~ 92714 ~~ ~ ~_• LOCATION: Pro~rty is aooroximately 3.9 acres located at the northeast comer = :, ' of Weir Canyon Road and Canyon Vista Drive. N} 1 Pursuant to Code Section 18.03.091 the Planning Commission has initiated a public ~;; ~; ; hearing In order to consider termination or modification of Cond(tional Use Permit No. 3228 that permits gasoline sales, auto repair, 2 car wash, a convenience market 1p and a 10-unit, 6,700 square-foot, commercial retail center. Y1 ~~ .. Continued from the May 18, 1992 and June 15, 1992, Planning Commission " " meetings. }~' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. P 2 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. • • PETRIONER: The City of Anaheim. OPPOSITION: 9 OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Joyce McGrath, homeowner, 836 S. Wildflower Lane, representing the 650 homeowners of Sycamore Canyon; many of the homeowners have signed petftions and have written letters and have attended Planning Commission meetings to show t`~eir oppa3ition to any automotNe development on this site. No noise study has been conducted. Other cftizens were upset with City for not enforcing signage laws and for not being notified; have many gas stations avaiable to them anti do not need anymore; concern was expressed that Mr. Kraemer had not contacted them n~garding their problems. It was noted by Chairman Hellyer that Mr. Kraemer was not yet the o~~ner and that Woodcrest Development was the owner. Bouas - Having a service statfan on this site could cause a problem for the site due to the terrain. Borrego -They still have the option of maintaining their retail shops which were a part of the original request. They would be required to suumft revised plans and under those revised plans which would be c;onsidared at a future public h9aring, they wov,~d have the option of increasing the amount of retail space In lieu of the area In which i(. was previously dedicated for auto related uses. e 3 ~F 7/27/92 Page 2 X' ~a~r 4 _;, rn , '' y ~ ' .°.,,~!' ;. ltd s • ~>> r.r y ~ ~~~ r> i Hellyer.asked the Deputy Cttjr Attorney ff this was something they oorAd rid and Ms. Mann axplalned that in ~nakea finding that such a mod ~ i8c:ation >s necessary they need ?o indk~ta-some of the. specific reasons for iet, they had testimony on the record from the property cMmere 5nd others in regard to the concerns of noise, s;'and:a number of corrcen~s that have been expressed that could impact upon the safety; the access to this and;the impad of traffic in view of the existing conditlons as they are today as to when the original project W :~, CEQA Categorical Exemption - Bass 21 (No action) Conditional Use Pe:mft No. 3228 (Read.) Modfffed (t=~cminate the car wash, auto related services and the service station based on findings 1 tf of the staff report, that the pufa:c health and safety is at risk and in the absence of the sound evaluation that would analyze the noise impacts to the neighbors). 5-0 (Commissioner Henninger declared a conflict of Interest, Commissioner Messe absent) 7/27/92 Page 3 v ~~ +':a. OWNER: AGENT: M. Y. PELANCONI ESTATE, C/O BERNARDO M. YORBA, EXECUTOR, 300 S. Harbor B&d., Ste. 912, Anaheim, CA 92805 MORGAN DEVELOPMENT INC., ATTN: MAX MORGAN, PRESIDENT, 20341 Levine Avenue, Suite Dom, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707. LOCATION: 55.4.0 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 12.38 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and also having frortage on the north side of Avenida Margarita and approximately 1,211 feet east of the centerline of Royal Oak Road. To redassiiy from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) to RS-5000 (SC) Zone. Waiver of required lot frontage and required location and orleMatlon of buildings to establish a 36-lot RS-5000 (SC) and RS-A-43,000 (SC) single-family reskfential subdivision Qnduding the construction of 34 single-family resklences). To remove 51 specimen trees. Corrtinued from the May 4, May 1R, June 15, and July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFlCATION RESOLUTION N0. PC92-87 VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC92-8t3 • ' ~, I~~~~:: 7/3,i/92 Page 4 .k ~ ~i~, F ~ y~~ rw ~+ f4'lCl .. °~'~ ~ ,~ ~g ti' z ~ ~' „,~ . 'OWIN(3`IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL VOTES ~t..,r TRIONER COMMENTS:. Eric Harrison, 23842 Lindley Street, Missbn Viejo, CA 926'91, representative for Morgan velopr"tent: Mr. Harrison gave his presentaton on Tentative Tract No.14641 and associated entitlements. Some ~;.,~,~ , resolved issues were density, circulation, traffic, the placement of the trail and ingress/egress via Suncrest for ~defiEs' only. ~POSiTiox: 20 w,~ ' ` OPP031TION CONCERNS: Concern was expressed regarding the controlled access gate provkling access to ~y,> : , -,v3M:_ . '' Suncrest Road; would like the only ingress/egress to be Santa Ana Canyon Road versus Suncrest Road or Avenida 7 1liergsrlta; children and addftional traffic and safety Issues; change in zoning; retaining walls and slopes; concern was <~ : expressed regarding the nature trail; property values may drop; petitions have been signed by 120 concerned residents adjacent to this proposed development; 45 surveys and 4 letters were submitted to the Planning Commission from neighbors who could not be present at the hearing. A~~g~: Mr. Morgan went to the exhibit board ana made his presentation and proceeded to answer some of the homeowner's concerns. He stated they are putting in retaining walls in osier to retain themselves from the slopes that the homeowners have had problems with; they also want to put in the retaining walls in order to make the back yards 35 feet. He discussed the Ingress/egress and explained that the ingress has to be convenient for the trash truck and fire department; they could control traffic going out the gate by the CC&Rs and by the conditions of approval on the tract; they would have to have a beeper to go out the gate; no friends or relatives would be aAowed out the gate. • He stated these are 3,000 square-foot homes that are selling for 3400,000. He discussed the traffic going down the f~!II and asked Mr. Yalda, Traffic Engineering Department, ff there was a possibility of putting in a boulevard stop sign and that they would be willing to pay to put in the necessary stop signs. The Orange Unffied District indicated to him that they are picking up approximately 29 children and a boulevard stop sign would probably enhance the safety of those children. He stated whether you have the cul~de-sac or the bullhead arw.~ the gates, it is the very same look. He stated they would put in landsc•~ping where needed and added they could maintain the trail very nicely by having a wrought iron fence on the tract skfe. He stated there was concern expressed about cutting down brush, however, there is an ordinance by the fire department that there is a fire hazard and it is posted that they cut down excess brush and that is what they have -done. He stated there is an Infestation of beetles in the trees and the arborist has made note of that in his report and a lot rtrore of the trees will die. He referenced the exhibits and explained the traffic situation on Suncrest. Fie stated they are very close with the density. .'i ~- }:~~. 7/2,7/92 Page 5 r ~ i4 I~ ~~~ 1'S I the subdivisions with the zero lot lines have large side yards; the people can utfllze the sloe yams. He d the grading and stated they have a right to grade the property by being a balanced site and creating lots 'the fiat useable area and that they are trying to create a useable lot for the person who is paying 5375,000 to 9d he hes been told several times that the Santa Ana Canyon Road exri is not possible. HEARING WAS CLOSED. -4+'e ~:' ~' ~?~ : Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they are not able to access off of Sartta Ana Canyon Road because there is an ~R~ ° `", ordinance by the Ctry Council that all of the access has been limited to Santa Ana Canyon Road and every time you ~~~~` want a new acxess ri has to go to the City Council for their approval. He explained that Santa Ana Canyon Road is ~~ `: designated as a Scenic Highway and the only purpose for Santa Ana Canyon Road is to move the traffic east and ~- , , ., , westbound. Every time you open up a driveway to that street, you reduce the capacriy of that street and increase the conflict point at that pofM. They extdi~sively looked at Avenida Margarita for the installation of 4way stop signs throughout Avenkla Margarita arxf dkl a license plate survey. He gave some statistics. } ,t,.ti_ ~ ~ Commissioner Peraza asked about the speed bumps. Mr. Yalda explained that the City Council adopted a pdicy of a minimum of 2,000 cars going into any local street to install a speed bump. When the traffic count was done, there were 1,400 cars, so the City Council directed Traffic Engineering to Install the speed bumps as requested by the residents. Commissioner Zemel asked iF Mr. Morgan ware to retain the reclass of RS-5000, then what guarantee would they have that the tentative tract and/or his building product would be in place? Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated once the reclassification to the RS-5000 zone is approved the developer ® would not necessarily be tied to the tract map that is before the Commission. Once the zoning is in place ri is conceivable that someone else could come back in the future and request at another public hearing that the Planning Commission eriher conskler a revision to the existing tract or a new tract altogether. Based on the densriy, theoretically, someone could get up to about 44 lots and that ftgure is based under the exclusion of the Yorba property. Commissioner Zemel stated that he has real concerns, i.e, lack of conformity, densriy, lot frontage, grading and retaining walls. He has a problem with going fonnrard with this. A discussion took place between Mr. Morgan and Commissioner Henninger regarding retaining walls and slopes. Mr. Morgan stated by putting in retaining walls, their slopes are being retained. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not think that the retaining wall would hold up the slope. He asked Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, ff she has seen a geotechnk~l report that would confirm that opinbn? Melanie Adams stated they have submitted a geotechnical report, however, that report does not call for the need for retaining walls for the purpose of stabilizing an upstream slope and ri does not substantiate his statement. She explained that probably what Mr. Morgan (s referring to, is when they go into grade, there would be some typo of buttress fAl and that really would be the stabilizing soG and not the small retaining wall that is put into place. Mr. Morgan stated the 10-foot retaining wall is the backbone and not the 4-foot wall. 7/27/92 Page 6 ..,qtr.; Asti:... ~~ ~ ~ ~ , zr ~ ,stated the geotechnical report dki not call out that there was a problenn from the upstream slope affecting toted, so the issue of the ~atabpity of the upstream slope le not related to the retaining wall. She stated they ~ad'to accept an addendum that does darify this matter. Irtnen Heltyer asked what Ms. Adams would prefer, i.e., what would be in the best interest of everyone? `gtlems explained that you need to look at the overall design; there are aftemate designs and this is not a idetory design. Morgan stated that a letter was seM stating that the grading and the retaining wall go hand in hand. ~~ - Chaimtan Hellyer asked about the additional traffic impacts on Suncrest and Avenkla Margarita. ;;r;~ f~~..: ~~~ ~.. ms, , Mr Yelda gave some statistics, thereby, explaining the impacts. The estimated average trips are 4 to 5 per unit for 24 ' '° boos or 170 average dally traffic. it Zetnel -What dkl the City ernision for Suncrest and was the information made available to the public? Y Yalda - He has not seen any plans, howg,~er, the reason K ended Ifke that was because there was a plan that it be extended and how much he dkf not know. Zetnel - If someone called the office and asked what was going on, what would you have tdd them? Yalda - He would have told them to look at what the area to the east of it was and if it is not developed, there would be a possibpfty that n might be extended or somehow should be cul~de-saced for the fire access or be extended to the other side. It is an unfinished street. Henninger - If we had the subdivision in front of him today, would he think that the cul-de-sacs are a safe proposal, Le., are those cul~Je-sacs to our current standards? Is their adequate fire access? Yaida - He explained that for Suncrest he dkl not believe so. To the north, you have wail Rk1ge Terrace and something Ilke that would have been appropriate-maybe adding 2 more houses and make Rlike a cul-de-sac. Henninger - By today's standards, ;; we were to cul-de-sac the end of Suncrest Road, would that subdivision have adequate emergency access? Yalda - If it met our standards of 7f3-foot of radius for cul-de-sac, because that is the minimum the fire department requires for tom-around. Adams -Regarding the Information Chairman Hellyer requested from the geotechnical engineer-they have a March 30tlt addendum from Harrington Geotechnical Engineering Company and they were responding to a request from the Pr~bik: Works Department concerning the stability of the adjacent properties, particularly the adjacent property to the south. The report states that the Morgan Development would not reduce the stability of that slope, however, there were no specific recommendations on anything that would Increase the stability. She read a couple of the paragraphs. Mr. Morgan stated that causing massive slopes is not the answer to this project-give these people a chance to have a bade yard and to be able to do something with it rather than to maintain a slope. Heityer -Why dkf you not make application for reclassification for the RS-7200 and ask for waNerS in order for him to accomplish what he wants to accomplish? 7/27/92 Page 7 .k u .4; Motgarr -They have very narrow long lots. ~~ -isn't this more in conformance with RS-7200? ~~' n -Would lose more lots under the RS-7200. ~ o As far as the lot sizes are concerned, all the lots would meet the minimum lot size of the RS-7200 Zone and Botr!ep..- . ;;, ;jEhe~ Drily standard that they would have trouble meeting would be the minimum lot width requirement which is 70 feet. 'They: have an average lot width of about 64-feet. As far as the skle goes they are only required to have 5 foot side ;~? ~~ ryards In the RS-7200 Zone. ~ In t+e~ards to the difference betwoen the RS-5000 and RS-7200 Zone, there is no ;.: ~~~ision for the zero lot lines. The .Commission had mentioned earlier if In fact they want to go with the RS-7200 Zone and rrlairiwl^ ?he zero lot Ilne for `.' the garages, ft would need to be advertised as a Code waiver. }~` r ~, Morgan -Can condfttons of approval be placed on the tract that the zoning stay with the trail? Ors Ztwnel -You could come before any future Planning Commission without changing ownership or title and get the ~. ~ ` ~~4 , ' teh.`eidve tract map changed. Morgan - Could ft have a condition of approval on ft? sorr+ego -The reason that ft cannot be done is because the zone change precedes the tract map, Le., you must have tt~e zoning in place before the tract map can be approved and there is nothing in the conditkans of the reclassification that they could do to actually tie it down to a specific tract map. Under the RS-HS-10,000 Zone, you can have lots down to a minimum of 50 feet in wklth provided the overall average for the entire tract is no less than 75 feet. HeUyer -Should not be design(ng the product here; they are concerned about density and how it will impact the residents. Zernel -Nothing affects traffic like density. Right now we are talking about a project that does not exist. Would like to see zoning taken care of. P!eraza -Would like to see zoning at RS-7200. Would go for an exit only on Suncrest. Eiaenninger -The community made two real good comments; one was the design of the tract with all of the retaining va~lis that did not really meet the design of the grading in the adjacent areas; he would like to see the retaining walls moved from the tract. No problem with the retaining walls slang Santa Ana Canyon Road. Agrees with community on the specific design elements of the secondary gate at Suncrest. He agrees with Commissioner Bouas that Suncrest should be an exft only and reserve ft for other times for emergency only. ~ concerns are primarily design concerns and whatever densty his design comments generate is o.k. wfth him. He uoxlerstands staffs posftion on the stop signs along Avenida Margarita, but he does worry about the siting distance in the reverse "S" turn coming down Avenida Margarta and ft might be useful to have one set of all way stops there. Bi~td - He agrees wfth Commissioner Zemel regarding density; if they can reduce the density then the impact of a~ening Suncrest for an exit only (s the lesser of the two ev11s. He is also in favor of going to the RS-7200. 