Minutes-PC 1993/12/01t^
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1993, AT 11:00 A.M.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE
TAIT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PERA7A
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tho proponents In applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
evidence. Addftlonai time will be granted upon request if, In the opinion of the Commission,
such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to
present their case unless addtional time is requested and the complexity of the matter
warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a
participant speaks, but rather by what is said.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed receNed by the Commission in each hearing.
Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will wfthhold questions until the public hes~ring is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ft, !n its opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection wfth 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 fterns
of interest which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items.
Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
AC120193.WP 12/1 /93
i
i
1a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 261 Previously Approved I Continued to
tb. SITE PLAN FOR'fRACT MAP N0. 13266 January 24, 1994
OWNER: THE BALDWIN CO., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale
Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION: Proaertv is aparoximaiely 6 4 acres located on the south
side of Serrano Avenue and aaoroximately 1100 feet west
of the centerline of Marblehead Drive (Tract No. 13266.
The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan ISP88-2).
Petitioner requests a revision to the previously approved site plan for Tract
Map No. 13266 within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88.2)
in order to construct 10 single-family residential structures ranging from
3,395 to 3,911 square feet (previously ranging from 4,141 to 5,657 square
feet).
Continued from the Octoaer 4, and November 15, 1993 Planning
Commission meetings.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNI:gG COMMISSION ACTION. NOT
TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS:
Scott Warner, 1027 S. Taylor Court. Mr. Warren expressed his concern that this
Item has been continued on several occasions and the homeowners have made
an effort to make these meetings; he requested that the meeting be continued
to the end of January.
PETITIONERS COMMENTS:
Ron Freeman, Senior Vice President, Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue,
Irvine, CA. He explained they have had some Internal turmoil with the
resignation of the President of their company in the Bast 2 weeks in addition to
preparing some graphics for presentation which they were unable to complete.
ACTION: Continued subject petition to the January 24, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting in order to allow the petitioner to further improve the proposed building
elevations and roof plans.
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Peraza absent)
L
12-1-93
Page 2
E
'~
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3545 Readvertised Approved for 1 year
(to expire 9-21-94)
OWNER: LEDERER-ANAHEIM LTD., 1990 Westwood Blvd., 3rd Floor,
Los Angeles, CA, Anaheim, CA 90025
AGENT: FARANO & KIEVIET 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately
14.7 acres located north and east of the northeast comer of
Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard.
Petitioner requests amendment or deletion of a time limitation for a
previously-approved batting cage and auto stereo/alarm Installation facility.
Continued from the November 15, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-129
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT
TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Tom Kieviet, 2 ion S. St. College Blvd., Anaheim, CA, representing the applicant. He has read
the staff report and concurs with staff's recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Borrego, Senior Planner, explained they originally recommended 6 months, however, after
discussing the matter with the City Attorney, they wouid re:ommend either an addftional one
year eMension or removal of the condition altogether. Ac~:ording to Code Enforcement
records, there have not been any complaints received regarding the operation of either the
batting cage or auto stereo installation facility.
Commissioner Henninger stated he would like the condition worded so that they can have a
one year extension and then come back as a Report and Recommendation item rather then
another public hearing, unless there is a Code Enforcement problem.
12-1-93
Page 3 I
x.
u
m
~,
Ms. Mann stated ordinarily they have the period of time set forth and ft is set up to expire;
when they do that the burden then is on the applicant to come in and establish that the use is
.-. not posing any kind of a problem and they are entftled to continue. She explained when you
turn it around, and they have a right to continue, then the burden is on tf,s City, i.e., they have
a vested right to continue and the burden is much higher then in terms of what tha City has to
establish in order to terminate the use. It Is much more dffflcult. It is not an easy process
once someone has vested use.
Commissioner Henninger stated he was suggesting a condtion that would say that they wowd
have this use for one year wfth possibilftles of an extension granted through the Report and
Recommendation process unless there were Code Enforcement problems with ft and then It
would go to a Public Flearing.
