Loading...
Minutes-PC 1992/11/16n a r i~ ~'~ ~ _ • ~ ~ ~~ f ~ ~ ~ ,.~ n +~. ,' ~ `` ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION" ~~ ,, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1992, AT 11:00 A.M. f~, s~; '~~~ PREUMIP+IARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING ^~` ~`=€°, (PUBLIC TESTIMONlf7 ,,..~ ~,, ,,,.. NSF:: ~ ' 11:00 A.M. 1 :30 P.M. «- ,~_' ~'~ ~~~~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT, ZEMEL :~' COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE (ONE VACANT SEAT) ~.~ STAFF PRESENT: BORREGO, B. FREEMAN, HASTINGS, JENSEN, LOCKMAN, MC CAFFERTY, MITTMAN, ` '~~' , .: SOLORIO, YALDA, YOURSTONE ;~., '"'~ PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ;~.; :,:' . 1. The proponents in applicatlons which are not contested will have five minutes to present their r ~ , evidence. Additlonal time w(II be granted upon request iF, In the opinion of the Commission, such '' " additional time will produce evidence Important to the Commisslon's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time Is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but / ~ rather by what is mid. 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 Commissior. will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in fts opinion, the ends of fafiness to all concerned wnl be served. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each s Baker will be allotted a ma:amum of five 5 min t i p () ales o speak. Anyone w shing to speak should fill out the forms available in the rear of the Council Chamber and submit them to staff prior to the meeting. AC111692.WP i x yi~~N ~Y- ~'~~T ' Y ~~ ~_ . ~. OWNER: AGENT: BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, 143 E. Orangethorpe Ave.,Anaheim, CA 92801; Edward L And Maris Vanagd, 1510 N. State Colege, Anaheim, CA 92801 GARNER CHOW ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT, Attn: Jeny N. Gamer, 500 Silver Spur Rd., Ste. #111, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 LOCATION: 1500-1542 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 2.62 acres located at the northeast comer of Via Burton Street and State College Boulevard. To reclassify subject property from the ML to CL Zone. To permft the cornersion of an existing 44,334 square foot industrial complex to a 9-unit commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the October 5, and October 19, 1992 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC92-133 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT N0. PC92-134 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indicating their presence in opposftion tc subject request and although the staff report was not read, h Is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jerry Gamer, Archftect, GCA Architects, 500 Sllverspur, Suite 111, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274, representing the applicann He explained this is a continuation for application for a zone change. The applicant wishes to petition for a zone reclassffication from ML to CL This fs in keeping wfth the General Plan and the property has been used for Commercial uses for at least a decade. Each time the applicant puts a retail user in the property, they must go through a condftional change process. Page 2 11/16/92 i (R' ^; J ~;C x ~Sti :~C~, *' It a ; r' ~'. < v; AN! ~' k ~ L •+'~ - ~ ~ ,They were"asked to do a reciprocal parking, ingress artJ ogress agreement. This site , , ;consists _of 2 parcels of land and there are 3 buildings on these 2 parcels. The uses are r~mainly furniture related. They have no problem with the reciprocal access part of the 'agreement, but the owners have a problem with the possibility of douding their tide In the , ~~ ~~ ~~~ future v~i4h a reciprocal parking agreement On November 9, 1992, he sent a letter to Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, outlining a ~~;; , " `proposal which they think is a good sdution. The owners are consenting to prohibit some . •~ n jE~ , of the uses that are now available to them in the Commercial zone and these uses are higher } ~T„, intensity parking uses then what are presently at the site. He referenced exhibit A. The Ilst ~~ ` included: bowling alleys, business trade schods or training centers, bus depots, department '~'"~'~ stores, grocery or fruit stores, health spas and physical fitness centers. He stated these uses ?~~ demand more parking. Under Exhlbft B are uses that would be allowed at the site. Paul Singer, 7163 Columbus, Anaheim, CA 92807. He conducted a parking study for the properties adJacent to State College Blvd. South of Via Burton in Anaheim. He explained the current uses in those buildings show a surplus of parking on both week day and weekend ' conditions. The parking study was conducted on Saturday and Friday of the same week 2 wfth the surplus of parking exceeding 5096. r-rte<r i ~, i . `: ' It is his understanding that the Plt!nning Commission has requested that the applicants on the she enter into a reciprocal parking agreement. Thore is a problem with the future development of possibilfties for those sites. With that type of restriction, it does put a cloud on the tide that if one property owner wishes to Intensify any of the uses or change any uses, thay would have to provide equitable parking for his neighbor and that is not really in the best interest of Dither one of the proper!ies. They would like to have the parking stand on its own far both properties. He explained the study indicates both parcels have adequate vacancy for the foreseeable future, and for the particular land uses that are contemplated which would be permit!ed under the CL Zone that are shown In the letter that was presented to the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated there is more than sufflcEFnt parking for this type of use. Commissioner Messe explained they are concerned about any possible change of use and the applicant has come up with a list of uses that may or may not be all the uses that they would like to see prohibited. He asked ff there were any other additional uses that would make h a problem? Mr. Yalda stated some of the uses offered by the applicant may generate higher parking use then what is out there now. He referred to the Ilst. Discussion took place between Mr. Yalda and Chairman Henninger regarding the parking ratios for Industrial versus Commercial uses. Page 3 11/16/92 n .nj•.y ' ~-fa._ y~j S s~ i ~~'~*. ~ ~c J {~ .av ~ ~ ~ i y < r ~ ~' man; Henningef stated when they started this discussion some meetings ago, he had use that the applk~nt was trying to get a use that was compatible with both Commercial heir. ezlsting parking arrangement. He stated he was getting a Ifttle uncomfortable that real intention is to have an under parked regular Commercial center which he is not ortable wfth. ,t ,~. ~. ,~ Fie asked Mr. Yaida what list of uses he would be comfortable with that would generate the ~~ ,amount of parking requirement that is consistent with the Industrial standard? fiy~ Mr. Yaida stated the existing use is what is appropriate now; ft will not generate more :parking and they probably will have surplus parking. He stated among the list of uses that a, *~`~~'" would be appropriate are an antique shop, appliance store, hobby shop, interior decorator ~..