Loading...
Minutes-PC 1995/04/17d SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA `~% REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 1995 11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY). COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CALDWELL AND MAYER PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to presets their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion cf the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's conskferation. 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 said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents 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 items of interest which are wfthin the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. ac041795.WP 04/17/95 Page 1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 1995 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. BODE AMENDMENT NO 85.04 PERTAINING TO Continued to MQBILEHOME PARKS AND DISPLACED MOBILEHOME 5-15'95 QWNER: Requested by City Attorney's Office, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, P,naheim 92805. To delete and amend code sections pertaining to mobtlehome parks, defining displaced mobilehome owners and amending wording pertaining to relocation benefits. Continued from the February 22, March 6, and Apol 3, 1995 Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, explained this matter was continued at the Planning Commission's request in order to have time to review it and to review a sample ordinance that was prepared for a mobilehome owner's group to see ff there were options that might be applicable to Anaheim's ordinance. Vicki Talley, representing owners of Anaheim mobilehome parks as Executive Director of the :~ Manufactured Housing Educational Trust, stated she has been before the Commission commenting on the proposed amendments; however, ft has so long now she wanted to restate their objections. The first abjsction is to the definition of a'misplaced mobilehome owner' and they notice there has not been any modification to the wording. Their concern is that the definition is that anyone living in a mobilehome park at the time of the notification would be considered a displaced mobilehome owner. The reason for that definition is that later on in the ordinance, there are benefits that would be given to a misplaced mobilehome owner. Certain people living in the park at the time of the notice should not receive those benefits. Those would be the people who default on rent, people who have defaulted on their mortgage and in that case many of those people abandon their coaches. She stated they had previously asked that staff consider inserting verbiage in the proposed amendment that would acknowledge that those people who were not current with the rent and residents in good standing sho~~ld not receive relocation benefits. They still hope that the Commission would incl~,sde that ff tl,ls amendment is adopted. Commissioner Messe stated there are alternative ways to take care of that problem and the owner has a recourse through the courts ff a person had defaulted on the rents. Ms. Talley stated recently it took well over a year for a park to close, and according to this definition, someone living in the park when that notice was given would be considered 04/1%/95 Page 2 April 17, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA displaced owners. Many people failed to pay their rent and had been evicted and she thought based on this definition, some people would say they lived in that park and was a reskleM on the date of the notification and, there dOr~nhtould gheirhmo Bagel and abandonrs the home, they think that is appropriate. • If a perso paY should not be entitled to relocation benefits, as well. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff Ms. Talley is referring to people who were in arrears when the notice was gNen and i~ the process of being evicted when the notice was given. Ms. Talley responded ft doesn't matter either way. Commissioner Messe stated the owner has another recourse to collect the rent and that should not be a part of this ordinance. Ms. Talley responded the recourse is 'eviction" and that costs several thousand dollars and she felt they should not be defined as a'displaced owner' if they have been evicted. She added the Issue is the payment of the benefit to a reskient that is in good standing and it is not to collect the rent. She explained when a person is evicted, they do not pay the rent. Ms. Talley stated another issue they have with the amendments is in terms of the relocation bonus from the park they are moving to. She stated a pari. owner will pay them to move Into their park and this amendment is proposing that the amount paid would be offset from the relocation cost, but ~: does it in a different way than the rest of the ordinance. The rest of the ordinance talks about average relocation costs to move to an average mobilehome out of the park and into a comparable mobilehome park. This would be putting in a different definition and subtracting the amount paid by the park they move to, not from the average costs, but from the"actual' costs and also the amount paid cannot be included in determining the avments relocation costs. She stated using the resident's examples, all the residents received pay from the park they were moving to and they object to that in this amendment. She stated the 'average costs' should be considered and not the 'actual costs'. She also stated in five years that provision in the ordinance may not be relevant because the parks may not be paying relocation bonuses. Commissioner Messe noted some of the benefds are actually reductions in rent for the mobilehome owner moving into the park. Commissioner Peraza stated he would agree that the tenant not in good standing and not paying the rent should not receive the benefRS. He asked if there is some way that could be Included in the amendment. Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission has seen how the loop holes In the existing ordinance were really used against the interest of the mobilehome owners and that he is shy about putting loop holes in the ordinance which may be used in ways not envisioned today. He thought the residents in the recent park closure got severely burned because of some of 04/17/95 Page 3 ANAHEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprU 17, 199.