Ms. Mann roncurred that they could do that and if they were consid^ring zn extension of time
beyond the original one year period, that it be set forth specffically in the decision made today,
so that ff ft is going to be extended for an addftlonal year, ft would be part of the condtlon.
Commissioner Henninger stated ft could be made a part of the condition, i.e., ft would be
extended one year wfth 4 yearly extensions ff they were warranted.
Ms. Mann stated then you would be issuing a 5 year conditional use permft wfth a yearly
fnspectlon?
Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarffication ff he wanted a yearly inspection or did he want
the CUP to be automatically extended each year provided there are no Code Enforcement
problems?
Commissioner Messe suggested they leave ft the way it Is with the one year extension. He
explained this use is still one that is changing. Commissioner Henninger agreed.
Mr. Kievlet stated their concern Is that they would have to come back year after year which Is
being proposed now. They have made the effort and have not had any Code Enforcement
problems wfthin the past year sinco new management has taken over.
He addressed the basketball court uses. He asked for an extension to the year 2001.
ACTION: Approved CEOA Negative Declaration (Previously approved)
Approved CUP 3644 with aone-year extension of time to expire on
September 21, 19^x4.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraa absent)
12-1-93
Page 4
,~
,~1•
Denied
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERM T N0.3844 I Denied
OWNER: CARL A. AND ANGELO ZABY, 444 West Katelia Ave.,
Anaheim, CA 92802
AGENT: CHUNG K. PYAN, 1800 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION: 1800 S. Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.44
acre located at the southeast comer of Katella Avenue and
Harbor Blvd.
To permft full service tow truck operations In conJunction wfth an existing
automobile service station.
Continued from the November 15, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93-130
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
Commissloner Taft declared a ConFlict of Interest and did not participate in tho discussion.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Applicant was not present at the hearing.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Borrego, Senior Planner, explained there was noway to process this application through
their Codes.
Mr. Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, suggested they deny the request based on the tact
that ft would be inappropriate to approve this conditional use permit as there are currently no
provisions in the Code to authorize the proposed use in the CR Zone.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Denied NegatNe Declaration
Denied Condftional Use Permft No. 3644 on the basis that tow truck operations are
prohibited within the CR Zone.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissloner Taft abstained and Commissioner Peraza absent)
12-1-93
Page 5
i
t
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to
4b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 12896 AND 12897 December 13, 1993
AND SITE PLAN
OWNER: PRESLEY CO. OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Attn: Richard
Sonne, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: DAVID A. BOYLE ENGINEERING, Attn: Joe Boyle, 2098
Grand Ave., #A, Santa Ana, CA 92705
LOCATION: Property i~ aooroximately 28.7 acres Located at the
northwest corner of Horizon View Drive and Sunset Ridae
Road.
Petftloner requests approval of one 13 lot (including 4 lettered lots) 240-
unft condominium subdivision and one 8 lot (including 4 lettered lots) ifi8-
unit condominium subdivision and final site plan in order to establish a
408-unft condominium subdivision within Development Area 7 of The
Highlands at Anaheim Hills SpecNic Plan (SP87-1).
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS:
Kevin Oura, 1012 S. Laughing Brook Court. He is from Lot 137; he submitted some pictures;
his lot is adjacent to the street intersection of Highland and Sunset Ridge and his lot Is across
the street from the proposed condominium site; he was concerned about the 3-story
condominiums and that his privacy would be severely reduced. He did not think the proposed
trees would provide the privacy he deeded. He asked who would maintain the trees?
He suggested Instead of using trees, would ft be possible to further setback the buildings from
the street or reduce the graded pad height or a combination of the two? Would the builder
consider 2-story structures and reduce the proposed densfty? He Is looking for some type of
compromise.
He voiced his concerns about the front portion of the lot. Just outside of the cul-de-sac area
they are proposing a wrought Iron fence; the wrought Iron would not provide enough privacy
from the street that will ba just outside that area that would be the entrance/gate to the
condominium complex.