`~ ;~ and Jewelry store. J~, ~T~ He stated rkin Is rohibfted on the street in foont of these stores. The ma want to ,~~ ~ : Pa 9 P Y Y consider the front row of State Cdiege Blvd. for reciprocal parking. ~„ y ~' "1 Mr. Singer stated he agrees with what Mr. Yaida saki. He stated he sees the entire enter ~, ~ . remaining pretty much household hem sales and similar uses that could be put on the site x,'''" would be uses that would be compatible w. h the uses that are currently there. He stated the items under Exhlbft B would be permitted uses, but probably not compatible wfth the uses that are currently there. Discussion took place regarding the various uses between Mr. Singer and the Commissbn. Chairman Henninger stated they should create a list of allowed uses. He feels comfortable with the fumfture use that is currently there. Commissioner Messe stated he would prefer to have a reciprocal parking arrangement but in the absence of that and understanding where the land owners are coming from, he would go along with having a list of prohlbfted uses from the CL Chairman Henninger suggested a list of allowed uses only and not a list of prohibited uses. Further discussion took place regarding the various uses. Chairman Henninger suggested that this Item be trailed to a later time in the meeting in orde:• to work out a proposal. Ms. Mann stated she would request that they look at the list with an eye of having prohibfted and permitted uses; ft would not be appropriate to create a mini zone by having some conditionally permitted uses. Chairman Henninger stated he thought ft would be appropriate to just have a list of those permitted uses wfth the CUP and be silent cm both prohibited and conditionally permftted uses because that fs the subject another CU?. Commissioner Messe stated then they could always come back and apply to change their current CUP ff they wanted a use that was on that Ilst. Page 4 11/16/92 w~ ~ i ~~~, t .+ `~w Clialrman tienntnger darNted he eocpects to see back a fairly short list of uses that the ~`appllcant would like to have permitted with the CUP. w_ ;. -THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED Chairman Henninger asked Mr. Yalda to read the Ifst of permitted uses. They are as fellows: Antique shops °,~'" APPliance stores ,~;,~. 'Interior Decorators -,~ _ , _ Jewelry or Lapidary shops z'w''~~` Broadcasting studios Conservatories or Studios Furnkure stores Hobby shops Locksmith shops Reconditioned/used furniture and appliance stores (excluding Thrift stores) Reproduction services Small equtpmeM rental (i.e., tools, party supplies) Business service firms induding: architectural, engineering, drafting services, market research, secretarial or answering services) - Discussion took place regarding these uses between Mr. Singer, Mr. Yaida and the Planning Commission. Further discussion took place regarding termination of certain CUPs. Mr. Borrego indicated those were taken care of in Condftton Np. 1 under the reclassification. • A I N: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved Redassiflcation No. 92-93-02 -Granted Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved ~ndiNonal Use Permit No. 3548 -Granted The following uses are permitted: Antique shops Appliance stores Interior Decorators Jewelry or Lapkfary shops Broadcasting studios Conservatories or Studios Furniture stores Hobby shops Locksmth shops Reconditioned/used furniture and appliance stores (excluding thrift stores) Reproduction services ' Small equipment rental (i.e., tools, party supplies) Business service firms Including: architectural, engineering, drafting services, market research, secretarial or answering services) ACTION CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ~~ x r> Page 5 11/16/92 ~ Y~ ~ f ~,1 ~!'t4Y`~a{,IU' '.)E Fh-.,:! l" t~y,~ ~' ~Y '~' i ~~ r a-~~^ ~~~ ~r -211 ~• ~ ~ "- • K ~.~~ ~a ~kt nx,i M f, ~ The following revision to Condition No. 4, page 8 of the staff report, was read into the record by Mr. Borrego: k 4 ~~ 'That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with ~' plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petkiorier and ~~~~;~ which plans are on file wfth the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 ;~,~"<:: of Exhibit No. 1 ' c; ; Commissioner Messe made the fdlowing change to Condition No. 2 on page 7 of the staff report: Eliminate the words 'and parking agreements.' `''''' ~ VOTE: 6-0 (One vacant Seat) z_; _, :- , };;;~M Page 6 11/16/92 r~ ~~ x t, ;. _;;. ~~4 (a L.:~:::,r,~.~:_. __ .. _. ~T1~M1Y~ .t 1 ,.. ,.• J• ~, iCEOA NECA~YIY E'DECLARATION Corninued to is ''WANER'OF CO DEAEOUIREMENT December 14,1992 ~' `~ ~~ OWNER: DANIEL, AMALIA, REF'eJG1O AND ALICIA RUBALCABA, , Attn: Daniel Rubalc.;r~~a, 510 N. East Street Anaheim, CA 92805 ,,.~ _,. ~ , "V ;~~<: AGENT. JAMES RAMO, 1004 S. Hathaway, Unit 'P", Santa Ana, CA 92705 ~~„ ~'' LOCATION: 500-530 North East Street. Property is approximately 1.16 acres 1 located at the northeast comer of Sycamore Street and East Street. ;;}: ~~.,-, ,t~, `''~' To permit the addition of a 780-square foot storage area to an existing commercial s~ ~ ` center with waiver of minimurti~ number of parking spaces and maximum structural height within 150 feet of asingle-family resklentiai zone boundary. Continued from the October 5, and October 19, 1992 Planning Commission ,-` meetings. { CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NOS _ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. It was noted that the applicant was not present. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated they had tried to contact the applicant, however, they were unable to reach him. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; one Interested person Indicated their presence and although the staff report was not read, ft is referred to and made a part of the minutes. George Qast name not audible to Secretary) 602 N. Elmwood, Anaheim, CA. Located directly north of suject property. He just wanted to know tF the hearing on this hem was going to be postponed? THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement. He explained at the business located at 530 N, East Street, they previously discussed an Illegal structure that had been constructed on the north side of the business. The applicant stated previously that they would either apply for a wriance to rstain the structure or demolish the entire structure. He added neither has been done at this time. Page 7 ~~ 11/16/92 o '~'xx~ ir°!~--7i. ~ ~:~r ~ ,r K'.!r rat '.t3t t d !• r e t ~1 ..,: ~. 1, ~et the business location at 516 N. East Street, additional inspections have found quite '~a'~few"•,problems;with the she. They are continuing to operate a manufacturing facility . outdoors; they are dumping a lime material Into the City storm drain; they have cut a ~; ~m ~ ,, H~~assage way from the east skfe of the property into a reskJential stile yard (a pedestrian ,~ ~ trefftc way); and they are also receiving deliveries through that passageway to that business. r 'Fie stated the businesses they have seen usually subskie at about 10:OOa.m., so all of the ~, " 'activity occurs qufte early in the morning and this is one of the reasons they have not had ,.~ ti ` .success In IocaUng the problems, but they dki sucx;eed last week fn ftrxJing that they are } operating outskle of the business. ~. a~= ~, i Chairman Henninger stated the staff report indicates that they are not in conformance with ~. ~::~.; all of the conditions of their prev(ous CUP and asked ff that was still correct? He asked ff ~'~ the stripping in the parking lot had been done? Fs..'. :r; Y 1 ~;-! ,;,~;a~ • •1 Mr. Freeman indicated ft has not been done. Chairman Henninger stated h was staffs recommendation that this be continued to allow them to bring all of these Rams Into conformance. He stated there is a problem that could lead to the elimination of these uses ff they cannot be brought into conformity and h is only fair to warn the exisfting business owners. He asked staff to make sure they got that message. TI N: Commissioner Zemel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meting of December 14, 1992 at the request of the Code Enforcement staff based on the following: That the several Code violations exist at the subject property despite the request of the Planning Commission to eliminate the violations. Ali existing Code violations should be corrected prior to the approval of subject request. Page 8 11/16/92 ~YF,~ rSr~ Cr _-~t~J'~*s.~;~'~'~z ?" ~r ~'i4.v~~ ~~ $ ~~tY ~ - ~ ~. d _ ~ ~q ~F DA NEGATIVE DEC~~nON Approved --- -- --- -----.....-..~..., .,.,., Granted ® ,fir INRIATED BY: CiTY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA ~us~" 92803 5;;•- ~~?~ •~~..,,., LOCATION: Anaheim Boulevard 'between Harbor Boulevard and Lemon .~-~...:, ~@@I- ' ~~~ ~ ,~ ,- ' .. t A City-Initiates amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan ~` , w7 redesignating a portion of Anaheim Boulevard between Harbor Boulevard and Lemon ~' .~ ' Street, ftom a Primary Arterial to a local Street. xX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. P 2-1~5 _ '~'` ~, .,, , FOLLOWING IS A SUMMP.RY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE ,,4;;,, , CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. #.} •." ,, ,,,' There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request; there were 3 concerned individuals present and although the staff report was not read, i< is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Greg McCafferty, Planning Department. He stated this Is a City inftiated amendment to their Circulation Element to clean up a remnant portion of Anaheim Blvd. that was left over from a previous General Plan Amendment which is the stretch of primary arterial between Harbor Blvd. and Lemon Street. Robert Sonia (last name not spelled for the record), 1126 N. Anaheim Blvd., owner of Sanchos Mexican Restaurant. He explained he Is not in opposftion to having the street closed. He stated 4 or 5 years ago, they put a median in on Harbor Blvd. He explained they count on business ftom traffic passing by and when they eiin'.nated the left-turn, it cut their business down about 3096. He stated their traffic count has gone way down aril now that they have started this rearrangement of the streets, there is absolutely no way of getting into their business because people must make 2 or 3 left-toms before anyone can get to the front of their business. He stated they do not really know where they stand; they have called the City Council and they have tried to get some plans to let them know exactly what is going to happen in the area. They were tdd there would be no disruption. He stated the Redevelopment Agency keeps telling them they era one block too far north to be considered for Redevelopment. At the present time they are getting the brunt of all of this redevelopment and they are not being considered for any type of funds or relocation. Page 9 11/i6/92 .~~.»~ hi M ~ j~y~~ n~,I, i ~, .7 C 5 .J Z~y( ed:what the RedeyelopmentAgency can do for them? They have called numerous nd'their messages are not retatmed or they are referred to someone else. They have eoeived a stiaight answer. He does have plans that were gben to them about 4 or F`~r ~~ N(r Patel, i 136 N. Ac~aheim Blvd., located next to Sanchos Restaurant. He stated he has the . ~,~~ same problems regarding decrease in business due to traffic. ~~ Mary Benitas (last name not spelled for the record), 9631 Mallard Avenue, Garden Grove, ir` Y'. CA, daughter of owner of property In question. She stated she is Interested in the redesign ` ~ of the street; the property has devaluated because there is no street traffic and it has caused 1Fi' rr' `a hardship an their tenants. She asked about the future plans and what the City (s going to ~;~. , ~fi, ` ~o.? ~,,, . , .. , . Ms. Banftas explained on Harbor, when they had the banter there, N. caused a decrease in the business at that particular time and then when the redevelopment started on Lemon ~. -~ Street ft decreased the business by approximately 9096. r}~,° t i~{~ Chairman Henninger explained not all of the questions asked today are appropriate to this 2Y hearing, however, he would find out who they can direct their concerns to. YHE PUBLIC HFJlRING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Henninger asked if there were plans to change the form of the improvements of this stretch of road? Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated every year they have to provide the County with Information regarding their arterial highway to get gas funds from the State. Everytime they change any designation or anything to their City, they must report it to them. As a part of the previous application, they will be reporting to them that ;he Anaheim Blvd. designation is what is proposed now. There is no plan as far as closing that ~:~eet or eliminating anything-it is going to stay the way it is right now. They are not planning to dose the street or abandon ft or do anything. He referenced the person who owned the restaurant and saki that the gentlemen called a couple of times and they dkf provkle him with a plan for the construction of Anaheim Blvd. If they did not receive it, the plans are still available. He explained during construction, they do anticipate some delay and some reduction in traffic and that is what is currently taking place, especially the area that is under construction (LaPalma and Anaheim Blvd.). He stated after ft is completed, then everything will yo back to normal. Mr. Yalda explained that all property owners are no1~r ed in advance regarding the conMruction; they usually tell them the length of construction and 4hey do allow them access. He stated if there has been a problem with access they can call him directly or the Field Engineer and they will immediately respond to K. NI businesses should have access during construction. r < ~: ~. r ~ r '~!'.~ { ~ ~~ Page 10 11/16/92 ~x ~ ~ -.rh ~ - ~`., ;- 3 ~ . Further discussiomtook place regarding access. Chairman Henninger asked Mr Yalda.ff ~thore;,i+vas4going to be:a;.median that; prevents tumirr~g' left vuheR proc~ading ,north inm ~ Lemon onto Anaheim Bhid? He asked, Mr. Yalda to describe the.uhimate improvement ~`~`re~a~rding;the left-tum pnxeadin~ northbound Lemon to Anaheim Blvd. ~,;; . w , ~F Mr Yalda described the Improvement. ~~~ ~,~;, Chairman Henninger asked about temporary detour signage for businesses. ~~, ,- Y~*? . Mr. Yalda stated the Flekl Engineer generally shows that they are appropriately signed. ,. Chairman Henninger asked Natalie Lockman to give hor business cards to those individuals who had access concen~s. A4712~ ,< CEQA Negative Declaratoon -Approved General Plan Amendment No. 332 -Granted 6-0 (One vacant seat) Page i 1 11/16/92 T r.. ~ i. ~ttia._ ' ~ - ~ .L {' - ' '~r ;~, 'x 3 ~ _ :4a. CE~iA NEGATIVE.DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED Approved 4l%' TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12898 Approved OWNER: THE PRESLEY COMPANIES, Attn: AI Uman, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12898 DEVELOPMENT AREA 6 OF THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN,~SP87-1j. Property is approximately 4.86 acres located north and west of the northwest comer of Sunset Ridge Road and Serrano Avenue. To establish a 41ot, 52-unit, condominium subdivision. Property fs approximately 4.86 acres located north and west of the northwest comer of Sunset Ridge Road and Serrano Avenue. FOLLOWING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indigting their presence in opposition to subJect request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Davkf Boyle, Davkl A. Boyle Engineering, 2098 S. Grand, Santa Ana, CA 92705, representing the Presley Company. He gave a brief presentation on the history of the tract. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, asked that they add a condition to the tract map. He explained that the developer will need to come back and process a site flan before the Planning Commission at a future public hearing before any development •~'kes place. The condition reads as follows: 'That any development associated with subJect tentative tract map shall be subject to site plan approval at a future Planning Commission public hearing.` ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 12696 -Approved (With added condition as mentioned above) VOTE 6.0 (One vacant seat) • :-, ~= -;~;: °' ~::: ; .:. U Irv Page 12 11/16/92 ~l~w 4. { ~• ~L~ C: ~A ~,1~. yp, 1.EQ_A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION APP~~ ;. `'bti` WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved :, ~ ~5c: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3564 Granted E .~ ~ OWNER: LA MIRAGE ANAHEIM, ATTN: CHING-FA CHIEN, 11546 South Street, yt~;; Ste. 67, Cerritos, CA 90701 ~~ ` ;, `~~~' I AGENT: DINESH PATEL, 2771 W. Uncoin Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 ~. LOCATION: 3111 W. Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.64 acre located ~"'' ~ ` on the north side of Uncoln Avenue and approximately 95 feet west of ~ ~ .. ,~~ . the centerline of Grand Avenue. ~ ~~ ., ~ ,~~~ To permit a 2,688-square foot cornenience market with waNer of minimum number ' ~ ~~, +~; of parking spaces. y ~ N~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-136 7 ~. ` ' FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. '' Dinesh Patel, 2771 W. Uncdn Avenue, Anaheim, CA. He stated he Intended to start an Indian grocery store at 3111 W. Uncoln Avenue. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the applicant has indicated there are no alcohol sales being proposed. He asked the applicant to take particular notice of Condition No. 1 regarding hours of operation. He explained ff he ever wanted to expand beyond the hours that are Indicated on that condftion, he would have to come back at a future Planning Commission public hearing fn order to change these hours. Commissioner Messe suggested that he expand the hours of operation from 9:00a.m to 9:00p.m. Mr. Patel indicated that would be fine. Chairman Henninger asked for clariflcatlon ff he had any plans for selling alcoholic beverages and Mr. Patel indicated none at all. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Pegg 13 • 11/16/92 ~ .`. iT~15tx i ' .. Fw ro4 6 ^G #,, Yi ';; ~+ t~ T• f ~~ rr,~"~: s~• -.,'r . • M °,~ H U ~.t : " Page 14 11/16/92 ~ ` ~ ' ~ _ .