7/27/92 Page 8 ~~~ "SM. a f~~*'+1~.R11 :: ~ ~ A : ~^ v ti ~" ~ ~ '7F7- f,1$ - ~~~~ s designed a very flr~e product arxi ff h were bugt everyone would be pleased and would not cause the s ;causing at this time; she is concerned with the redassffication to the RS-5000 tiec;ause R cannot be tied Kgan's, product and ff it could be tied in she woad be ail far it. Would be more comtataWe with the th.some variances on the ftorrtages. As far as the density, size of lots, etc., the lots are equlyalent to the lots out there. Would rather have retaining walls put in then get in and have slopes faQ and then have to do ails somewhere down the Ilne. was given the opportunity to continue his application. "~!! Mayen -. RS-7200 does not allow for zero lot Imes, therefore, they would have to completely redo all of their elevations, N ~;' plans;.etc.; ff he says he would like to continue with the RS-5000, and drop 41ots and make them all conform to the .';,:: 7q~foot frontage, then that is what he would like to do. Hepyer • That will not get you where you want to go and he will not make the wrong decision regarding the reclass. They need security that the density will be at no more than the RS-7200. ` MOrQan -Will redesign the subdivision lots to meet the RS-7200 zoning anti ±hen he would have to rethink the houses on the lot. ;t~q'' _ , , tiellyar - rvOi sole to maKe [nay ae[ermmanon. ne again onerdu a wnunuan~tl. .,~ , Barrego -Would be a minimum of one month and ff requesting a waNer ftom the rninimum side yard setback ragt~rement, ff he wants to stick wfth the zero lot line on the garage, then they would need I ifs revised plans with(n about a week and half or 2 weeks. Zemel - Mr. Morgan has an option of appealing to the City Council. Morgan -Been standing before Commission for 3 months trying to do what is right acid he knows ite has the option to appeal and go to City Council; would like to leave with some kind of blessing. iirer~inger -Better off taking a continuance; there is a project that is approvable on this site; this property will be developed and it is a ma~;ter of design. Morgan - If ft comes back as a riS-7200 subdivision, then these could be public streets and then Ingress/egress could go out on Suncrest as much as wanted. Fleiyer -Would take further discussion. They do not have a project before them; need to take aone-month cor~lnuance. Morgan -Will take the appeal to the City Council. '.® ,~~ ~-i=~ 7/27/92 Page 9 1 L ~~~~1 .a air ry t r ,~, CEQA Mlti wed Negative D~~ olaration -Approved (6-0) ,{,S ~,., r, ~ c RedassNicatton No. it1-92-20 -Denied (5-1) Heliyer No t:~_ ` ~'" Variance Noi 4181 - Denied (4-2) Hellyer, Bouas No ;.aG~, '"~ (Subject to findings on bottom of page 7, para. 28 (a) and (b) of the stafF report; i.e., r~N`'. , " there is no shape or ample size to meet the requirement). ::~~t..' ` ` Tentative Tract Man No. 14641 -Denied (5-1) HeUyer No ~ ~~ (Site not physically suRable for the type of development and site not fir: ~ ~ ', physically suitable for the proposed density of the development). Soecimen Tree Removal Permit No. 9102 • ;'cnied (5-1) Hellyer No (Denied on the basis that the TentaWe Tract was denied) ,~.."r- ,~;, _~~~ (Commissioner Messe absent) _ '~ r. 7/27/92 Page 10 r:. - 4}i u 7Y ~ }'.lS ~~~ ; tt Yy ~_~gQA+NEC.ATIVE DECLeRAT1ON (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Continued 3~} f~NDITIOW_AL US~PERMIT N0.2029 (READVERTISED) to 9/21/92 ,.,; - OWNER: CANER INVESTMENTS, Attn: Allan Lobel, 2225 Ha-bor Boulevard, Ste. ' ; 214, Anaheim, CA 92805 ~r. ,~; ,- LOCATION: 619 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.6 acre ,~ ,~ _ ' located at the southwest comer of Wilhelmina Street and Anaheim ,~, Boulevard. ~r 1 " Petitioner requests deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time ifmitatlon for ~~ ~~ ` apreviously-approved automobile sales agency. ,,~,. ,z„ Continued ftom the June 29, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. ry ~'- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ,,, ACTION: Continued to September 21, 1992 ~,~ ~; Y., ,, ~, ifs, 7/27/92 Page 11 ~` - .. ~: ~r r: -~ ,~ - ,.. r y ~;~;ti f~j ~ .y'~ ^.~ `1 f• a APP~~ Approved Granted Approved KHIBIT NO.7 Granted OWNER: WEST STREET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ATTN: DOUG BROWNE, P.O. BOX 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817; CANYON GARDEN NURSERY INC., 6270 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. R77fl ~Oe}. LOCATION: Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property 1s approxlmat y . acre located on the south side of the Santa Ana Canyon Road approximately 515 feet west of the centertlne of Fairmont Boulevard. To permit a 2-story, 9-unit, commercial retail center wfth waivers of maximum structural height within 150 feet of single family resklential zone boundary, minimum structural setback a~J ~~ntr o~fsmofuntedifequlpment and permitted type ofshopping centerequired Yards, pe identification sign. is Continued from the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC~-~ AMENDMENT TO SAI:TA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY, IXHIBIT N0.7, RESOLUTION N0. PC92-90 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: J opposed 61n favor Borrego - In coming up wkh the recommendation, this particular site is tough in that there are trade offs aril in his eerffer cornersatlons wfth Mr. Brown, he dkl realize that he designed the project in this fashion in order to accommodate the wishes of the neighbors. His concern is that it is a 2-story structure arxl perhaps aone-story slnxxure would be more appropriate. Perhaps ff he had adjusted the layout of the building and reduced it down to one structure, then he could eliminate some of the waivers. He~yer - I think there are other ways that they could go. He was not inclined to give these kinds of waivers on a p~ojr,ct even though ft would be a quick ftx. He will not vote for these kinds of waivers in this area on this road. Would bs able to make everyone happy ff they look at a redesign. Heminger -Can think of other site plans with fewer waivers, but was not sure ff he could think of other site plans wfth fewer impacts. Bouas - Ag-ees with Commissioner Henninger. There has been a great deal of thought. ,- ,:~' 7/27/92 Page 12 a~^~,~' ~~,,~ ~: yf.: ~- '; ~,; ,;`v~- . ~: ; -~i~. ,~:~t ~ <~ ' k a ;' 3~ ~~. ~,~`: _ adi ' : . ,.; ~_ ~~ ,,i Conditional Use Permit No. 3527 -Granted (4-2) Hellyer, Zemel No specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 92-04 -Approved Amendment to SACR Access Pt. Study Exb. 7 -Granted (5-1) Hellyer NO (Resdutlon approved by Planning Commission recommending City Counci approval by resdution to amend the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Polnt Study) (Commissioner Masse absent) 7/27/92 Page 13 ` • • ~~^~~~ ~r .. . t. ..;~. .. '"`Y ~.. jc`FO ~~ NEGATIVE DECLaRATION Continued to y!~FNDMENT TO THE SUMMR OF August 10, 1992 ar~A.HEiM HILLS SPEGIFlG PLeN f8~21 ~~~ nFNSITY TR.aNSFER REQUEST N0.92-02 t, x~;. • p ~ OWNER: BALD:VIN COMPANY, ATTN: JEFF WARMOTH, 16811 Hale Avenue, ~ ~' Irvine, CA 92714 '~z= ~~ - • ~' ~ '~1'' ~ LOCATION: ,~°^~°~^^^^°"t Areas 104 105 202 203 204 205 206 and 207 of the „~'"~'' Summit of Anaheim Hllls Soeciflc Plan SP88-21 ~~ ~~ Petitioner requests an amendment to Ordinance No. 4976 in order to amend ts~ ~ ' Development Area 205 and 206 Zoning and Development Standards (Code Section Y Nos. 18.72.070.040 and 18.72.070.050) to create one Development Area (Development ~~ Area 205) to permit the development of a 270-unit condominium complex. ~ ~":. ''~'~~~ To transfer a total of 163 units from Development Areas 104, 105, 202, 203, 206 and ~ 207 to Development Areas 204 and 205. Continued ftom the June 29, and July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meetings. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ACTION: Continued to August 10, 1992 I 7/27/x'2 Page 14 ~' ~~ T t' ..,7 t ~ ' :r 10W CLASS 3 No Action ~_ 3204 -REQUEST FOR APPr~~ 1~. OWNER: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF 1 riE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, INC., P. 0. Box 18795, Anaheim, CA 92817. AGENT: HAMMILL AND ASSOCIATES, ATTN; GREG HAMMILL, 1733 S. Douglass Road, Ste. C, Anaheim, CA 92806. LOCATION: 101 South Chaparral Court. Property Is approximately 1.3 acres located at the southwest comer ~ Kaiser Boulevard and Chaparral Court. To permit two (2) temporary trailers in conJunctlon wkh apreviously-approved church use. Cn ,timed from the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC92-91 Granted for 2 year I ®FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL tt~IUTES. OPPOSITION: None AL'TION: CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 3 -Approved Conditional Use Permit 3204 -Request for Time Extension -Approved Conditional Use Permft No. 3528 -Granted for 2 years ACTON CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE i 4 1 'i' ~~ 7/27/92 Page 15 ~ ~ ; s~ Iz'7 . ~ fit. y f .