`' the loop holes in the City's ordinance and that wasn't right. (Ms. Talley objected to that statement and he added that Ms. Talley is well on the record not agreeing with that statement.) Chairwoman Boydstun stated maybe something should be induded that,ff.they.were.ln_default and the eviction proceedings had been started before the notification was given, then they would be excluded from the relocation benefits. Selma Mann suggested that possibly both Issues cou'er~ `esoiv~ ~ Beo~~un er~ sion that any relocation benefits may be offset against unpa.d Commissioner Messe both agreed that would be a better solution.) whenmheiperson wouldsbe foedoue a o had abandonedetheucoach, leaving eopark nces owner with the responsibility. Commissioner Henninger referred to people in the park that was recently dosed and who for many reasons could not afford to move and it made sense to keep the park rent current and not make their mortgage payments. He added the ordinance just addresses relocation and does not address the issue of people who could not relocate and were totally wiped out financially. He felt that whole issue needs to be carefully reviewed to cure it, rather than trying to punish those people more by adjustments to this ordinance. Chairwoman Messe stated it has to be based on the rent owed to the park owner and it has ~' nothing to do with the mortgage on the coach. Chairwoman Boydstun stated maybe they should be exempt from the benefits ff they had received an eviction notice before getting the notice of park dosure. She stated ff they are in foreclosure, they should not be able to come back and claim the benefit. Commissioner Henninger stated ff they were in the process of foredosure on that date, they should be excluded, but the people who were forced out because of the dosure should not be exduded. Selma Mann asked ff the Commission is interested in some sort of offset in the unpakl mortgage and the response was 'no' from several Commissioners. Commissioner Henninger stated ff the owner had a recorded notice of default on that date, then they would not be considered a displaced owner. Ms. Talley suggested adding a sentence that this benefd does not apply to any person who is not current in the payment of rent or anyone who has abandoned their coach or been evicted from the park. Chairwoman Boydstun stated regarding Section .0402 that there should be a 'not to exceed" 04/17/95 Page 4 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Aprif 17, 1995 number of days and Commissioners Messe and Peraza felt ft should be no more than 10 days. Commissioner Henninger referred to moving and storage of fumfture and personal belongings separately from the.coach,-wanting to be sure that is induded. ra ra h on page A12-13 which says what the Commissioner Messe stated there is a good pa 9 P relocation costs shall consist of and he thought that paragraph, except the last part, covers almost everything that has been discussed and that the "not to exceed 10 days" could be added. He darffied that he would also like to see the telephone, electrical and utiifties services and fees to be included. Commissioner Henninger stated the landscape and site Improvements should be compensated for the greater of average improvement that is being abandoned at the existing park or the average of the newly required improvements (whichever is greater) and that includes landscaping and flatwork (hardscape) and ft addresses the average of the original park and the average of the new park and would be added to the relocation beneffts. Commissioner Henninger referred to the comment on relocation bonuses and stated he thought that ft should be offset against the average relocation benefits instead of actual costs and he thought the average relocation benefft should be subtracted from the average relocation costs. `~ Selma Mann stated on a case by case basis, if someone received a relocation benefit, (s the Commission discussing any type of benefft? (Commissioners Henninger and Messe answered ft should be a cash bonus.) Ms. Mann asked that this matter be continued for at least four weeks in order that the proposed Code Amendment can be redrafted. ACTION: The matter was continued to the meeting of May 15, 1995. 02/17/95 Page 5 ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprU 17, 1995 c_.: B. ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3262 -SUBSTANTIAL EA~ N REQUEST AND ONE Y Determined that ans are in ~ _ ^0"'FORMANCE DETERMINATIO EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITf~ CONDITIONS OF 883 S. Anaheim Botich ko E M i bstantial nex ~ , . ar p, A R V L -The Botich Partnersh Anaheim, CA 92804 requests substantial conformance Bivd tension ed approv of time to expire on ., determination of revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 3262 (to ter and acar-wash facAity wfth gasaine il Apol 23, 1996 cen permit a commercial reta sales with waNer of the required setback adjacent to a scenic expressway) and a one year extension of time to expire April 23, 1996. Property is located at the northwest comer of Monte Vista Road and Weir Canyon Road. Marko Botich, Architect, stated the owner recently purchased this property (3 months ago) and is requesting a modification to the site plan. He is interested in the car wash and wanted to Festival Shopping Center and the colors aril materials w I blenid in wfthlthe surropundfng arheathe Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the gourmet market could be redesignated to just a retail use because a new CUP would be needed for a gourmet market. Mr. Botich stated the owner would be prepared to come back in for a CUP and wants to go ahead wfth plans for the gourmet market. They are willing to change ft back to retail, however, until the market is ready. A I N: Commissioner Messe offered a Motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby: Determine that revised plans are in substantial conformance wfth previousiy- 04/17/95 Page 6 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17,1995 approved plans with the stipulation that the gourmet market use will be changed back to retail as originally approved; and 2. Approve an extension of time for-Conditional Use PemtR No. 3262 to expire on AprU 23, 1996. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO z~~3 -RETROACTIVE LIME Approved C. to expire 3-22-96) N I -Frank Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808 requests a retroactive time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 3623 (to permit a 94-bed convalescent facility) to expire on March 22, 1996. Property is located at 111 South Mohler Drive. Commissioner Henninger asked if an ordinance was recently adopted that changed time extensions and asked how long this would be extended. He added the discussion was to put in a mandatory sunset clause. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, explained that is a proposed ordinance currently being drafted by the City Attorney's Office, but is not in place as yet. She thought there was a 3-year _ Iimft, depending upon the size of the property. ` Commissioner Henninger stated he was comfortable with extending this now, but did not think it should go on forever. ACTION: Approved (to expire 3-22-96) D. FWAL PLAN REVIEW NO 95-02 REGIUEST FOR REVIEW OF ONE Approved final WALL MOUNTED SIGN WITHIN THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC site plans PLAN AREA (SP92-2) Acme Wiley Corp. 9357 Peron Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ATTN: Sue Modreger, Project Coordinator, requests final plan review for o~~ a wall mounted sign within the Acaha:m Resort Specific Plan Area (SP92-2). Property is located at 915 South Harbor Boulevard. 