Presley told him when he first purchased his lot, that it would not be wrought iron, but a block
wall.
12-1.93
Page 6
ACTION: Continued subJect request to the December 13, 1993 Plarndng Commission meeting.
VOTE: 5.0 (Commissioner Taft abstained and Commissioner Peraza absent)
+.~..
.x
L.
5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approvrxi
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Appro~ ed
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3647 Granted
OWNER: EAST ANAHEIM HILLS BUSINESS PARK, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, C/0 LUNNEN DEVELOPMENT,
30220 Rancho Viejo Rd., # A, San Juan Capistrano, CA
92675
AGENT: DAVID SHEEGOG, 735 S. Ruby, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 191 S. Old Springs Road. Property is approximately 1.42
acres located at the northwest corner of Monte Vista Road
and Old Springs Road.
To permk a child day care facilihj and private elementary school wkh
waiver of minimum setback from interior lot line, permkted encroachment
Into required yard areas and minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93-131
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1
PETITIONER:
David Sheegog, 735 S. Ruby Lane, Anaheim. He is tho archkect of the project and represents
Town and Country Preschools. They are proposing the construction of an approximately
10,000 square foot day care, preschool and elementary school facility to be located at Monte
Vista and Old Springs Road.
The Town and Country Preschool is operating an existing facility of approximately the same
size at the corner of Serrano and Nohi Ranch Road. They are moving Into the new facility in
an effort to upgrade their operations.
OPPOSITION:
Charles Ermes, Council for Mr. and Mrs. Daryl Kraft who own the property at 181 S. Old
Springs Road. His office Is also located at that same address. The Kraft's own the property
north of where the 1.42 acres are skuated.
They are concerned about the entrance and exk. It appears to be on Old Springs Road which
will be Just south of the property line abutting his client's land and office building and that of
the day care center and elementary school. Old Springs Road has a divider that runs south
from Monte Vista at the intersection so that k becomes one-way. He visualizes that k would
be somewhat dkflcult for the flaw of traffic in and out of the school ske. Their is concern
about truck traffic using Old Spring's Road servicing the various office buildings.
12-1-93
Page 8
Hls biggest concerns are heavy volume of traffic; lots of noise resulting from traffic; and
structures are too dense for the size of the lot.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Sheegog stated ali of the concerns were valid. They have addressed them as much as
they can with their tum-around areas so that cars can Ingress/egress as efficiently as possible.
He explained there is a median break in Old Springs Road so ;t is not one-way traffic in that
one airea, fherefore, cars can come out and make left-turns having the facility.
The building directly to the north is a solid concrete wall wfth no windows, therefore, their
building will not be observing the play field or receiving as much noise Impact as if there were
windows along that property line.
Mr. Ermes expressed his concerns once again about the heavy traffic, tho risks of accidents
and the trucks coming and gcing.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Discussion cock place regarding the median break on Gid Springs Road; no. of students;
circulation on the site; parking and sign-in and sign-out of children.
Grace Blanchard, owner, 120 EI Dorado Lane, Anaheim, CA. She explained school starts at
8:30a.m. and that Is why they have the drop zone. For the rest of the day they are dismissed
at staggered times. She elaborated. She added they have never had a problem with pick up.
The parents must park in the parking lot-come in and sign the pre-schoolers out. The drop
zone Is strictly to facilitate traffic between B:OOa.m. and fi:30a.m.
Commissioner Mosse asked ff they would sign the area that would state "No Parking for Pick
Up?" Ms. Blanchard indicated thoy would.
Mr. Sheegog explained the parking Code is based on schools which have potential drivers In
high schools. The Code does not specifically address elementary and pre-schools where
none of the students drive.
Commissioner Mayer asked if there was a reason why they could not extend the parking lot to
the west and pick up a few more spaces?
Mr. Sheegog explained they could, however, they would like to accommodate a play field.
The existing facility does not have a grass play field.
Commissioner Mayer stated she would feel more comfortable H the two spaces that are in the
center of the circular space be moved to the west end of the parking lot and put in a planter
with a tree.