~.~ r~~. _ ;r ;. I +~ ~` • ~ e ~ ~ ~ ., ... '.. .. ~ -. - - ~~~' " The above request has been approved. based on the fdlowing: k'~.` (a) The proposed temporary use of modular structures, as conditioned herein, wql not adversely ,~;'L - affect adjoining land uses, nor cause an undue hardship on the streets and highways designed to carry traffic in the Immediate viclnity~ nor be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding community. ~~->"_ ' " ~; r,•; '` (b) That the o~,ie year retroactive extensbn of time w-I not be detrimental to the surrounding ... ,,,. ~~ ~ = area sincF~ the proposed church remains compatible with surrounding uses. r ~` ~' " (c) The proposed modular structures are Intended for a temporary (2-year) period only, during ,: ~ ~ which time the previouslyapproved permanent church facility will be constructed. ~.. ,` yQ~; l3-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) .. ,~ ~~" ~ ~" 7/27/92 Page 16 , ~ y ", ~1R ;. '~QA C~ I~~ ~ AS-S 3 TEGORIC~~`EXEMPTION CI No Action ; , ~ -bt;., f ~NDITI ONAL USE PERMIT NO: 3526 Granted _,_ ~ , ` OWNER: CANYON ACHES RESIDENTIAL CENTER, 233 S. Quintana Road, ~~ Anaheim, CA 92817. AGENT: DAN MC QUAID, 233 S. Quintana Road, Anaheim, CA 92817. „<~-;, -.'. LOCATION: 233 South Quintana Road. Property is approximately 4.6 acres located approximately 185 feet west of a private access road from Quintana Road approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Arboretum Road. To permit two (2) temporary school trailers in conjunction with an existing shelter for children. Continued ftom the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FC92-92 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 6 Opposed 3 In Favor OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Noise; future growth. REB AL: Henninger - He has looked at the photographs and where people have asked for trees they have installed trees; there are dumps of trees !hat lock like they are fairly effective behind certain lots and then there are none behind others. Bellyer -Staff recommendation has language that the proposed trailers will be used only for educational purposes by n3sident chi!rlren only. Benninger -That should be transferred to the conditions of approval. idlcQuakJ - WiII put trees where people want them ff they will direct us. Zemel -Asked for darification ff petitioner was going to go to each neighbor and ask them what they wanted. McQuaid -Stated he would love to make ft more uniform so ft has some sense of planning. Zemel -But you are willing to do what each one wants? McQuakl - He Is willing to work with them on >G • 7/27/92 Page 17 ~ ~F `~ s • .~ ~. ~ ~,r~ ~:~ ;,, ,, -'Then these woukJ Fie planted on your property? '~ "'= If a tree should die, would you be willing to replace K? AArAit~aid - If ft can be klent>fled as a tree that was suppose to be there, that is not there, they will replace it. ~v ~~~ Henninger ~ Heard a lot of concerns today, but the concerns he has heard seem to revolve around the growth they have: had and somehow you will continue to come In every couple of years and expand this activity. ~~'`~Mcouald -They help the kids get back into a normal home, i.e., a foster family or small group homes. Their notion is 1 ~~~~nct'to~pitt more kkls here, taut to push them out into regular family homes. ;:t ~v~~,~ ~ Henninger - Concern was expressed that they will bring fn a non-Carryon Acre child. ~ '~' M~uaki - We are not going to go out and recruit kkis; it is for kids to come here and then go out. ~,~ z Zemel -Each student will be a Canyon Acre Resklent? '_"; Mcf2uald -They will be Canyon Acre kkis. Their Intention is to provkie classroom instruction and not operate for other purposes other thta the instruction of the kids; that Is a limitation for them. ACTION: CEQA Categorical Exemption Bass 3 - No Action Conditional Use Permit No. 3526 -Granted Wfth the following additional conditions: 1. That the proposed trailer would be used for educational purposes for ® reskient children only; 2. That these trailers will be used only between the hours of Sa>aa.m. and 6:OOp.m.; 3. That the applicant will bring to the Commission as a Report and Recommendation item, revised landscape plans showing the current planting and the additional planting that was discussed as part of the public testimony today. Timing to be 30 days. 4. Approved for one-year with the opportunity for further extensions (to expire August 3, 1993). VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) 7/27/92 ~' Page 18 :.,.OWNER: DUAN~OfVG lEE AND HUI-PING CHEN ETA.AL, ATTN: PINlO CHEN 2121 W. Mission Road Alhambra CA 91803. AGENT: AMER EL ROUSAN, 1275 N. Gilbert #100, Fullerton, CA 92633 LOCATION: .1210 South State Cdleae Boulevard. Property Is approximately 1.36 acres located on 4he ~+ast side of State Cdiege Boulevard and approximately 200 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. To pESrnit a sports bar with on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine wfth waNer of minimum numbt3r of parking spaces. ' F CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC92-93 _ I ~~ ,_ FALLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL '-::` MUTES. OPAOSITION: 3 2 In Favnr ~'OSITION CONCERNS: Too many places of this type already. PEr'lTIONER'S COMMENTS: Would be willing to give up beer and wine. A~'ION: CEQA Negative Dedaration -Approved Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved (Based on the traffic study) Conditional Use Pemttt No. 3529 -Granted (No sale or consumption of alcohdic beverages at this facility at any time) The resoiutbn fs to read 'Sports Theater" rather than a 'Sports Bar? 1~TE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messa absent) ~r~,~~t,-. 11~ ~ ~ ~` _ r ( ,z;;, F ~ 4,.~.u ~ » .~ ~ .fir ~ f ,~ - - j CE~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Mo Acton 9~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3148 (READVERTISED) Granted ~ ~,; . 4 Jc' ` ?~ OWNER: TAYLOR BUS COMPANY, 3130 W. Duluth Street, -- Sacramento, CA 95691. ~ AGENT: SCHER VOIT, ATTN: tAiIQ: HEFNER, 2099 S. State College ~'` Boulevard, Sufte 100, Anaheim, CA 92816. r° LOCATION: 917 E. Gene Autrv Wav. Property Is approximately 4.62 acres located ' at the northeast comer of Gene Aut Wa and Lewis Street. N Y ~~. Amendment or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to required street dedication and time Ifmftation of apreviously-approved bus storage terminal. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. _PC92-94 E,~7 4 .. ~, .- "' FOUAWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFlCIAL '` .< MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None Herwrlrtger -The petitioner makes a good point (n that this property is c+oing to be purchased by CaiTrans shortly; does not make sense for them to do these condfuons knowing that. Yalda -City must pay their fair share of this acquisition because ft is within the City and is a designated Crfticai Intersection. HeAyer -These were conditions that were not fulfilled on the previous entftlement. Yalda -They were put on the project in 1989 and there was no talk about this acquistion. Hetyer -Sends the wrong message that ff they waft they might be able to avoid such dedications or condtions. Yalda -The Cfty has abut 17 Crftical Intersections throughout the City that they have to implement; ff they do the same thing in this project, they will not be able to do any one of them. Henninger - We should have gotten ft back then and we did not. Suggest this be approved according to staffs recommendation. Heiyer -Yes, he would be incained to do that; he also wants to remind the applicant and/or his agent that whUe the ermllements were in place, the property was allowed to go into disrepair, they would expect them !n good fafth to clean ft up and take care of ft as part of the deal. Bovas -Certainly do not expect them to do all of the landscaping and planting of trees, etc. Yafida - No control over the acquistion; CalTrans could change their plans tomorrow. 7/27/92 ® Page 20 r,. ' Nr .~~~ - ~ _ u y~ .„ , r}2 ~` "~~T t~; 1~,, ~;i W - '[ '. ~ 3 .~y X r 4 ,fir ts.H, ~ ~a ~yd~ ~, ~ r~ , ~ ~o, _ ~CaRrans has, several categories of property; they have core. properties whkh are well within. the new: roof the freeway.. Other properties are bisected by the outskle line pf the freeway. This property is not wfthin those, but in an area that k Impacted because of the street wkienU.