04/17/95 Page 7 ANAHEIM CITY PU4NNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 1995 ~i Determined ans to E. GONDITIONAr rtSE PERMIT NO 2167 -SUBSTANTIAL ~ in substan~tiai CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION REQUEST -Anderson and Associates, 4175 East La Palma Avenue, Suite 170, Anaheim, C.~ 92807, corrfom>ance with the landscaped requests substantial conformance determination to endow approximately 15000 square feet (currently used for parking underneath requirements an existing building) for data storage under Conditional Use Permit No. su99~~ by staff 2167 (to permit an industrial office complex in the ML, Umited Industrial (SC) zone). Property located at 5601 E. La Palma Avenue. ,. - Craig Anderson, 4175 E. La Palma, Sute 170, explained TRW Ready is relocating four of their offices to this facility. Some storage space is needed and that is the reason for the request. Commissioner Henninger noted the staff report suggests that landscaping consist of vines and Mr. Anderson answered he had worked with staff regarding the landscaping. Jonathan Borrego responded to Commissioner Messe that staff feels comfortable with the parking as proposed. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Caldwell aril Mayer absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heretay determine that subject plans are in substantial conformance with original approved plans with the following added condition: That additional landscaping including dinging vines shall be planted along the created blank building walls on the south elevation. VARIANCE 4251 SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE Determined plans to DETERMINATION REALEST - Greg Simonoff, 20101 Southwest 61rch be in substantial Street, Ste. 210, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests substantial conformance conformance determination for a previously approved wall sign u:rder Variance No. 4251 (waiver of shopping center identification sign and maximum number of wall signs). Property is located at 1095 Pullman Street. Craig Sminoff, representing K-Mart, stated they had their signage approved at the last meeting but that from a corporate viewpoint, having the word 'grocery' under the word 'Super' is a problem and they would like to relocate it. They are proposing relocating rt to the right of the sign so that it would be visible coming towards the store. It is at a height similar to the "AUTO SERVICE" AND "GARDEN' signs. 04/17/95 Page 8 -- ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 1995 `~i Jonathan Borrego stated staffs only conc9m with the proposed revision wasmthata r addft onal wall sign. was considered as one wall sign but by separating the words, now aPF~ roved. It was hoped they would keep that wfthin the errvelope wfth what was previously app Commissioner Messe stated the "grocery" part of the sign is similar to the other signs designating the other services of that store such as garden, auto service, etc. Commissioner Messe asked if this would be in conformance wfth Code for wall signs. Jonathan Borrego answered they are only permitted to have one wall sign In the Scenic Corridor on one elevation and that was previously waived. This does change that a ifttle. ACTION: Determined that the revised plans are in substantial conformance wfth previously approved plans. G. RE E T,ZOETI'RMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM Continued to GENERAL PI.A f f OR THE PROPOSED SALE OF COUNTY OWNED May 1, 1995 PROPERTY VVITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: Requested by County of Orange General Services Agency. Property is located at 1621 South Douglass Road. S 04%17/95 Page 9 April 17, 1995 ANANElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~, ~, ~EQ.A rATEGORICAL EXEMPTION- LA 21 Continued to 2b. VARIANCE N0.4018 (READVERTISED) May 1, 1995 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, Code Enforcement Division, 200 S. Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNER: JoRhn A e~ s~58 Plaza Squares # MOrange, CA Attn: 9266E LOCATION: 883 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.29 acres located at the southwest comer of Midway Manor and Anaheim Boulevard. Request to consider the termination or modification of Variance No. 4018 (to establish a commercial use in a residential structure) pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.03.091. Continued ftom the February 22, and Aprii 3, 1995 Planning Commission meetings. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. ------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Marko Botich, agent, stated they have worked diligently to resolve all the problems. At the present time the landscaping is all in. The trash door was painted and the parking I I t for fiinal building handicap parking space sign is up. They are at a point where they can app y inspection. The test on the gas line has not been done because the original lines were o1~9 and did not hold the 30 Ib. pressure and the plumber has to replace the entire line which they will be doing on Wednesday. There are two electrical fixtures and two ceiling fans that have to be rehung and that v+ill be done tomorrow. The parking lot has been restriped in accordance with the requirements for 10 spaces and 1 handicap space. The Fire Department has signed off on the fire sprinMers. The business license has been complied with. It was clarffied that the applicant would like a two-week continuance. Commissioner Messe felt a 4-week continuance would be more reasonable to allow adequate time to 04/17/95 Page 10 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Aprn 17,1995 complete everything. John Pole, Code EMorcemeM Manager, stated `9 though the Commission has gotten the applicant's attention and~some things have been done since.Code Enforcement was there this morning. He thought they could complete this in two weaks if they put as much effort into it as they have in the past two weeks. July King, Butlding Division Manager, concurred that the outstanding requirements could be done in two weeks. ~ti Commissioner Messe thougi~ There was one tree missing. signs were added today. ACTION: VOTE: (a) Make the necessary plumbing, mechanical, electrical and/or building corrections and obtain final building inspection. (b) Install a minimum of three (3) 15-gallon Melelucca trees within the street setback area as shown on the approval landscape plan dated March 19, 1990, on file in the Planning Department. (c) Obtain the Certffi~te of Occupancy to legally occupy the structure for commercial office use. Mr. Botich stated one tree and some more Continued subject request to the May 1, 1995, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the owner/permittee to: 5-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent) 04/17/95 Page 11 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprA 17, 1995 ~~ 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.298 (PREV. CERT.) Gra °~ 3b. AMENDMENT TO THE CYPRESS CANYON caFCrFtG PLAN (SP~~l Approved 3c. TENTATIVE"PARCEL MAP N0.94205 