~ ~ ~ ..fir x~ ~ ~ - x ~.: , ~ ~~ ~T .r > ~f.r K. :6a. CEOA CATEGORI3;AL EXE„~A4+'~1QZI-CLASS 11 No Action ~ "t ~`8b ~ 'VARIANCE N0.4205 Denied ~' 4 F _ ~ OWNER: THOMAS H. TAYLOR AND RICHARD B. TAYLOR, 22706 Aspan, #504, a 7 '. Lake Forest, CA 92630 4 ' d ; J ~ ~ AGENT: SPEEDY SIGN A-RAMA, ATTN: ALEX HENRY, 1376 East Edinger Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92705 ~~ ' ~ LOCATION: 8285 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 1.54 .,~;~,r, acres located at the northwest comer of Weir Canyon Road and Santa ~" Ana Canyon Road. ~~k" Waiver of maximum number of wall signs to construct a second, 25-square foot wall p~.. sign for an existing liquor store. sY; ~' . ,~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC92-1~7 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. There was no one indicating their presence in opposftion to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Sam (last name not audible to Secretary) 8285 Fist Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA. He stated their existing sign fs blocked by Burger Idng. He asked permission to put up their new sign on the west side of the building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEC. Mr. Borrego, Senior Planner, stated ff the Planning Commission does decide to approve this request that they pay particular attention to the condition they added regarding the elimination of any window signage which may exist on the property. Commissioner Messe stated they are dealing with a real prolfferation of signs and, therefore, is opposed to the addftion of this sign. Two other signs have been allowed in this area (Convoys and the hospital). Commissioner Messe stated the visibility of the liquor sign is for Santa Ana Canyon Road and he finds the visibility to be alright. He stated he was against the variance in this case. The applicant explained about 40% of their frontage was blocked by Burger fQng. Discussion took place between the appl' ant and the Commission regarding the visibility of the sign. Page 15 11/16/92 ii y11 ~ fYtS~~, l.'• ,1. . ~ Z Y~)~ Chalk Henninger asked it, the applk~nf had a choice between the 2 signs, i.e.; the sign .',on the wall o~.the sign in front, which one would he take? =:n,e applicant indicated he would prefer to.have both, however, of he: had to choose he woad faits the: axisti`rig sign. Thte would gh-e him 60 to 70 percent visibtlity. ^-tr, w /1CTION: CEGA Categorksal Exemption Class II - No Action ;5 Variance No. 4205 -Denied ~~* (Prolfferation of signage) '_fri _ ~~" `:- Y4Ifi: 6-0 (One vacant seat) ~``';; ei; Page 16 11/16/92 x 3 a (•` ..:. w ~{~;~ A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE STUDY OF THE BROADWAY-MANCHESTER ,~" INDUSTRIAL AREA. .~, ,.~ Continued from the October 19, and November 2, 1992 Planning Commission ~~" , meetings. ~~,,,- ,, ~ Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, stated this is an information land use item on the Broadway-Manchester Industrial Area. Staff feels this area is important and there are several Planting activities going on around the area that warrants a concerrinated look from the Commission. They are asking the Planning Commission to direct staff to see whether they want to explore additional land use '~ aftematives on this site. ~~~m~ . ~,,,,.?r Commissioner Messe suggested they bring back a proposal designating what they "`~~ ' think is a good general outline for a study of this nature. Ho stated of course they .~~{;'- waM a tend use evaluation and that might trigger some circulation studies, sewer, W f ~:, ~`~~.~ , . , power, etc. f. A N: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has determined that it is appropriate to consider land use alternatives for the area based on surrounding Planning acthrities, and that staff bring a work program back to the Planning Commission within two (2) months outlining subject land use alternatives. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3526 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN: Request: Dan McOuakl, Director of Canyon Acres Residential Center, requests Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed landscape plan. Property is located at 233 Quintana Road. Continued from the November 2, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Beth Smith, 175 S. Bonnie Gene, Anaheim, CA. She meant wfth Dan fdcQuakl regarding his landscape plan. She voiced her concerns that the plans do not show where the trees are to be planted; she was also concerned that the trees would be planted next to her boundary wall and she has a pool. She does not I "h that the trees be in v r tl: wall or dose to the wa L a e asked want trees hang g o e a planted approximately 25 feet from her back wall. She stated she was told that the trailers would not be distinguishable from their backyards and they are distinguishable. They were also told they would conform with the area, however, they are very unsightly. Chairman Henninger asked to see the landscape plan. _ _ ~ 3~ ~ ~S.C s ~ T 4.- r,~ Page 17 11/16/92 ~~ ~~i. 14~i ~'.: [f ~ t ~. E {k ., •r r: 3 • r ~,~, t ~ ~ ~ x ~~ y . . } ~ ~ a ~ ~~ .. s ti~~? Bert Elliot, Elfiot Associates, 5200 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 6 ~- ~ , , _ , Discussion took place regarding the placement of the trees on the plans relative ~ s~,= - ' _ to Mrs. Smith's lot: G~? ~ - ; . . ~ ~ ; Dan, McQuaid, Executive Director of Canyon Acres Residential Center. He ~ rL ~ '` , explained they planned to meet with each individual neighbor and talk with them ' about the location and sfting' of the individual plants; some people want a literal ' screen; some do not want an unobsWcted view whatsoever. They plan to have u ~,~~ ~• two specimen trees and site them, having a staggered effect. He added they were Very sensitive to people wfth pods. He went Into further detail regarding their ;~•. ~;~ _ ; Plans. Some discussion took place between Mr. McQuaid and Mrs. Smith, however, Mrs. Smith's dialogue was not on the record. Chairman Henninger stated he thought they were approving a specific detailed landscape plan, but ft is obvious they are not. He sugyested they go back and figure out where these plants are going to be and then provide the Commission wfth a plan that is real or they can say this is the plan and set trees back some distance from the wall. Commissioner Zemei stated he liked Chairman Henninger's second Idea. He agrees 25 feet fs a long way for a root to travel. He would prefer to give them the footage and let the homeowners mark the X's within that specified footage so they can go forward. Discussion took place regarding the various footages. Commissioner Bristd suggested if they plant a tree within 20 feet, that the roots have a root barrier so the roots grow down. Chairman Henninger stated he liked Commissioner Bristd's solution. He suggested they could adopt a specific location for the trees and then ask for a root barrier for any tree closer than 15 feet to an adjacent property line. Discussion took place regarding the timing for the planting of the trees. The Commission deckled on 60 days. Chairman Zemel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe (one vacant seat) and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the applicant adopt a specific location for the trees and that any tree closer then 15 feet shall have a root barrier. Trees are to be planted within 60 days. Page 18 11/16/92 4r w".; ~~I j ~' ~ ~ A ~C~ ZENTATNE TRACT MAP NOS. 14076. 