~g and the potential overpass; they also referred list of people who are anxious to sell to CalTrens; they are willing to deal with someone who Is willing flit property; the owner woukJ Ilke to sell to CaRrens because he is up in the Bay area. - ft ie the Engineering Department's pdicy that they require dedication until there is proof that a purchase offer r made on the property which has not been done at this point. ~y R.YA; ~r~ '` , ;, Zerrrel -Find out what CalTrans is going to do. ~r ~~ ~, ~`'='~'~~'~a`~°`~`''Henninger -Improvements would drive up the price. ~y, k Palate -Clean up the place. `~ Bouae - Bean up place and the only way they can do that is get a tenant in there. ~~ `~ ' ' ~ Henninger -Choices are to leave it vacant and be run down the way it is or get it cleaned up. 4.. Bouas -They do not want to dedicate. rANAlams - He has a signed lease. He read off some of the requirements on the lease requiring tenant to clean up premises. Henninger -What about view screening, f.e., slats in the fence and some minimal landscaping in front of the fence? Y~iams -Landscaping is in disrepair; it is adequate in front of the office building on the comer. He was sure ire owner would be willing to do that. ACT10N[VOTE: CEOA Negative Declaration (Prev. Approved) No Action Conditional Use Permit No. 3148 -Granted (5-1) Henninger No (Accept Staffs recommendation which would be to amend Condftion No. 17 (extending this CUP to March 1, 1995) and nit amend Conditions 1 through 3 and 7 pertaining to right-of-way dedication and Improvements). (Commissioner Masse absent). ^ os 7/27/92 Page 21 ~. .,.~.;;, ~r~ ~. ,.Yeti ~~ Sri:,;` ~r ,.~ ~~ r~ ;~; ~c :;,; :, ,. ,~ ~' ~~ ,. ! ~~: ~ ~. ~: -''A:: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY PARidNG STANDARDS $~f V Continued from the July 13, t992 Planning Commission meeting. a~~' Eric Nicoll gave a presentation pertaining to Multiple-Family parking standards. Discussion took place regarding tandem parking and Mr. Nicoll explained that 2596 of the overall parking for the project was to he tandem parking excluding storage. Mr. Nlchdl also emphasized that that tarxfem parking could be a sdution to a site that had some parking problems. Commissioner Henninger stated the parMng a~nsultant recommended that tandem be limfted to only those units where they required 3 or more spaces due to the assignment problem, so they do not have different unfts using these tandem spaces. Mr. Nicol stated ff there ware units which had at least 2 spaces exclusively assigned to them, then they could use the tandem. He added that was their recommendation. Mr. Nicol stated he would like direction from staff to prepare the ordinance as stated from the recommendation with the exception of the bus line. There are less units that will be available for tandem now. It would start at the 2-bedroom size where previously ft started at the 1-bedroom size. He added that the- ordinance would read that it would have to be assigned exclusively to one unit. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas (Commissioner Masse absent) and MOTION CARRIED that the Planning Commission hereby directs the City Attorney's Office to draft an oniinancs amending Chapter 18.06 of Title 18 concem(ng revisions to the parking requirements for multi-family housing with tho elimination of the reduction provision regarding 2 bedroom units proposed within one quarter of a mile of an existing transportation line; that the parking requirements will be at 2.?_5 spaces for 2 bedroom units wfth a maximum of 2596 tandem parking; and further that the tandem spaces are to be limited to parking spaces chat are not fully enclosed. Saki draft ordinance will thereupon be submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendation for adoption to tho City Council. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3400-REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF CODE SECTION 18.05.074 AND 4.02 060 PERTAINING TO SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS: Tom Kieviet requests Planning Commission Interpretation of Code Sections pertaining to Special Events Permits. Property Is located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Marketplace). Continued from the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. _ PC92-95 7/27/92 Page 22 ,. ~ - 'tu _ .. +~ F~ ~ . . C Mr.. iQevieR, Farano and Iaevfet, made a presentation conceming the Special Events ~ ~'~ Ordinance Interpretation. They have requested a letter for an interpretation that would fi; ,. enable them~to obtain a Spedal Events Permft that would allow for additkxial temporary signage for,the businesses on the facpiry at the present time. They feel there is a basis for doing this either by issuance of a special permit by business or address. The are looks to have the ability to have spedal evert signage prlmarily on the weekend Ns=~._., - y ng ~r, :,-~~.- wl!en the customers are most attracted to the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. They feel -~~'`~~ there is adequate basis for allowing that to happen particularly untq they can have a more ~` 'L' : permanent sign in place that will truly attract customers and businesses to that location `~~'.' _; ' where right now none exists. Commissioner Henninger stated this activity should be treated as one business and have special events Just like any other business in t~~9 City. If each one of the slots in that budding was an individual business, then they could have special events ail year round and we would not Ilke to see that. Commissioner Bouas stated they need the ability to promote their business and asked 'now long they thought h would be before they would have their sign? Mr. Iaevlet stated depending on what happens here today, they would hope to have ft up in 3 months. Commissioner Bouas asked ff it would show what was going on in there? When you talk about special events, what are you talking about? Mr. beviet stated they are planning on a large balloon type sign to let people know there is something there. He stated they dkJ take out one special events permit several weeks ago and did have h on the roof top for the allotted amount of time which is 2 weeks. This type of business would prefer to have the special events permR on the weekend and not necessarliy over a two week period of time which indudes 2 weekends-they would like to break ft up and have it on 7 weekends as opposed to a two week period. Commissioner 2emel stated i< is not a special event, it fs just the weekend. Chairman Hellyer asked about the electronic reader sign that is there now? Mr. IQeviet stated people cannot see h; the sign was left in hopes that ft could serve a use, but based upon the distance ftom the street ftontage, the height, the spacing d the light bulbs, etc., it is still not a sign that attracts your attention. Commissioner 2emel asked ff they were going to take K down and Mr. Kieviet explained this would take them Into item 10C. Chairman Heliyer ~.ated he dkl not want to jump ahead. i• 7/27/92 Page 23 ~:;~;:_. ~~~ ~;~ `~ ~ ,,' r ,,~ . -y . ' ~' Commissioner Bristd stated he agrees with Commissioner Henninger that they are one ~;,~ , , business. He would. go along with the klea of the Special Events Permfts for the weekends fora certain amount of time it that could be done. ~5~' ~~' :,~< .~_;.'' ~' ~„ . i~.:`. °~;. Greg Hastlngs, Zoning Division Manager, stated the City Council is the only body that has authority to extend out what the Special Events Permit currently is. Commissioner Bouas asked what the dHfererx;e was between them flying flags or putting F balloon up? Redevelopment dkl not come before them to put up the flags for the houses they have for sale. Mr. Hastings stated they have a Tract Flag permit for sale of new homes and currently they can be there for 6 months, but that is only for resklentlal new tracts. He explained there era two properties there and possibly they could take two 14 day periods per property, so ftom this point forward, they have 3 more time periods that they Gan use and beyond that, they would have to have City Council authorization. Mr. Hastings stated thfiy are currently in the process d changing the Code and that the Commission should be recehring an ordinance soon which would enable the Planning Commission to do ~e same thing that the City Council is looking at as well as h would break it down Into one week Increments rather than two week Increments; if that were in place at this point, it would help the applicant. Chairman Hellyer stated the request is for Commission's interpretation of the Code; he has heard ftom the Planning Commission that they are a one business entity and he agrees S with that. Mr. Hastings stated this wtll be a resdution and this would stand for any future uses. The petftioner Indicated there are approximately 100 businsy.,w owners, each with a separate business license, presently conducting business at the Indoor swap meet and requested Interpretation as to whether the Code would allow each separate'business' located within the single swap meet building to obtain individual special everts permits or to whether separate addresses for the ten (10) single doors that allow access to the existing building would constitute separate business privileges for obtaining separate special events permits. Commissioner Zemel offered Resolution No. PC92-95 and moved for fts passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that all businesses at the indoor swap meet within the single building are to be consklered ash business on the basis of the fdlowing findings. The Anaheim City Planning consklered the aforementioned matter as a Reports and Recommendations item, aril after due Inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in fts behalf, and after due conskleration of all evkience and reports offered does hereby fled and determine the fdlowing facts: ~~a 7/27/92 Page 24 ~ r~'Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ t ~ '{ ~~Ll ..i 'K~ ~1 a a ~ ~ 1. That the individual businesses are not visible from the e~derbr of the building. 