OWNER: Paz Road~te 2C0, Laguna Hills, CA 92653Malley, 25200 La LOCATION: Subject property which is described as the 697-acre Coal Canyon property, is generally bordered on the north by the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway and the Coal Canyon Road interchange, on the east by unincorporated territory within the County of Riverside and by the Cleveland National Forest, on the south by unincorporated territory wfthin the County of Orange in the City of Orange's sphere-of-influence, and on the west by the Mountain Park Speciflc Plan (SP90-4), and further described as the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan (SP90~). The petitioner requests an amen emtainingOtodconditions of approvalrin order Canyon Specific Plan (SP90-3)) p to process a tentative parcel map for conveyance purposes only. The petitioner also requests approval ess Canyon SpeciflMPlan (SP90-3)) in under Development Area 12 of the Cyp to create aone-lot parcel map for conveyance purposes only. SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION N0. _ PC95-42 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. PETITIONER'S COMM"~NT~: Mike Mohler, Coal Canyon Company, stated they have read the staff report and concur. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition Gordon Ruser, 1221 S. Sycamore, Sarnia Ana, representing Angeles Chapter of the Sierra ta'ub, provided copies of a letter addressed to Mr. Peraza, Chairman of the Planning Commission, indlcatir~g he was given misinformation that IJir. Peraza was the current Chairman and apologized. The latter is available in the Planning Department file. alternatives for developmentof that~pa~ ular area had belan'exploredi He added he is presentrtoc answer any questions. 04/1T/95 Page '12 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprU 17, 1995 (_~ Connie Spenger,1318 E Glern+ood, Fullerton, PreskieM of the Friends of the Tecate Cypress, stated they have read the staff report She stated the notice she received regarding this hearing referted to Development Arsa 12 which was confusing because she dkl not realize there had been another copy of the Speclflc Plan and thought Development Area 12 was located some other place and thought that should be checked because ft might be incortect. Ms. Sponger referted to the mitigations and stated they are mriflc Plan was ae roved rwith resuitar>t land sUdes that have occurted in Anaheim HUIs since the Spec PP lawsuits against .Anaheim and the City of Anaheim against fts own citizens. Thls Commission must reevaluate the advisabilly of buUd:ng on cut and fUls in this area The potential for land slkies in the Cypress Canyon property needs to be more thoroughly irnestigated as to potential slippage, underground water flow and inadequate soU compaction. She stated they urge additional study and more caution in approving development in Cypress Canyon. Aesthetic resources are completely becae benefit tostieCity of Anahelmfahe ml nmal and only begin after five yiears~if iasalLe ignored Mike Mohler slated the comments were discussed l~~ the underlying approval and not at the action aeforoe~ 9 the Specific PI~ naon this proje the ~Shisehas been adjudicatedcat great cost dor Court in PP Concerning the geology issue, he stated with tentative tract maps, he will have to produce canvincing geology. He stated they would urge approving this in accordance wfth staffs recommendation and they would come back in a couple of months with the final map that meets the conditions which staff '~_. has proposed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Comrnlssioner Henninger stated he thought the findings for thsr Specific Plan Amendment should be changed in this case, noting the findii;gs are listed in the basic form and he thought it might be the soPutioniof this gal issuesk pfe~red~to in thehstaff sport (Orange CountyoCaseuNo. 719011)ilitating Jonathan Borrego stated the City Attorney's ~~fflce has recommended and staff would concur to add condition which would read "that the Specific Pan Amendment roust be finalized prior to the final parcel map approved by the Cfry. Selma Marne stated the findings that are included in the staff report are required by Code and should be included with the additional finding as proposed. The Specific Plan Amendment does not permft ,any development or change of any of the sioindards wish regard to the Specific Plan that was previously approved and litigated. ACTION: Determined that the previously certified EIR 299 :s adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subJect request. Approved amendment to Specific Pian No. 90-3. Added the following finding: 04/17/95 Page 13 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA p`P~ 17~ ~~ \.J That the cunBnt activity is for the purpose of facilitating the resolution of legal issues referenced in the staff report (Orange County Case No. 719011). Approved TentatNe Parcel Map No. 94-205 with the following added condifion: That the amendment to Specific Plan No. 90,9 must be finalized Prior to final parcel map approval. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, explained this matter will be considered by the City Council automatically. 04/17/95 Page 14 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Apra 17,1995 48. ~EOA GATEGORIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 193f3. 2751 AND VARIANCE N . 70i INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim Planning Commission, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNER: PRAHALAD BHAKTA, 420 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 420 So~~h Beach a^~~'°•'°"' !c!"bv Inn Motell. Property is approximately 0.76 acre located on the east skfe of Beach Boulevard and approxlmately 530 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. City initiated request to consider the termination or modfflcation of Variance No. 761 (to erect an 18-unit motel), Condtional Use Permit N . ~, 1936 (to expand an existing motel from 18 to 27 units with waiver of maximum structural height), and Conditional Use Permit No. 2751 (to construct an 18-unit addition to an existing 27-unit motel) purs:~ant to Code Section 18.03.091 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ~. _ RESOLUTION NO. PC95-43 ---------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING (30MMISSION ACTION. No action Modified CUP's 1936 & 2751 and VAR 761 OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke/22 people Present/p^tition with 420 signatures was submitted PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: PRAFIALAD BHAICTA, Agent, 14977 Roxford, Silmar, stated the owners of this property are finally getting full contrd of the property and all the violations by the previous owners and management company are being fbced. He stated they had problems with the Pdice Department but that has been taken care of. Commissioner Messe asked ff they have read the condftions associated with the staff report. Mr. Bhakta responded he had previously read the staff report. All the maintenance has been taken care of or is still going on and they have been there for one month. Phyllis Greenberg, homeowner in W?st Anaheim, representing the Beach Boulevard Concerned 04/17/95 Page 15 ANAHEIM CITY PUWNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprU 17,1995 .