Mr. Sheegog stated the radius is at 37 feat and is much larger then would be required for a
car so as to accommodate a trash truck. He elaborated.
12-1.93
Page 9
~.
i
~,
Commissioner release stated the thing that bothers him are the conflicts in and around the
landscaped circle. He suggested some redesign.
Aifred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they do not want to encourage too ~ ~kfe of a
driveway. He explained 24 feet Is adequate. With a curb return radius of 10 feet, ft gives an
addftional ten feet on each side which would be a total cf 44 feet at the street. The only traffic
they have is during the a.m. because parents are dropping off the children:.He explained their
standard allows up to 30 feet and they could work with them on that.
Commissioner Boydstun concurred with Commissioner Mayer and stated ff they move 2 ~
parking spaces to the west then they could put a tree or something there so people could
make the loop and ft would not be so crowded and you would have a wider space. It should
ba one-way traffic coming In to go around so that you do not have people going in every
direction in that congested area.
Mr. Sheegog stated that could be easily accomplished. He expressed his concerns about
double parking. I
Mr. Yalda stated they could work out the design so they could adequately address these
concerns.
Commissioner Caldwell voiced his opinion on having two-way traffic.
Discussion took place regarding the enrollment numbers versus parking spaces.
ACTION: Approved CEQA NegatNe Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3647 with the following changes:
Changed Condftion No. 1 to read as foliows:
1. That any existing trees which are removed shali be replaced on a 2 to t basis
wfth minimum 24-Inch box trees.
Changed Condftion No. 2 to read as follows:
2. That a wrought iron fence (wfth stucco pilasters) shall be constructed in Ileu of
the chain Ilnk fencing proposed adJacent to Monte Vista Avenue and Old Springs
Road.
a`."~,.
12-1-93
Page 10
Added the following conditions:
That plans shall be amended showing a revised crculation systom allowing a two (2)
car wide drive-aisle at the drop-off zone, removing the two (2) parking spaces curcently
located in the drop-off zone planter and relocating them to the west end of the parking
bay. Said plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager.
That a sign shall be posted at the drop-off zone which prohibRs parking for the pick-up
of students.
That the pick-up of students shall be staggered throughout the day to prevent a parking
and circulation problem.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraza absent)
,,~F
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3648 ~ Granted
OWNER: THEODORE TODOROFF, 929 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92605
AGENT: JAMES M. SHOEMAKER, 2400 E. Katella Ave., 7th floor,
Anahelm, CA 92606
LOCATION: 908 N. Anahelm Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.24
acres located at the northwest corner of La Veme Street and
Anahelm Boulevard.
To permk an automotive fire sales and installation facilky wkh waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93-132
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Ted Todoroff. He resides at 929 N. Anahelm Blvd., Anaheim, CA where he runs his
business, Sun MufFler, at 909 N. Anaheim Blvd. They would like to put in a Wheels For Less,
Tires and Rims. It was a motorcycle . shop to begin w..' end prior to that it was a boat store
and lastly it was a market. It has been vacant for 14 months because of the widening of
Anaheim Blvd.
Commissioner Caldwoll asked to see a landscape plan.
Mr. Hastings stated the landscape plan does not meet the existing Code; k has been
grandfathered ln, however, the Commission can request, under the condkions of approval,
that k comply wkh the existing Code. It would require landscaped islands on the interior of
file parking lot as well as perimeter landscaping around most of the perimeter.
Jim Shoemaker, 2400 E. Katella, 7th Floor. He is with CB Commercial. The plans do show
a landscaped sotback. This was discussed during the IDC meeting. If Commissioner
Caldwell would like to see a landscaped plan for that area, then that could be provided as a
condition for the permk.
Commissioner 8oydstun asked that the {andscaped area be fully ircigated. Mr. Shoemaker
agreed.
12-1-93
Page 12
~~
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A discussion took place regarding the signage-specifically the pole sign.