14077. 14078, 14079. 14080. 14081, AND ~R ' i ~• ~t ' .: guest: Kelley Renezeder (representing the Baldwin Company) has submitted a ~ `': Getter.: requesting Gone-year extension of ttme for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.14076, 14077, 14078,14079, 14080, 14081 and 14082. Property is a portion of the SrmmR of Anaheim Hnls Specific Pian (SP88-2). ~~~,~ ACTION: Commissioner Masse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza (one vacant seat) and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning ~`~`°'~`~ Commission does hereby grant a ons-year extensbn of time for Vesting Tentative z,L-, Trail. Map Nos. 14076, 14077, 14078, 1407914080, 14081 and 14082 (to expire ion ~.c~'<;., June 4, 1993). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3253 -DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL. CONFORMANCE WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS PERTAINING TO ROQE ,JyVIOUNTED EQUIPMENT: Rogue :Tony ZendeJas, President cf ZendeJas Mexican Restaurant, requests review of revised plans for determination of substantial conformance with pre~.lously approved exhibits for a 30-unit commercial retail center wfth waiver of roof-mounted equipment. Property is located at 5675 E. La Palma, Sufte 300. Naomi Zendejas, Zendejas Mexican Restaurant, 5675 East La Palma, Sufte 195. She explained they have already had roof-mounted equipment approved except for the satellite dish. ACTION: Commissioner Masse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol (one vacant seat) and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve subject request based on the following: (a) That the construction of the building is unique in that a structural space or well below the roof line would house the majority of the satellite dish antennas and that in addition, parapet screening would completely conceal the antennas from street level view. (b) That the petitioner submitted dimensioned line-of-sight drawings prior to the issuance of building~permfts to erect the satellite dishes, which clearly confirm that the proposed satellite dish antennas will not be visible as indicated on the revised plans submitted for the November 16, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Page 19 11/16/92 wk 3° ~'~ a y K S °~.~ L~ `fi`x ~ ~ s. f r IDI71ONiAL U SE PEHMR NO. 259 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COM MIS31ON DMMENDATIO N TO CITY:. COUNCIL REGARDING POSSIBLE TERMINAT ION OR . rrmrsr~nN ~s_i :,gg., A City-inftiated request for Planning Commission recommendation to City Council '~'~ ~ ~~ rdfn ible termination or modffication of Conditional Use Permit No. 259 to establish -~ r re9a.. , . 9. Pow ( 7~ a hofbrad acrd repair garage). Property is located at 1009 E. Balsam Avenue. (i'-Pia,`, j, ~, Marie Qast name was not audible to Secretary), 2815 N. (name of street not audible to ~- Secretary) . She !s the owner of the property 1007 through 1011 East Balsam Avenue. She `asked for the Commission's recommendation and walled to know what she could do to keep "~~`+`t the automotve business. }N ~+;ur Chairman Henninger asked if this has to do with the alcohol sales at'Foxey's?" '~ ~ Commissioner Messe explained they are being asked to recommend that this item be heard ~ ~.~~; before the City Council. a. ~ ~ Chairman Henninger clarifted they would like them to find that there is sufficient infornnation '~ ~ regarding the operation of'Foxey's" to recommend to the Clry Council that they open a public ' '~~', ~ ~ hearing to deckle whether the permit should be eliminated or modified because they have h .d ''~~``~'~°--' ' a number of problems with how they have been operating. :~~?>_• . '• ~:u The property owner explained it is not a problem for her, but ft may be a problem for the business owner. Chairrr+_,n Henninger asked ff they were meeting all of the conditions of the existing approval tlnd is it being operated in a way that is consistent with the public's safety and welfare? Sergeant Harold Mittman, Police Department. He stated currently, the business is operating wfth entertainment in the form of bikini clad dancers and that is not an allowed use. In the past there were different violations such as not having food available and that is still current. There have been past violations having to do with conduct and attire on the part of the employees, but those areas have improved. Chairman Henninger, for darification, stated they are operating under CUP 259 which was a conditional use permit to establish a restaurant and an auto repair garage. Now they are using the restaurant CUP to operate a bar which does not have any food service. He asked if that was correct'! Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement, stated that is correct. The City Council originally approved a hofbrau restaurant in conjunction wfth an auto repair and through past Investigations there are no kftchen facilities nor any food being served at 'Foxey's" which would be in direct violation of the conditional use permit. Chairman Henninger asked if there were any problems wfth the automotive repair facility? Mr. Yourstone stated there is a chain link fence that has been installed across the parking lot area and on the original agreement, they were required to have 18 parking spaces. The fence eliminates approximately 3 to 4 parking spaces. Page 20 11/16/92 ~ ~ J ~~ - - ~~`~The property owner saki after'Foxey's' doses, they dose the gate so ff anlrthing happens to the. parking lot," K Is their responsibility. ~.e;~.` „%; , ~ Some discussion took place regarding the kitchen facffdss. '. <~', ~~f "}9S TIQN: Commissioner Zemel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse (one ;~ ',vacant seat) and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planr+.ing Commission has hereby determined that there are grounds for the City Council to set Conditional Use Permit No. 259 _~.