~ Citizens, a group of homeowners, resdents and business representatives determined to regain contrd of their neighborhood because they do not feel safe in their homes. She stated she is teaming things by the minute and has looked at the staff report, but did not have it when she prepared the text for her presentation. She continued, today thA Commission wUl consider the termination or modtflcation of the conditional use permit on the Ruby Inn owned by Mr. Bhakta. Code Enforcement has provided a list of ftequent and chronic violations, and in addition there have been 484 calls for police service to the property resulting In 170 arrests since January 1, 1993. The businesses and residents have felt the effects of increased illegal activity supported by the Ruby Inn Motel. Adult men have loitered in ftont of this motel. They have used bicydes to ftequent alleys in back of the homes on Orange and ride up and down the boulevard in a casual sort of way. In an adjacent commercial retail center, the Playa Plaza, customers going to the comrenience market have around in this parking lot and thesjoh~dns~use the centeaas a drive-tthrough four pick ups es hanging They have invaded their community. Inspection of Pdice records would show an increase in house burglaries in the last two years in the surrounding neighborhoods. Cars wfth prostftutes have been seen parked on the streets in the area in the early morning hours and condoms have been found by children walking to school. She continued, you could ask why blame the Ruby Inn? To law-abiding citizens, it has been obvious that this motel has housed some very undesirable patrons. They no longer see the Bermuda short warhome friom sahooi observed a womanurunning between rooms inoa s ilrt iand underwear) on the Y similar motels. It d des honest citizens away and allows the deterioration of the neigVhbo hood~ry ~ schools and businesses. last year a donut shop was bought after it had remained empty for six months. The owner ran a in the streets around his store!dHerstated he had come to ourcountry looking for the Americanering dream. She stated she has vowed to stand up for her right to live in a healthy enviranment. For many years the west side of Anaheim has lived successfully side by side with the tourist trade. The residential area czrries forth the pride they feel in their neighborhood. The Commission has been entrusted with the public's welfare and they hope that the Commission will terminate the conditional use permit on this property. The public trust has been broken by the owners and proprietors of the Ruby Inn. A minor fine would be an unsuitable penalty. If the Commission decided to modify the CUP with modffications, they must assure the residents that sufficient Code 04/17/95 Page 16 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 199,5 Enforcement personnel will be assigned to provide for regular and fteq~ug ~~ Ube t e~rated in~tghis~ the Commission decision must be that whore houses' and 'drug pal City -not on the east side of the CnY~ not near D~isne end de~quna a mon oring by Code Enfor ement Commission's decision must•be backed by a ill 9 will be provided. This corridor of decadence must be returned back to the City of decency. In today's econo on•with 4 Ocsiignaturesgatheired to show the high level of concemtthey have about presented a petit trons. A few are here today as the recent behavior of the owner of the Ruby Inn and his pa representatives of nhei f ee9 om crime and deteriorationv The~terminationoof this conditionalgusenpermit keep their commu fry will send a strong message to the motel owner and others that (Regal behavior will not be tderat She asked those present from the neighborhood to stand. Tfm Ewing, 3154 W. Vallejo, the area across ftom Western High Scholl, stated he is a homeowner, a father of youngWnh he aoblems and challenges the ope for of a business will havebtrying to make he can klentify P money in today's economy. But as a resident he sees the responsibility to the community and in h s business he has a r~spe esi~iei haza~dousiwaste and he works with whazardous~chemigisiand ff hee services vehicles tha g dumped those ind lose his II ense to operate o~ added he see little difference infdumping severely fined a hazardous chemicals and automotNe waste into a local neighborhood and in dumping Hof activity s, prostitutes and people with criminal records into the same neighborhoods. Both typ cause damage to thh~ue ~ Rubyilnnhcould be annasset9ot he community in which heilives,~buti~e. He stated he would p appears from hislice Deer rtmentand aCode Enforceiment.r Hie felt the operat rs of the Ruby Innr have residents, the Po Pa violated the standards~of g~oohd Commission to use the power given to them fortheir benefit and felts part of Anaheim. He g the revocation of any operating permits for this property this would be best served by Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, President of the Board of Trustees of the Magnolia School District. She stated he hi dreln living in tDhe~motels on Beach Bo IevardchiThey applied fo avHealthya few concerns about Start Grant and had a citizens meeting for the community ti ~° fo°this gran aofflcials considertthe h s grant. According to some information they received in app yl 9 Beach Boulevard sty h hi her arrest rates forsdntg-rrelated trafficking. Child nleg~ect and abuseil casesn 'red light districts 9 in this area are twice the County's average rates. Their schools go from Katella on Beach up to above Lincoln on Beach and they have 500 children living in these motelct becauseithese hildren do move often. Theseichildren ome into the district and chiid~en in the distri their classrooms are full and r:~any times these children are bused to other schools and this affects 04/17/95 Page 17 ANAHEIfLi CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprU 17,1995 ~,~~ their schools and not just those schools which take in the children ftom Beach Boulevard. They are concerned about children ftom~the minute they leaveohdoma ur~itu they arrive at schoyol and thec k for the safety _ home again. - According to the District Resource Teachers who work with famfliesa ahav~e ffr~y wan oc ydren with problems in school, some of these chidren are being stopped drugs. They fi anoher~2 families living in the same room.one room and in one case, 1 adult and 7 children, and Because of her concerns, she has asked for a meeting wfth the Code Enforcement Officers to meet with two principals from two Anaheim schools and the two District Resource teachers and two superintendents to discuss their problems that relate to the children living in these motels. They estimate there are probably 85,000 people west of Euclid and there are only two Code Enforcement Officers. There rtmentst motels and mobilehomes and