Johnathan Bortego, Senior Planner, stated for clarification this property is located in the CG zone
and as a result there are no setback requirements, therefore, as far as meeting the Landscape
Code, the only Code required within the CG zone would be for the parking lot and that would be
covered by the provision of the 5-foot landscaped strip. He elaborated.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Deciaratlon
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use PermR No. 3648 with the following added conditions:
That a detailed landscape plan showing a fully irrigated 5-foot wide landscape area shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
That the parking lot shall be ro-striped before operation of the business.
That the business shall be Iimfted to the sale and installation of tires and rims purchased on
the property only.
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Peraza absent)
12-1-93
Page 13
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3646 Granted
OWNER: BRUCE N. PERTILLO and KAREN W. PERTILLO, 4206 East
La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: H. RHOADS MARTIN JR., P.O. BOX 15005, Santa Ana, CA
92705
LOCATION: 4206 E. La Palma Ave. Property Is approximately 4.33 acres
located at the southeast comer of La Palma Avenue and
Richfield Road.
To permk an industrially-related office use (accounting and related
professional offices) In the ML (Limked Industrial) Zone.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93-133
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Rhoades Martin, appearing on behalf of the owners of the property, Bruce and Karen Pertillo,
4206 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim. His address is 1495 E. Wamer Avenue, Santa Ana, CA. He
reviewed the staff report. They are in agreement wkh the staff report, however, he was
somewhat confused on kerns 2 and 3. This is an already existing building with nn interior
modfflcations proposed and there are no plans to modify the building further. He suggested
that they be deleted from the condkfons of the CUP.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the reason for the condkion is that there was a floor
plan submkted along wkh the application. The applicant would need to adhere to the floor
plan. If there are not any changes proposed then there will ~~ot be any problems, however,
they would not want to strike that condkion. If they wanted to come in at a later date and add
additional office area in Ileu of some of the existing warehouse area, they would need to take
a look at that.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was determined that ali condkions are to be leff in place.
ACTION: Approved NegatNe Declaration
Granted Condkional Use Pernik No. 3646
VOTE: 6-0 (Gommissioner Poraza absent)
12-1-93
Page 14 ,I
6a. ^O^A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
8b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.93-9404 Granted
Unconditionally
OWNER: HARVEY S. OWEN and NORMA M. OWEN, 6021 Ninth Street,
Buena Park, CA 90621
AGENT: FEDERICO and MARIA AGUILAR, 2034 S. Wood Street, Santa
Ana CA 92704
LOCATION: 1732.Oa S Euclid Street. Property Is approximately 0.55
acres located on the east side of Euclid Street and
approximately 300 feet north of the centerline of Katelia
Avenue. II
To reclassify subject property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zone to CL
(Commercial, Limfted) Zone.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC93-134
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Larry Know (phonetically spelled) 507 East First Street, Sufte D, Tustin, CA. He is the attorney
for the applicants, the owners of the restaurant.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Granted Reclassffication No. 93-94-04
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraza absent)
~d~
12-1-93
Page 15
9. REPORYS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO TIME EXTENSIONS. Directed staff to
ABANDONMENT OF ZONING APPROVALS AND BUILDING PERMIT draft an ordinance
EXPIRATIONS pertaining to time
extensions,
abandonment of
zoning approvals
and building permit
expirations.
Vote: 42
(Commissioners Tait
and Henninger No
and Commissioner
Peraza absent)
DISCUSSION:
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained they would go back to the past 3 or 4 years to
pick up all of the various zoning actions that have been approved to notify both the owners and the
agents to let them know that a new ordinance that has been adopted and what h was about. There
are 3 parts to this; one has to do with time eMensions; one has to do with abandoned entitlements
and the third one has to do with building permit expirations.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff there was some reason that they were going to change the
requirements?
Mr. Hastings explained at this time there was no limitation on the number of time extensions nor
the fact that someone could come in and ask for retroactive extensions.
Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification if that had created a problem?
Mr. Hastings explained they do have a lot of existing entitlements on the books that at least one
City Council person is concerned about.