~. "~` ~ .: for a public hearing to conskler its termination or modification based on the fdlou~~ing: } ~a`~ ~ - ° (a) That subject premises is no longer operating as a "hofbrau operation and the sale of ~~,, ~4~ food and Inckientally for the sale of beer.. ' as originally approved by the City Council ~} ~~? ~ and, therefore, is being exercised contrary to the terms and condftions of the Y ~,: approval and in violation of the originally approved conditional use permit ~ x ~ (b) That the use for which the approval was granted has been so exercised as to be ~,~_:: detrimental to the public health and safety so as to cones itute a nuisance. t',.; ~,,~ ~ ,' (c) That parking for the hofbrau restaurant is not adequate, primarily due to the fact that ~~,~~' ~ ' 13 of the 18 parking spaces are unavaliabie, located behind the fence and a dosed gate in violation of Condition No. 5 of Condtional Use Permit No. 259, which requires °" development substantially in conformance with an exhibit showing unrestricted circulation and parking on the property. (d) The entertainment observed taking place constitutes adult entertainment and lacks the required condftiona! use permft for adult entertainment required by AMC Chapter 18.89, which is in vitiation of the Zoning Ordinance. ::~~ . F. QRANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY-REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN-PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 87-1 (DEER CANYONI. Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that his residence is within 1,000 feet from the Deer Canyon Recreation area which was the subject of the item and pursuant to the provisions of the above C;xies, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the discussion in connection with The Orange County Enrvironmental Management Agency-Request to Determine Conformance with the General Plan, and would not take part fn either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Taft left the Council Chamber. ACTION: Commissioner Masse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza (Commissioner Taft absent one vacant seat) and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County of Change Environmental Management Agency's request to quftclaim their open space easement within Deer Canyon to the Cfty of Anaheim is in conformance wfth the Cfty of Anaheim General Plan. i. Page 21 11/16/92 ~ ~~ ~ ~- ~_. Roger J. Work, property owner, submitted a letter dated October 8,1992 requesting ~yearextensbn of time for condftional Use Permit No. 3096 (to expire November 21, in order tq comply with conditions of approval. Property is located at 3601 W. Bali ;, z ~ ~ . ~~; x Chairman Henninger referenced a letter that rues submitted this morning with some additional ~fi,~ , ; stipulations that they will meet Codes that are nowr in effect and other design consklerations. ~~~}~, ~,;:. ''~_' ~j),Qf~: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol (one "~ ' vaunt seat) a'd MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve eons-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 3096 to expire on November 21, 1993 and that plans for building plan check will show conformance with all applicable code requirements (other than minimum building sft3 area per dwelling unit which ~} ^ ;.; was previously waived). ~.~tie-;.~ ..- . 6 h ~ J .~}~14 r ,,;_,.; -.:~` s~ J ~ •1 S .~ CS H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2809 -REQUEST INTERPRETATION PERTAINING TO LANDS APING REQUIREMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPRGVED 2 AND 3 STORY. 118-UNIT SENIOR CITIZENS APARTMENT PROJECT: Nan Trider requests Interpretation regarding landscape requirements for Conditional Use Permit No. 2809 (to permit a 2 and 3-story, 118-unit senior citizen's apartment complex with waiver of required number of affordable units). Property is located at 435 S. Anaheim Hills Road. David Brows, 277 S. Hlllcrest Street, homecwner. His house ftonts the lot in question. He stated they agreed to landscape that particular piece of the property when the landscaping was done. It will now be a parcel size lot as opposed to an open natural area. He was concerned that ft would become a deposit area for cans and bottles and feels very strongly that it should be part of the landscape package as originally agreed upon by the developer. Jim Jones, 6006 Hilicrest Circle, homeowner. He has been to 2 hearings and in both hearings he was tdd that area would be a greenbelt. fiey are now finding out that, that acre is being eliminated from becoming a greenbelt. Chairman Henninger stated they are being asked to decide if this should be landscaped or not. He explained after their review of the past i~ez~rings, they believe h is part of the requirement. Commissioner Zemel stated h appears when someone buys property they have a duty to check out all of the condftions of previous approvals and it is his !.inderstanding that ft was a condition that the area be landscaped at the time of the development. leg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated there is a minor correction. It showed up in the minutes of the meeting that it dkl come up as an issue that was agreed upon between the Commission, developer and the neighbors, howevor, it dki not become a condition of approval-it was a stipulation. Page 22 11/16/92 ~ -. ~~; ~ . `.d NSION OF TIME TO COMPLY ,r " .J V ~j^£1"T 4 ;: 1" a_, `~ S 3t Chatmran Henninger stated when this ryas approved they subjected k to the ~~~ "conditions and stipulations. ~.~ :. "~ ~' Mr., Hastings stated not necessargy, the condtions In the resoution did not indude ,, , iliat..: At the time the- decision was made, it was not recalled into the resolution. ~~ However, ft was mentioned in the meeting as a stipulation. ~.< fir : ~~.'. ., Chairman Henninger stated as he understands ff, condfuons are things that they are w , e e can also, when the want to let their vote, ~~'~ " allowed torequire of peopl ,but peopl Y £ ~:,,._ h'°- agree to something vdurdarAy and those are stipulations. He stated they do not r '."~ translate those promises into condtions, because they are not properly Condit ons, but they still expect people to fellow through. r ':~ ~ Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated they do expect people to fellow through, '1 ~ however, they do express them as conditions. She explained otherwise they tend to K ' fall through the cracks because there would be no mechanism in Planning for ta, .'"; checking that a stipulation had been complied wfth. k4, She stated ff the stipulation did not make it into a condition, ff the present owner (s ~,~ ~ ' trying to say somehow they are not obligated to perform something that the Commission is feeling was intended to be a condition of approval, that ft is open to ::` _,r; ° ' ` ':' the Planning Commission to set it up for a public hearing to add an addftional condition to conform the resoution to what the Commission's interpretation Is of the original intent that there be a condtion for the landscaping. Chairman Henninger stated when they say 'subject to conditions and stipulations' - those stipulations get translated into conditions of approval on a regular basis. Mr. Hastings stated that was about 6 years ago and the Commission is much more sophisticated now fn its way of giving iMorrnation to them for rb:.oiutions. Shey are - now trying to pick up more on these stipulations that are made ani: that is why it is a good kiss to itemize those stipulations from the Planning Commissioi, su mss" !