4~ ~~.,. 2 That Interpretation allowing each of the individual businesses to obtain special everns ~~4 permits may set a precedent for other businesses. ~. 3. That petitioner's request would constitute a perpetual special event due to the ~~``' number of tenants. ,:.- .. ~~: . 4. That City Council Resdution No. 91R-165 approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permft No. 3400 corrtalns the fdlowing condition with the Intent to Iimk outdoor .~' activities: "22.b. That there shall be no outdoor sales or product demonstrations.' 5. That Special Events Permits are Issued for the premises upon wh(ch a business is located, not to indude pubik: sklewalks. On rdl call, the foregoing resdutbn was passed by the fdlowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, PERAZA, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: MESSE Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision wfthin 22 days to the City Council. 7/27/92 Page 25 ~1s"h+~~T.~y4'7~ y 3t y •t 7<~ ~} t ~ ~', ,. -= C REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PLANNING ,~~= COMMhSION INTERPRETATION OF CONDITION PERTAINING TO PARIONG LOT l d an ~ ~~SURFA~y,~: Tarn IQeviet requests an amendment to conditions of approva Planning Commisskxr interpretation of condkion pertaining to parking lot resurfadng. Property Is looted at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Marketplace). R ,, Continued from the Jr~y 13,1992 Planning Commisskx~ meeting. ~~_~ -~ Mr. Iaevlet stated his dlent was the underlying landlord of this project and was suddenly ~, ,:~ t ~ thrust into taking over the project when the original operator could no longer function K} r~~ ~ and compty with the terms of his lease with his dient and had to be removed through an :.~ s ~ un<awful retainer action. His dient stepped in at the later part of April to a situation that ~~.,~ ,,, ~` ' had found itself to be somewhat chaotic as to the continuatiorr of the Anaheim s `} Marketplace. His dient had been making diligent efforts to rectify and correct the x problems; he was having problems with the vendors being extremely dissatfsfled and no "` new verxiors wanting to sign up; he is attempting to tum that around and he is now in the situation where the existing vendors are more happy with the way things are run -, ;,..,x , because the operator is truly taking a concern about their businesses. j,,; They requested, In view of the existing conditional use permit, to have extensions on 3 conditions (or pefiaps only 2 conditions); one of which they needed an Interpretation on. Perhaps they should address the resurfacing and resWping of the parking lot as a condtion which was condRfon no. 5 of the CUP 3400. They indicated the previous operator had shiny sealed a~ i striped the narking lot; they did present photographs of the parking lot as taken fto:.: the roof of the main building; it is a dean, woll maintained and better looking parking lot right now in this area then you may find anywhere around. • They would like to have the Commission deem that they are in compliance wN;h that condition at this time. Chairman Hellyer stated he was indined to go along with that. Chairman Hellyer asked what the soonest was that they wouk be able to complete that? Mr. IQeviet explained that right now they are in the process of obtaining bkis and plans for overall landscaping that would indude the Anaheim ftontage and the parking lot area and they are gathering those and making assessments. The actual Installation of landscaping along Anaheim Blvd. wUl commence within the next fi0 days. As far as landscaping within the parking lot area, which is perhaps more work intensive because they are talking about tearing up asphalt, they would be looking to go beyond the Christmas season to verify that this is going to be a viable operation. Then they could go forward with implementing these condftions very readily. They would be willing to say 9 months; th(s would give them enough time after Christmas to implement the actual Improvements that need to be done. 7/27/92 26 F age ti "{ Y =s"F :t~ 3~~ ~ r' L t 1" - Ctialmnan Heilye~ asked for darifksttion ff that was for the in parking lot improvements as far as landscaping. Would you not agree that we have waited long enough for the frontages and that he might be able to do that within ff0 days? ~~~ , , Mr. beviet Indicated they could accomplish that within the 90 days. ~ ''' . Commissioner Henninger stated Candttion No. 14 states 90 days. ,~ ,, ~. ;z~„ ~ Commissioner Henninger asked if they are going with Conditlon Nos. 6 and 13 for nine •a' ' :.~ ~ : , (9) months? Conditlon No. 5 has been satisfied. , ' ~'~ ~ ` ,;• Commissbner Henninger stated he liked Planning Staffs concepts regarding the sign; , , „ ~ ~ they are suggesting that ff they are willing to remove the existing sign that is out there, ' ~„ that some additional shorter pole sign might be appropriate. He does not quite like the - exhibits he saw with the flags. . Chalnnan Hellyer indicated he dki not either. y~~ Mr. Kievlet stated they have been apprised from staffs perspective of the apparent r~ concem over the initial exhibit that was submitted. Mr. Fred Boyle, from Boyle and Company, a sign design outfit who has other concepts available; their ultimate goal is what type of sign, if any, will they authorize and approve them to have. They dkJ put up some addftional concept drawings and indicated he had additional copies up dose aril personal on the exhibft board. They dki present them with the concepts from Federal Sign Company and designs Issued by Boyle and Company. Commissioner Hennk~ger t zked ff staff has had time to analyze how many square feet of sign this is, etc. Mr. Hastings stated h is well below the square footage that would be permitted; the height is acceptable ff it Is the 35-foot high sign you are looking at. The basic difference between ail of the signage is the lack of flags; other than that, staff would support something of that nature and they would hope that the other sign would be taken dv°wn. Commissioner Henninger asked if that was agreeable to Mr. Kieviet? Mr. kieviet explained they would basically agree not to use the other sign, I.e., disconnect K and not use h for advertising purposes, but because of the cost of dismantling the sign and still trying to determine ff this operation is a go, they are not desirous of taking the other sign down; they would be willing to not use it and perhaps as an accommadatbn, they would be willing to take one or the other of those signs down wfthln a year. ~ommissloner Henninger stated that is a deal breaker for him; he would Ilke to see that other sign come down. Mr. Kleviet asked when ft would have to come down? Chalm~an Hellyer stated the sign would have to come down before the other one went up. He stated he remembers the hearings on the original entitlements and he reels they were very skeptical and they took the representation of the previous operator and t dki not work out to their satisfaction. He stated he really believes that they are meeting him more than half way with the signage. i• }?~ ~ ti ~ ~~~ f,~ ~~~ 7/27/92 Page 27 1>,, i 'l~~ { JAS +i7~ _ - l~ Y ~' f .. ~ U~.t:E c..~ ~ . r~~T ' Les Lederer, property owner. Took possession from ak! operator on April 23rd. Have vrorked,v@ry hard in taking care of some of the Code ra6ated problems. Ha dealt with the issues. head on. Does not want to remove the big sign. He discussed some ftnandal ` ~~' issoas in, order to keep the operatbn running. He added he would agree not to electrify °' the okJ sign. c`'.