she did not think two uCod Enforcehmento~e are living in apa Officers could check on these motels as often as they should. She stated her concern is that the children 9re goingen to nCodes being enfo csed and they will~be eir district will be watching to see what is goin to happ working actively with this. Chairwnmathis isdatnew owniereand it is hoped that wetcanamake some improvements ut ththere been 1'" resold and Mr. Bhakta stated he would like to invite the people from the surrounding area to come and visft to see that it is being kept clean and they are bringing in the right people. Leonard Latimer, 2731 W. Savoy, statedeClia~e bein hre~mifnded thatBthis is aonew ownerouHeustated in received the staff report today and app 9 the opening remarks the agent was asked to respond to the conditions which are being suggested by variousik itYo ~~ his response to each onenk He n ted those conditions start o Page 7a~ they would I Chairwoman Boydstun stated it was Commission's understanding that the neighbors had been meeting with the new owner and that he has been agreeable to these conditions and is working on them. John Poole, COdSe conditionsnand thag he will outline th mbfor the Commisshoneaterv owner and he is agreeable to t THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Poole stated staff has prepared a comprehensive staff report regarding this matter and that he will 04/17/95 Page 18 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 1995 present a brief overview. He stated as the Commission and the people who have spoken today are well aware, the City is very concerned about Beach Boulevani and the Ruby Inn is the worst motel in the area. ~He.explained he asked for a copy of the Police Department statistics for all the motels located along Beach Boulevard and ftom January 1, 1993, to September 1, 1994, the Ruby Inn has had more calls for services in this area with 508 calls for services requested and 129 crimes that actually occurred at that property. He continued Code Enforcement will be reviewing other motels in that area. The Ruby Inn is the first being brought to the Commission. Staff agrees that an inordinate amount of City services, including Police and Code Enforcement, are being spent in thls area and that there are also health and safety concerns in this area. They attempted to work with the previous owners of this property and suggested ways to curb the illegal drug activities and prostitution and other illegal activities that were occurring. Unfortunately, that owner did not pay any heed to those conversations. The new owner, seems to be willing to work with staff and staff has put together some conditions that would protect that area. If those don't wo but he there are other conditions that can be imposed or they will come back and request termination, thought at this time the modifications with these conditions will work. Sgt. Steve Walker, Vlce Detail, Anaheim Police Department, stated on AprA 12, 1994, members of the Anaheim Police Department met with owners of the The problems di used wedre numerous calls for ~ causing a major police problem in the community. disturbances, fights, thefts and services, narcotic sales and use, prostitution activities, assaults, burglaries. During that meeting, the Police Department recommended ways and offered to help the Ruby Inn correct these problems and once again become an asset to the community. The problems at the Ruby Inn continued and ft was felt the owners were either not willing to or were unable to correct their numerous problems. This caused Vice Detail tfi file a'red light abatement' against the property. The red light abatement is a civil process in v~ ~~.... he Police Department can bring the Ruby Inn into compliance through Civil Court either forcU~~ th%m to properly manage the location or eventually closing the business. The Police Department ui4.1 a computer automated dispatch system a1990 c 1~3 ca Is; f~991 Ni89 cause 992 -1116 calisy 1993ke2d59 callse11994 196rcallst 1995 (Janollows: through March) - 29 calls. He related various undercover operations relating to prostitution and drugs resulting in arrest warrants. The people arrested either lived in the motel cr Just came onto the parking lot to conduct their activities. This is a drain on the PcSice Department. He stated the Anaheim Pclice Department is hopeful that the new conditions placed on the motel can be monitored by the Police Department and Code Enforcement and can actually make the Ruby Inn a positive force in the community again, therefore, not using so many valuable Police resources. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated their records indicate since January 1987 04/17/95 Page 19 ~... ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprU 17, 1995 i C' through November 1, 1994, 60 citizen complaints have been received which r eM off ~ u5t Code. violations, induded but limited to, non-payment of businpaes~li~cepnse~, non-paym occupancy tax, poor maintenance, graffiti on the wall, water, trash gate dosures, poor refuse and landscaping in•front with minimum ground cover resulting In weeds and bare.soil exposed ~ waste, trash and ju!'ik, sub-standard housing conditions in the rooms with leaking pi g, expo protec own with smoke de9ectors notmoperatiolnal, fl ethextingulshler~s miss nge etc~d~~te fire On April 12, 1994, Code Enforcement and Police staff met with owners (Mr. & Mrs. McBride) and they were informed of on-going violations of the Code and Uniform Housing Codes and criminal activities occurring on their property. They were advised to take more aggressive maintenance procedures and suggested they hire security and also that the City of Anaheim would provide some security lighting at no cost to them. On May 23, 1994, 14 security lights were installed and February 22, 1995, Cie Enforcement and Orange County Health Department representative Inspected and found the property had been in receivership and they eee nhabitable.eAt thattime the hadtno fundstt Oremodel th~et~ on the south side of the property property. On April 7, 1995, they met with the current owners and suggested some overall conditions which will some oflthe requestsrand the owner fs veryrcooperative and wants torwork w1Mh t e City tomesdve the problems. ~" John Poole stated the Anaheim Municipal Code outlines certain findings that have to be made in order to modify or terminate a conditional use permit. Staff is recommending this CUP be modified because the use has been so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance; and that the use has been exercised contrary to terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation. He read the recommended conditions (Nos. I through 11) as outlined on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report, modifying Condition No. 1 to read that a uniformed security guard be provided from noon until 3:00 a.m. rather than at all times. Mr. Poole stated this will bring more control over this particular property and that he understood the people's concerns; this is a