~ aware of which ones should be applied. Commissioner Messe stated it was never his understanding that all of these stipulations were going to be expressed as condtions in the document, but they were stipulations by the developer and they would be accommodated In the development. Commissioner Bristd asked ff Mr. 7rider feels he must accomplish this and Mr. Hastings irxlicated he did not because at the time there was a different developer involved and he took over the project. Commissioner Peraza stated it is part of the original CUP and the developer should do h. Mr. Hastings stated staff feels the s;:ne way, however, they do give the applicant the opportunity to come before the Planning Commission-unfortunately, he did not show up today. ,~ - yyt :~' ~tify~~'~ 3 ~ r , +, ~ Commissioner Bristd asked about a bond? Page 23 11/16/92 ~4t ?+ ~p~ ~< ',, ~r~ ~ i ' vl' f'~ t~ ~' r ti ~.~ir~-"~ z r; "Mr Hastings explained that was an administrative option; they offered to allow him s~ to open his facility up rather than waiting to put the landscaping in. He stated one ' _`~"reason' is that there is a trap that will be going through there that will need to be :~: graded before the landscaping cottld go in, therefore, the project would be sitting unoccupied. Mr. Trader did not consider that to be a viable aftemative. He added the ~ ` dedfcatlon of the trap was the only requirement prior to occupancy and then it was bonded ' ,~ '~~ Chairman Henninger stated most of them feel ff there was a commitment made in the ''' ' public hearing, regardless of whether it got into a condition of approval, that ft is still ;,•i`''° =~ .~: ~. something that someone promised them and they should follow through. ,p ,~~` Ms. Mann stated ff the owner is somehow hanging their hat on the fact ttrat there Is Y ~ not a condition of approval, that there is a mechanism that is open to the Planning .;; ~ {~~::',~ " Commission, and ff the Commission wants a condition, they can place a condition. She further stated that they can also have the interpretation that Is being requested that the Planning Commission, by resolution, determine that the landscaping requirement was part of the stipulation of the approval, that, that is the Planning Cornmission's interpretation of what the requirement was. The Commission can point out to the owner ff the request is for a corxlition, the only thing that is required for that is to go ahead and have a public hearing and the same thing can be accomplished by adding another condition of approval. - Chairman Henninger asked staff ff there was a design in place for the landscaped area? ~' ~ Mr. Hastings stated no there is not. There Is a portion of the property which is currently being landscaped or is landscaped around the perimeter of the building and a portion of a slope behind a retaining wall. This part of the property was never shown on the plan that was originally submitted to the Commission back in 1986. Chairman Henninger asked what standard they would use to create such a plan, i.e., how would they tell him to landscape ft? Mr. Hastings stated one of the requirements he would ask Commission to g(ve to staff to pass onto Mr. Trifler would be that he submit a landscape plan. He did not know - what they would be looking for other than that it be treated with normal landscape n•~aterfals-full coverage of h. They would also require irrigation. Commissioner Taft referenced Ms. Mann's statement and asked ff a safer move would be to add the condtoion formally and go through those procedures? Chairman Henninger stated ff they found that he needs to do this and ff he comes buck and refuses, then they could move to the next step. Commissioner Zemel agrees that it should be !andscaped. If they do what Chairman Henninger suggests, then does that help him fn a possible case later on to get out of it? Would they be better off doing ft right from the beginning? ~~~ Page 24 11/16/92 ~ 3• k'~.~~ r"~.r~rali - ;z au+rJ? ih .ar.~ 1 °~s ° ` ~-5.'?YFc~ `'' Y~ ~,~ t t ~K'°M.Y S~v ~!'r i ry'r ~, '~'` ~~,' y~ ~ N~{' .~.; t a., i.:x P~„~ yak ' 1 -,. • .: a ,. ,_ s ~~Chaimran Henninger stated they are dose to occupancy and staff is suggesting that x } they: require bonds before they wql release occupancy. ;~ `. . :,~ ,~ Mc,Hastinga explained they have leverage in that they are asking for occupancy and they would let the applicant know that they cannot issue the occupancy until such time there is a bond or the landscaping is in place. At that point he could come back and ask for a public hearing. ~;a; f;haimnan Henninger asked if the bonds really work? Natalie Lockman, Public Works-Engineering, stated bonds are generally good ~ " _ ~ security. it does take some time to default on the bond. They have had bonds in t th t i t h -r _' rs o ge a e necessary repa place for many years; the developers are still making t i;`: Y,,L. ` bond released. It affects their ability to boreow money and secure more projects. '~''~ '~'{t `' She added they have had fairly good success. a >'k~' ~ ~ She stated they have a bond from this development for the horse trail and they also ~~ ~~~: • have another form of security for deferment of some fees for this project. ~;t ~ '.`' 7'f Mr. Hastings stated for the record, the applicant has asked that the C'ommisslon `W' `` ' ~ ' conskfer waiving a block wail required between this property and the tennis courts - : to the north and they have Informed the applicant that would require a separate variance under a public hearing. Commissioner Masse offered Resolution No. PC92-138 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby require the developer to landscape the areas as described in paragraph 4a, page 1 of the staff report and paragraph 4b, page 2 of the staff report. On roll cal!, the foregoing resdution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ONE VACANT SEAT Commissioner Masse stated he would not bring up the bond Issua; that is something staff can offer. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 3:50p.m. to the regualriy scheduled Planning Commission meeting to be held on Wednesday, December 2, 1992 at 10:OOa.m. Ths Work Session sceduied for Monday, Novemer 23,1992 at 3:OOp.m. has been cancelled. :` .• Page 25 11/16/92