`', Commissioner Henninger stated he is hoping that when the freeway sign gets wkiened, the sign will again be visible from the freeway. ~s ~~ ~~~r ,4 , -_ Mr. beviat stated their ultimate goal is to obtain approval on one of design concepts that he has before the Commission aril if they wouk! modify the condition to allow a greater sign than what Is currently permitted under Condkion No. 8. Commissioner Henninger stated he could trade the existing sign for a pde sign, but tt would have to be a trade. Commissioner Zemel agreed. Chairman Heilyer stated he agrees-he is not happy with this; they went through this before trying to get them to give up the pde sign and they gave them the monument sign and the pde sign to g(ve the business a shot. Mr. Hastings stated that this does need to go to City Council because they have the final authority on this. A condtion might be recommended to the CouncU that the proposed 30-foot high fro?^tanding sign is depicted in an exhibit pFeseMed to tho Planning Commission on ,:uly 27, 1992, shall be the only freestanding sign permitted on subject property. The existing pde sign adjacent to the west face of the building shall be removed prior to or concurrent with the installation of saki 30-foot high sign. Commissioner Henninger stated that is one way go although they do not seem to agree to that; maybe there is just no change to the existing condition no. 12 is what we are saying. Mr. Hastings darffied currently they are allowed to keep the sign as existing wfth the provision that if they want to put a sign fn an additional sign there, f< is an S-foot high monument sign. Commissioner Peraza saki he would like them to have a new sign, but would also like for them to keep the other sign for a few months before they take ft down. Commissioner Bouas stated they can have a time limit on one sign. Commissioner Henninger stated that could be a big hassle. Commissioner Zemel stated that if the large sign is ineffective right now, and will be effective if the freeway goes through~he freeway will not go through in the next few months. Commissioner Bouas stated it is very costly to remove the sign right now. G/' YW: j~ 7/27/92 Page 28 ,r.. , _ ~F: .:C ~'a+) , -. .-C:' e t"< - Mr. Kievlet stated as a possible compromise, they would. be willing to move that large ~+~ ; pde sign at a designated future point and time. Beoau~e of the rest that is irtvalved, r a~~ :~ tFiej- have rough estimates of anywhere from 57,500 to X10,000 Just to remove the existing sign. They are striving to maintain a viable business operation. They will do the landscaping and wNl agree to ultimately remove the large pole sign at a future print to =`~ ~ ~ time. Their preference would be 6 months. `5" 5 ~ ;~ ~~ ~~ . Commissbner Zemel stated that the builder of the new sign would be more apt to give you a nice price to remove the other slgn at the same time rather than to come back on- ~~" sfte at another time. ~ s,: Commissioner Henninger stated he would be more flexible ff they came to the consensus that they wanted to do the street landscaping in 90 days; he would be more flexible there than he would about the slgn. When you saki h took a lot M. money to remove the sign, he thought Mr. Kieviet was talking about a lot of money and the number you mentioned, in the context of this building, is not a lot of money. i • • Mr. IQeviet stated the operator is most anxious to have a new sign up per what has been proposed here; ff he could get the approval and concurrence to the sign that they would propose to put up, he would be willing to remove the existing pole sign. Commissioner Henninger indicated that was good and that they liked the sign without the flags. Mr. kieviet stated the flags are a metallic, hard flag and not the ones that flap in the wind and get deteriorated over time. Mr. Hastings stated this is completely In a different direction ftom the way the City would normally be looking at signage. Commissioner Bouas stated it needs something to attract people or it will never go. Some discusslon took place regarding the types of signage. The Commission indicated they liked the signage ftom Federal Sign -'Exhibit C.' Further discussion tonic place regarding the signage and Mr. IQeviet suggested that Mr. Boyle speak as to their preference of slgnage and why. Mr. Boyles stated the Pennants were designed as one of the most Important factors to corney a sense of bazaar and marketplace. Mr. Boyles explained his reasoning for this particular type of sfgnage. Commissioner Henninger stated he dki not think they would have any support for the pennants. Commissioner Bouas stated there are certain spots that these kinds of things are important to corney. Chairman Hellyer referenced the see through sign, 'Exhibit B.' 7/27/92 Page 29 ~a~:;-_ ~+_. c. ~~ ~~ ~ _. 4x :a ~~ ~ c i~a Ym _. :i /n~ ~ J ~ ~ :Z ~ t Mr. Boyles stated personalty he dkl not like F.xhibft B. Thero are only 2 options and that ' .:~~: ' Is 'A' and 'C.' 'Exhibit C was butt as a compromise and 'C Is 3096 bigger. = Commissioner Henninger stated he wanted to note that Condition No. 5 satisfied the Y~ - sltiFry seal. 5,~. Co!`imissk~ner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner 2emel and MOTION CARRIED that th6 Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that they make the fdiowing amendments to the conditions of approval for CUP 3400: 1. Condition No. 5 satisfies the slurry seal requirement. 2. Condition nos. 6 and 13 to be completed within nine (9) months ftom the date of this hearing (April 27, 1993). 3. Condition No. 14 to be completed within ninety (90) days from the date of this hearing (October 27, 1992). 4. Amend Condition No. 12 to provide for the removal of the existing pile sign an the site and the construction of a new pile sign according to Fred Boyle's Exhibit B with the fdlowing change: Instead of having the sign on a single pylon with two supporting piles, sign shall be on two supporting piles and/or a ~ ~mns without the pennants. This recommendation includes the strict timing that the dd sign needs to be removed at the same time the new sign is being constructed. Mr. Borrego asked ti the cdumns would be of a stucco texture; that is what the basis currer~iy is specified at this point? Mr. Henninger stated he would let them design that in conformance with the design of 'the sign. Chairman Hellyer stated he is conveying the premise that we would prefer the ses through ability as opposed to an opportunity for graffiti. Approved 5-1 (Commissioner Bouas No, and Commissioner Masse absent) 7/27/92 Page 30 ~.Vr; ~r 5+[t~! 1 :r •.- ...- .. t;. ~ i X}~~~ ~'~.'1+ ?r~ ~ U. !~xJIVU111VIY.o~ USC r'CI'iMll rvV :7ZOL - RCWUC.71 rVn n nc~nvnvn~c cn~cn.~~Vn '~ : OFTIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Robert D. Mickelson requests ~.. s` a one-year exdension of Ume to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use eirnh No. 3262 (to permft a commercial retaq center wfth a car-wash iac8ity wRh gasdine P .. sales) to expire on April 23, 1993. Property is located on the northwest comer of Weir ':' :.: ~ ~ ~' ...Canyon Road and Monte Vista Road. z,, s i ~ ~ Continued ftom the June 29, and July 13, 1992, Planning Commission meetings. :,~ , , ~'~'' ~'( P': Approved 6-0 (G.Ynmissioner Masse absent) .. h ~~ E. CONDITION.A.L USE PERMIT NO 3161 -REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION ' OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDRIONS OF APPROVAh Christ!ne Feltz requests a one-year retroactive extension of time to comply wfth conditions of approval for t, Conditional Use Permit No. 3161 (to permit a commercial retafl center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) to expire on May 22, 1993. Property is located ffi ~~~s ~ 121 N. Beaati Boulevard. ~r~~ ,i~ Continued ftom the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Masse) F. VARIANCE NO 3961 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13991-REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Michael P. Gubbins requests s ons-year time extension to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No. 3961 and TentatNe Tract Map No. 13991 (waiver of required lot ftontage to establish a 10-tot, RS-5000 (SC) single-family residential subdivision) to expire on August 14, 1993. Property pis located at 1261-1271 North Aliwood Circle. Continued ftom the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Masse absent) G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3165 -REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Dwight R. Belden (Hillman Properties West) requests sons-year retroactive time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 3165 (to permit a commercial retail center with on-sale alcohd within two proposed restaurants) to comply with conditions of approval, to expire on June 5, 1993. Property is located at 2430 E. Kateila Avenue. Continued from the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Approved: 5-0 (Commissioner Masse absent and Commissioner Zemel declared a conflict of Interest). ~x 7/27/92 Page 31 +~ i ~s i ~ ~ ~~~`f, h_~ ! f .? J ~~ ~fi ~l:- ~: i H cnwrimoNAt_ fret: pFa~rr rJn_ 41s_+8 !