new owner. If the Commission terminated the use permit, the building would still be there as a vacant building. He thought this is the mast prudent way to go fonNard, but that Code Enforcement will be very watchful of what is going on with this motel and other motels in Enforcemenfttwill be right back to the Comml fission with thisnmatter recommend ng termpnatonm, Code Commissioner Messe stated when Ms. Greenberg spoke she indicated her presentation was written before she saw the staff report. Ms. Greenberg stated they would probably agree they do not want a vacant building where people 04/17/95 Page 20 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprU 17, 1995 could congregate and find empty rooms. They really want a solution to this problem. She indicated she is not speaking for everyone at this point but felt this is a reasonable solution as long as there is continual monftoring. She was concerned about the security being there only from nocn untU 3:00 a.m. and the original~condition proposed a uniformed security guard at all times. She asked why not have security guards there 24 hours a day for the first year. She stated they feel a security guard should be there all day and pointed out the activities still go on in the early morning hours. Sgt. Walker stated Ms. Greenberg has a valid point and the reason they agreed to the hour of 3:00 a.m. was the cost factor. That could be changed or they could monftor it for awhile and ff it is determined a 24-hour armed security guard is needed, that could be done. Commissioner Messe stated ff there is a security guard there for four months for 24 hours a day and then reduced to from noon to 3:00 a.m., that would help eliminate the problem. Commissioner Henninger stated instead of specffying a time, the condition could read 'as specified by hours a day in~he beg nn ng would eenteeded andemaybe lesslff thee is an Improvem nt~~y 24 Sgt. Walker stated he could take care of that and that he would stop in frequently and he would get a lot of feedback from other officers. Commissioner ~-lenninger stated generally when there is a troublesome use, there is a time limit J imposed fin the cc,~~~litional use permit and suggested maybe this is a use where a one year time Iimft is needed. Selma Mann stated the Commission can Impose any conditions deemed appropriate when a matter is before it for modffication or revocation. It appears the owner is very cooperative and it is really up to the Commission. Ordinarily she would have concerns about having an existing use that has no termination provision on it being substituted by one with a termination provision. if the Commission wants to impose a time 11mit, they should make some very strong findings relating to the increased criminal activities on the premises and things of that nature to justify that decision. a~ematively, the Commission may want to have a report in the future. Commissioner Messe stated it sounds like there will be a lot of attention paid to this site by Code Enforcement and the Police Department. He noted it took a year to get this matter before the Commission and there is a list ~f other motels to be reviewed in that area. Commissioner Henninger stated generally for uses a lot less troublesome than this, time limits imposed. Commissioner Peraza suggested an 18-month time limit and then bring it back for reviE~r. theaCommiss ony nsthree monthst o see ff tCh year'3fmaking progress andl not wa-aa year. report back to 04/17/95 Page 21 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 1995 ~._j Commissioner Peraza stated Code Enforcement will be making monthly inspections and he was sure the Commission will be getting reports. The CUP could be limited to 18 months and he would like to have that time limit imposed. He stated he would like a requirement that a guest has to complete a registration card and advising them that fhe registration card is open to inspection by the Anaheim Police Department and other City personnel for enforcement purposes. Commissioner Bostwick agreed the CUP should be limited to 18 months. He asked Mr. Poole if there is any restrictions as to the Ilmit on occupancy, referring to the testimony today regarding the shhod children and multiple families living in one room. He asked if there is any way we can require that there should be no more people than the number of beds available so there would not be 2 or 3 families living in one room. Mr. Poole stated staff has tracked state law regarding occupancy and the occupancy in those motel rooms is governed by the Unfform Housing Code which is somewhat liberal regarding the number of people living in the unit. The well-managed motels can limit the number of people in one room. A lot of the motels do violate the Uniform Housing Codes and a lot depends on inspections and management practices. He added that is hard to enforce, but systematic inspections and good managament practices are good ways to control it. Commissioner Bostwick asked ff the new owner is willing to stipulate to all of these conditions. ~~" Commissioner Peraza asked if there are only two Code Enforcement Officers assigned to that area. Mr. Poole stated there are only two officers in the area west of Euclid; however, hopefully, July 1st some Community Development Block Grant funding can be used to put another officer in that area and part of a supervisor's time. Code Enforcement will be working on Brovesthe re ommendations, Brookhurst Corridor on certain problems such as this. If City Council app have beenl able to get more hoursfrom the OrangeoCounry Health Departure trto work withi Code y Enforcement with the motels and hotels. ACTION: Modified Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1936 and 2751 and Variance No. 781. Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That a minimum of one (1) licensed unfformed security guard, approved by the Anaheim Police Department, be provided upon the premises specifically to provide security, and to discourage vandalism, tuard shall stay on-d rury as determinedcent to the subjRrt property. Said security g appropriate by the Anaheim Police Department. Added the falowing conditions: 04/17/95 Page 22 April 17, 1995 ANAHEIM CIl'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA That Variance No. inat Cine 9 ~ (18) months ftom~ the dateof this r~esdution, on No. 2751 shall term October 17,1996. That a statement shall be p~inted on t~heat the register is open to inspection by th fed by the guest when register ~ or der City of Anaheim personnel for law enforcement Anaheim Police Depa purposes. VOTE; 5-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent) Commissioner Pen~za seconded by M Tl Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent), that~te ~~tion City Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to agendize the P~ or modification of the other motels In that area in niculady the Silver MooneMotel, the they should be considered by the Commission (pa Pacific Inn Motel and the Motel 6 located on Beach Boulevard) 04/17/95 Page 23 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprA 17, 1995 ..