He further explained that the City Ceuncii directed them to take a look at ways to limit the
entitlements.
Commissioner Henninger asked about building permits. He thought there might he some projects
that would be longer than one year; he did not see anything that provides for a building permit
lasting longer than one year.
Julie King, Building Division Manager, explained this would specifically kick in for projects for which
there has been no progress made.
Commissioner Messe asked Greg Hastings to explain the changes that were discussed in the
morning session.
12-1.93
Page 16
~r.iru^e
Mr. Hastings stated ff there are Code violations that have been documented, they could put into the
ordinance that the property owner would have to pay for an inspection prior to them coming to the
Commission for a time extension.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification ff there would be a 4 year time period for which
entitlements would be good for as long as they were renewed every year.
Mr. Hastings explained that would include 3 time extensions. one of which (the middle one) would
require a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator just in case there have been some Issues
that the neighbors need to bring to the City's attenticn. They would develop a system such as a
tickler file in order to send out notices, and they would have 30 days following their expiration to
come in.
Commissioner Henninger stated he was uncomfortable with the overall Iimftations on the extensions
on these entitlements. In some cases they are very expensive to get such as Disney. What ff they
cannot go forward due to the economy?
Mr. Hastings explained there would be exceptions for projects that have Deveioprt~ant Agreements.
If a project does not have a Development Agreement you can allow them to have more than one
year initially to comply wfth their conditions. This will be handled as each case is brought forward.
Commissioner Henninger stated these entitlements are expensive to obtain. It appears that we
have not been operating our existing procedure. We routinely grant eMensions. He wondered if
t;~e problem was the Code or failure to exercise our existing procedures?
He asked ff staff is no longer comfortable wfth the entftlement or is the problem that the existing
properties are deteriorating and we are trying to figure out a way to ancourage them and we hope
this will encourage them?
Mr. Hastings stated he thought ft was both of those issues. They would like, to see a public hearing
that would bring in any new information that may be out there for projects that have been around
for a couple of years. A good example was the SRO project on South Anaheim Blvd. There was
some addftlonal information brought up by Code Enforcement that probahly would change the
project. The project also has been in disrepair wfth the Idea that h would become an SRO
someday. If the entftlement goes away then they do not have an excuse anymore to let the
property deteriorate.
Commissioner's Henninger and Taft felt that we may be taking a step backwards by removing some
of these enti0ements.
Commissioner Caldwell reminded the Commission that they are directing staff to draft a Code
Amendment for the Commission to look at. They do not want to hurt anyone.
12-1-93
Page 17
~~
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3096 -REQUEST FOR AONE-YEAR Continued to
RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS January 10, 1994
OF APPROVAL: Roger J. Work requests aone-year retroactive extension
of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditlonai Use Permit
No. 3096 (to permft a 3•story, 43-unit `affordable` senior citizen apartment
complex) to expire November 21, 1994. Property is located 3601 W. Ball
Road.
C. REQUEST TO INITIATE ENTITLEMENTS -Redevelopment staff requ?sts I Directed Community
the Planning Commission to direct Community Development Department Development staff to
staff to Initiate entftlements (consisting of a reclasslflcatlon, conditional use Iri"!ate all necessary
i permit, variance and tentative tract map) on 13 parcels not yet owned by entitlements for the
the Redevelopment Agency in order for the City to consider a residential City to consider the
development on Area 5 of the Redevelopment Pro)ect Area Alpha. The proposed Area 5
area is bounded by Lincoln Avenue to the north, Broadway to the south, project
East Street to the east and the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad
right of way to the west.
ADJOURNED AT 3:25 P.M TO THE DECEMBER 13, 1993 MORNING SESSION AT 10:00 A.M. FOR
A PRESENTATION BY THE COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY AND THE COUNTY HEALTH
DARE AGENCY PERTAINING TO HEALTH CARE FACILITY PROGRAMS.
v~
12-1-93
Page 18
i
~I