-ND VARIANCE N0.3981 -REQUEST FOR ~~_ TERMINATION: Donald W. Shaw requests termination of Condttkxml Use PermR No. 3186 ~x (to parrnlt an industrially related office building) and Variance No. 3981 (Naiver of required ~~~_~ lot froirtage to establish a 30-lot industrial subd~Vision). Property ka located at 1350 S. State Cdlege Boulevard. Continued from the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PEFlMR TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. P(r92-96 Granted 6-0 (Comn'iissfoner Masse absent) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS 12686 AND 12867 -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITI~~OEAPPRUVAL: AI Uman (Presley Cos.) requests cone-year extension of time to comply wtth corxiftions of approval. Property is a portion of Development Area 5 of the Highlands at Anaheim HAIs Specific Plan (SP87-1). Continued from the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Masse absent) S,ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3006-REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WRH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Bhupesh Parikh (Part Enterprises) requests cone-year retro*~ctNe time extension for Condttional Use Permit No. 3006 (to permit a 196-unit motel with an endosed restaurant) to comply with conditions of approval, to expire on June 20, 1993. Props;ty is located at 212 S. Beach Blvd. Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Masse abser~`) K CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3295-REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL• Jay A Shah requests a ens-year retroactive Ume extension for Condttional Use Permit No. 3006 (to permit expansion of an existing motel from 63 to 140 rooms) to comply with conditions of approval, to expire July 16, 1993. Property fs located at 640 West Orangewood Avenue. Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Masse absent) L ~ONDRIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3296•REOUEST FOR A RETROACTIVETIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Keith Pepper requests a one-year retroactive time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 3296 (to permit a bed aril breakfast inn) to comply with conditions of approval, to expire on July 2, 1993. 817 N. Lemon Street. Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Masse absent) ~' ~~~~.. 7/27/92 gage 32 a f?,'~ ~ ~ fpr1 r~ :~ ~X °~="~"~"'' Mr. McCafferty, Planning, explained there is no need for a Negative Dedar-~lon on "°~:f . this hem as it is exempt ftom CEQA. ~k'LM1 'fi'x. . _ r ~ ~r~ °':: Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) r, = ~. ~.. N. TENTATIVE ?RACY NO. 13926-REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APF~ROVAL: Roh9tt Mickelson requests s ons-year retroactive extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 13926 (to establish a 5-lot subdhrLsion) to comply with coed"ions of approval, to expire July 30, 1993. Property fs located at the souti~erly terminus of Lonederry Lane. ' ~ t Approved 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) 0. VARIANCE NO 4109 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3287-REQUEST FOR D~i'ERMINATION AF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR AN EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN: Property is located at 810 North Euc+kf Avenue (Taco Bell). There was a request for a continuance ftom the applicant. ® Commissioner Henninger stated he did not think there was a need for a continuance and that in his view that the existing sign does not conform w~h the previously approved exhibits and that the sir,;n is way tot long and looks like a box car. The Planning Commission corcuned that the sign is not in substantial conformance wfth the previously approved plans. Mr. Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, asked for clarification as to what the Planning Commission would like on this? Commissioner Henninger stated they believa that the sign is longer than what fs shown on the existing exhibit aixt the existing exhibit dkl not show it on a bean, therefore, h should be shortened and on Qrade. Mr. Hastings asked then the Instructions would be to have it thr, same length as the exhibit showed? Mr. Henninger indicated thot was coned and also the same grade. Mr. Hastings stated there was a condition that allowed ft to be up to 8 feel hicf,'ti ~~y . _ 7~~7~92 Paawe 33 Commissioner Henninger stated ff rt is not over S feet from the sidewalk grade, then he thought that woukf be o.k. r ~~ ~~. ~~. . . ~~ .:..Vii..-:;-'~ .. Property is located at 5636 E. La Palma Avenue (Cinemapdis). Paul Singer, representative for the applicant. 'The request is that the Planning Commission approve their phasing plan in order to comply with the previously approved condftfons. The theater addftion is now under construction and fdloyving the completion of the addftion they are going to be provkJing 80% of Code parking as approved under the previous CUP. They Intend to construct a parking structi sometime in the spring during the low season for movie goers. In the meantfrr>L ' 3y have avagable parking and he has a copy of an agreement wfth Union Bank for an additional 49 parking spaces In order to be in compliance with 80% of Code parking as previously approved. Cwnr~issioner Henninger stated he needed an agreement from the bank. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commiesloner Peraza (Commissiorer Messe absent) and MOTION CARRIED that Sanborn Theaters, Inc. have a choice of coming through using this shared parking concept through the variance process or they can maintain 80% of the parking requirement on-site through the temporary elimination of seating. Mr. Singer asked for dariftcation ff that exdudes or includes tha 49 parking spaces at the bank. Mr. Hastings stated they may have used that towards the shopping center. Cort;missioner Henninger stated he meant on-sfte. The while function of doing the variance is to line up ail of these agrAements in a way that provides for what happens when they dissdve and how they are going to replace the parking ff ,,_ *.~~ ~~" Mr. Hastings stated for darffication then ft should be 8 feet high from sidewalk grade and no longer than what the exhibft showed. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, asked about the letter for a continuance and Commissioner Henninger stated that the letter came late in the day because they were unable to stay. Commissioner Henninger offered a mutbn, seconded by Commissioner Peraza (Commissioner Messe absent) and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning C,ommfsslon hereby Rnds that the existing sign Is not in substantial conformance wfth previously approved plans. p, ^^" ^mONAL USE PERMIT NO 3414 -REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND PARKING PLAN FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH PREVIOUS APPROVAL: 7/27/92 Page 34 .,, , :;, , ,~,~ _-: ~`~~= __ '.+ }'v ~~ ?. - Conditions d,ange. Mr. Singer explained the reason he k concerned about on-site is because through the auspk~s of the economic development in the City of Anafsnm, his diem is also negotiating for leasing of parking on the adjacent skie~he Hughes Site. - ~.,,.- r ~'" _~ . , ~:' Chairman Hellyer stated to bring that back in a Report and Recommendation item and they will consider k. although they do not want a redundancy on the adjacent side with Def3eikas. Mr. Hastings stated they would hold up occupancy of this until this is worked out He knows that the owner is arodous to open up, but that is the only stop that they have. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not have any problem with shared parking just as long as h works and the way to get there is to go through the process. Mr. Singer stated K concerns him to hold up the occupancy permit and that k really bothers him. Chairman Hellyer stated that builds a ftre and makes them do the right thing. Mr. Hastings stated he would try to get the two property owners together and see ff they wAl agree to something. So far they have been unsuccessful every time and that is why this is before the Commisskx~, however, they will try again. 11. DISCUSSION: None. 12 ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:47p.m ,,w ~-~: -~~s.~~a 7/27/92 Page 35