~.,...~.•A•nve n~r~ eReT1ON (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved 5a. ~ Approved 5b. VARIANCE. NQ~ 7~.,~(R~~RTISED) ~ smendmaM INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim Planning Commission, 200 S. Pnaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Tract Nos 7617 7730 773' '~~~- X33.7734. r~a5 and 7736. Subject property, consisting of approximately 100 acres, Is generally located south of the Riverside Freeway. north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Fairmont Boulevard sued extending oasterly to the (ntarsection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Rhrerside Freeway. A City-initiated arnendment to the terms of approval for Variance No. 2375 prohibiting two story homes, Iimfting the maximum Ifving area to 1,550-square feet and limiting the maximum number of bedrooms to three for lots which are 6,000 to 6,500 square feet in size. II VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC95-44 ---------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained this requeit~wa n from la rode byownerlwnonwanted to Commission. In December last year, there was an appl P P nY legftimize a bonus room which had been converted in the second story which was originally approved as an attic area. It was determined that this area had somo restrictions Imposed when those tracts were originally approved in the early 70's which staff felt were not necessary. Staff reviewed those tracts affected by that variance and noYrfied the property owners and people within 300 feet. Based on the research, staff would recommend that those restrictions in Variance No. 2375 be deleted. Any development which takes place, or addftions, or modifications that take place would be subject to the rules of the RS-7200 Code which are applied citywide. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. oa/17/95 Page 24 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA AprA 17, 1~J95 ~~ Approved amendment to the temps of approval for Variance No. 2375. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22 day appeal rights. oa/t7/95 Page 25 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 1995 6a. GEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. .:RIVER OF CODE REDUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3751 Continued to May 15, 1995 OWNER: REDA A. WASEF, 232A ~,orydon. Norco, CA 91760 AGENT: FAYEZ SEDRAN., 11t,~ North Eudkl St., Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1100 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.51 acres located at the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Eucid Street. To permit an accessory cornenience market (with prepared food and off-premise sale and consumption ~f beer and wine) and an automats~i car wash with waiver of required trees adjacent to street ftontages, requir~t setback adJacern to an arterial highway, and landscape requirements adjacent to Interior property lines. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~ -------------------------------------- FOLLO\~/ING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Reda Wasef, applicant, stated he has been the dealer of this Mobil station fur 14 years. Mobil Oil has determined that they cannot make any money in that location and have give3n him the options of closing it or buying the property ftom them. He did purchase the toa 7eplac smlia~dio irepair work onnvehidesn He is trying to switch theiuse torra mini-mart wthlacar 5 wash. THE PUBLIC I°IEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger stated there seems to be a lot of open Issues in this site plan and he would be more comfortable if the applicant would work this out with staff be~~etth~e read thefon takes action and pointed out that is staff's recommendation. He asked if the app recommendation. Mr. Wasef responded it ~+rould be difficult for him to Ilve with Conditions 1 & 2. 04/17/95 Page 26 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~:s~ION, ACTION AGENDA AprA 17, 1995 Commissioner Henninger stated staff would like for the applicant to work with them regarding the trash area location, the dry off area, landscaping and driveway issues. Mr. Wasef stated he would be more than happy to do everything within Code but h appears he would have to dose one driveway and that would affect his business badly. Commissioner Henninger stated he d(d not think this would be approved the way K is proposed today and he would not vote in favor of it. Commissioner Messe stated the plans are not complete. The propane tank is in the way of the car wash. There are other things that need to be resolved, but ff the applicant wants a vote today, he did not think h would be approved. Mr. Wasef asked for a continuance so he could work wfth the Planning Department staff. Commissioner Henninger pointed out a revised plan would have to be completed by the end of this week and suggested a 4 week continuance and Mr. Wasef agreed. ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 15, 1995, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to redesign the project. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent) 04/17/95 Page 27 t ., , ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA April 17, 1995 \~~ rFnA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 7a May 15, 1995 7b. WAR'ER OF CODE REf~UtREMENT 7c. GONDITIONA~ r ~cE PERMIT N0.3746 OWNER: SHELL OIL CO., 511 N. Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: SERVICE STATION SERVICES, 3 Hutton Center Dfi-e, Ste. 711, Santa Ana. CA 92707 LOCATION: 087 East I.a Palma Avenue iShell servic ti n . Property is approximately 0.51 acre located at the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard To permit the rem.,deling of an existing service station to include an accessory convenience market and automated can!vash with waiver of minimum number of required trees, minimum distance between freestanding signs, and minimum required landscaping for service stations. Continued ftom the March 20, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 'L.. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 15, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner to address outstanding Issues with the Public-Works Engineering and the Traffic Engineering Divisions. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer absent) 04/17/95 Page 28 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA APB 17, ~~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:45 P.M. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OF MAY 1, 1995 AT 10:00 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Edfth L Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor ,~ oa/t~/95 Page 29 ~ ,~ L ~', s! t i+F r C ~ S~ ~~..Z t ~, S t.. ~ ~2, i ~``.: t k'"R-,~'A ~' .3 t F~' k w ~~+"a F~' k'Sa'"~l~`h~~T' Y' c.~~~~yi%~'1 ~ v E, t'r' t d ~t .~f ~~i S}, Ct ~~ 'S ~b'~ + y/j ~ t ~ fi :h 'u 4 T. 4 t y ~' ~ 5 y.~'.1~ 'YM' A `r tt , + t i ~ t vGl ti ' + y tr , j b- 21 R t fY . . R / t 4 . ~ t, r~, ` t. '. .. ~_..