Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/08/30SUI~M~RY ACTION ~CENDA CIT~' OF ANAHEIM PLANNlNG COMMISSION MEETiNG MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1999 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES {AS REQUESTED BY PLANNlNG COMMISSION) ~ PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARfNG TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, PiAPOLES,VANDERBILT, ONE \~ACANT POSITION STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Linda Johnson John Lower Melanie Adams Edith Harris Margarita Solorio Assistant Ciry Attorney Deputy Planning Director Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Traffic and Transportation Manager Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Support Supervisor Planning Commission Secretary P:IDOCSICLERICALIRESOLUTNWC083099.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 1 ITEMS UF PURL3~ IlVTEREST: None DISCUSSION ITEM: Request for appointment of a Planning Commission representative for each of the foilowing: 1. Anaheim 7ransportation Network Board of Directors. Appointed Commissfoner John Koos ACTION: Chairperson Boydstun indicated Commissioner John Koos indicated a desire to serve and, therefore, appointed him as the Planning Commission representative to serve on the Anaheim Transportation Network Board of Directors. 2. Anaheim Union High Schocl District School Facilities Task I Appointed Commissioner Force. Paul Boslwick ACTION: Chairperson Boydstun indicated Commissioner Paul Bostwick indicated a desire to serve as the representative and, therefore, appointed him as the Planning Commission representative to serve on Anaheim Union High School District School Facilities Task Force. 3. An ~Iternate to serve on the Community Developm~nt I Appointed Commissioner Advisory Board for the Block Grant Program (CDAB). James Vanderbiit ACTION: Chairperson Boydstun indicated Commissioner James Vanderbilt indicated a desire to serve as the alternate and, therefare, appointed him as the alternate to serve on the Community Development Advisory Board for the Block Grant Program (CDAB). Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Pianning Commission Uteeting of August 2, 1999. (Motion) Continued from the Commission meeting of August 16,1999. Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 1999. (Motion) Approved Approved, as revised [changing "VIIAND" to neighborhood representatives on Item Nos. 4 and 5) City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 2 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CITY OF ANAHEIM CENTERLINE ACTION PLAN: Request for a Recommended recommendation to the City Council for approval of the City of Anaheim approval to the City Centerline Action Plan. Council ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the City of Anaheim CenterLine Action Plan as set forth in Attachment A to the August 30, 1999 staff report with the following added bullet point to Step 4, Develop an Outline nf Station Area Potential Policies and Design Guidelines and Determine Type of Plan to Be Prepared: Review and evaluate the Station Area Concept Plans/Sketch Plans, the outline of potential Station Area policies and the potential urban design guidelines in light of any on-going City studies to ensure coordinated and compatible planning efforts. SR7529LJ.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, stated this is a request for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Cauncil for approval of the City of Anaheim CenterLine Action Plan. At the lasi Planning Commission meeting lhere was a workshop and staff presented an overview of the Action Plan. As indicated in the staff report, the Action Plan is intended to be used as a work plan which identifies the 6 steps that staff envisions would need to take place to evaluate and determine the appropriate land uses around each of the potential rail stations in the City and to determine whether adjustments should be made to Anaheim's General Plan, Zoning Code and/or any other Planning documents. Since the Planning Cammissicn workshop, staff presented an overview of the Action Plan to both the Redevelopment Commission and to the City Council and there were no changes recomr;~~^ded. The Action Plan is the same as staff presented to the Planning Commission earlier this month with one exception; staff added some existing Genera! Plan goals and policies which suppo~t transit and transit- oriented development. Staff will be providing Commission, before they leave today, a copy of the handbook that O.C.T.A. compiled regarding transit-oriented guideiines. John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Man~~er, was available to respond to any questions regarding bus usage. Commissioner Koos stated at their last meeting during the morning session, he raised an issue with the Redevelopment staff regarding how the steps within the Action Plan would affect ongoing plans, especially within the South Anaheim Boulevard Redevelopment Area. He thought it would be prudent to exami~.ie how the praject would impact existing plans that the City has ongoing. For instance, on Atiachment A, Step 4 is to develop an outline of station area and potential policies and design ,uidelines. He wondered aoout the existing efforts currently on South Anaheim Boulevard and some of the efforts being called for in this Action Plan. He asked staff if that would be an appropriate step in Planning methodology, to examine what is already being done. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, responded yes, that is appropriate. They will as part of the Action Plan, evaluate any plans along the Corridor that are currently ongoing and evaluate what kind of impact the CenterLine Project would have on that. In addition to the station, once the slation locations are identified, then they will be able to narrow it down and determine whether thosa plans need to be adjusted. As Commissioner Koos indicated, the Redevelopment study is currently ongoing and they do recognize that the CenterLine alignment goes right through it. It wili definitely be something that wili be evaluated. Step City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agerda 08-30-99 Page 3 5, bullet point no. 2, whfch states that the process for implementation will consider the range of planning regulations that may be amended or created including General. Plan provisions and zoning regulations and identifies a schedule for each. Therefore, staff would need to look at whether any studies currently ongoing would need to be adjusted or whether any existing General Plan or zoning code adjustments would need to be made. As indicated in the Action Plan, staff would be providing a recommendation to both the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission for any actions within a Redevelopment Project Area to the Redevelopment Commission, but clearly overything would go to the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission, ~s appropriate, before goi~~g to the City Cauncil. Commissioner Koos thought that the ongoing planning effort and this need to be in sync and wondered whether Commission would be interested in making a recommendation. He emphasized that it needs to be that the City already did identify that as a Redevelopment Area. The Plann'.ng efforts are more in sync than the way it currently reads. It seemed to him that efi`c;~!s are being done irz somewhat of a vacuum. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, suggested she could add that to Step 4 as an acknowledgement that they wouid, as part of this process, evaluate any studies that are currently ongoing, as recommended by Commissioner Koos. Commissioner Vanderbilt also agreed. It eeems this document is referring strictly the development of light rail and stations that would be associated with that. He wondered about development of these stations and how they are being lined up. He questioned other options such as a bus option or a no build option, which also raises questions whether that would be an expiored area and whether there might be some development issues iied in with it. If they were not to build there would there be some other option. He was interested in whether it is going to be spelled out in such a wa~ that indicated tt~at these uptions were explored and decided, for example, that ligh; rail was the best use. John Lower stated the O.C.T.A. environmentai documents, the environmental impact report and environmental impact statement, include a no build alternative. Therefore, that will be evaluated in this document which is expected to be released on September 3rd by the Federal Transit Administration. Included in the no build project, as well as any of the alternatives for the CenterLine, is an enhan~ed bus option, whether or not the CenterLine Project moves forward. That involves $322 million to increase existing O.C.T.A. fleet by approximately 50°/a. However, no consideration as part of the ongoing environmental effort is being given to regional transpo~tation centers. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Lower if the CenterLine Project goes forward and they start developing station area plans, who would be paying for the planning efforts. John Lower responded the Action Plan before Commission indicates that as funding is available, that the City of Anaheim would proceed with the station area plans. Commissioner Koos described legislation proposed by Tom Torlakson regarding transit-oriented development but was not certain where it stood in the legislative process. It would allow MPO's, in their case SCAG as the MPO, in conjunction with O.C.T.A. to lend money to jurisdictions for TOD planning. John Lower commented he has not aware af this but would be interested in this. City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 4 B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERtdIT NO. 4097 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved final AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Charles Perez, landscape plans 420 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests with modifications, review and approval of final landscape plans (for a previously-approved as discussed. automotive repair facility). Property is located at 420 South State College Boulevard - C&M Automotive. Continued from the Commission meetir?~ of August 2,1999. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MQTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscape plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 4097 as shown with additional vines to be planted adjacent to the walls of the trash enclosure after the enclosure is constructed. SR7517KB.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Charles Perez, C&M Automotive, 42~ South Stats College Boulevard, Anaheim, stated he was availabie to answer any questions. He mentioned a concern with the storage area, which is built. The foundation is in, the wail is i~ but the doors are not ic: yet because they du not fit. He has been trying to reach Mr. Jeff Jeske, a Building Division Inspector handling this, to no avail but will continue to try to reach him. Other than the door, everything else had been completed. Commissioner Napoles stated, for the record, that he was at the s~tz this morning and cancurred with the applicanPs testimony regarding the storage area. Chairperson Boydstun also acknowledged she was at the site yflsterday and saw that everything was completed minus the doors. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner indicated he did not believe tvir. Perez has any landscaping next to the trash enclosure, which was also a condition of approval. In addition to having the trash enclosure meet the standard plan requirements and that vines be pianted surrounding the trash enclosure, staff would then recommend approval of the final landscape plan. Charles Perez acknowledged his approval. City of Anaheirn Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 5 C. ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN MASTER EIR N0. 313 Appraved VALIDATION REPORT - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 S. Maheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to approve the Validation Report to allow the continued (~ote: 6-0, use of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Master EIR No. 313 and the 1 vacant seat) associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 for Environmental compliance for developments in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area, located generally west of the Interstate 5(1-5) corridor, south of Vermont Avenue, east of Walnut Street, and north of Orangewood Avenue. Modifred the last "WHEREAS"paragraph of the Planning Commission resolution attached to the August 30, 1999 staff report to read as fol/ows: WHEREAS, based upon its review of the Validation Report and consideration of informafion and evidence provided, the P/anning Commission finds that no substantial changes fiave occurred with respect to fhe circumstances under which the Master EIR was cerfi~ed, and that there is no new availabfe material information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Master EIR was certified. VALIDATION REPORT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-158 SR1000LY.DOC Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director, stated in 1994 the City certified Master EIR No. 313 in conjunction with the adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Within 5 years of certification of a Master EIR, CEQA requires the City to review the EIR to ensus~e it continues to adequately represent the environmental setting and the analysis of the significant envirunmental effects of the project for which it was prepared. The City contracted with Bonterra Consulting, the consultant who prepared the original EIR, to perForm a vaiidation report. The report analyzes the current relevancy and adequacy of the Master EIR and concludes that the impact analysis and mitigation measures provided in EIR No. 313 are adequate to address the continuing growth and development in the Anaheim Resort Specific !'lan Area for the foreseeable future. The report further concludes, and staff recommends, that Commission finds that substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Master ElR No. 313 was certified and that there is no new available material information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Master EIR No. 313 was certified. Therefore, it could also continue to be used as the environmental documentation required by CEQA for projects within the Anaheim Resort Specific ?lan Area until there is a significant change in the environment or at most another 5 years. She pointed out one change to the resolution associated with this item. Under the fifth "Whereas", the fifth line down, the word "or" needs to be replaced with "and". Staff and Joan Kally from Bontura Consulting were available to answer any questions. Commissioner Bostwick indicated the report was very thorough and complete. The EIR is still very valid and there have been nu significant changes to the impact in the area. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director informed Commission that staff will be sending a notice of determination to the o~ce of Planning and Research at the State in order to inform them of Commission's decision on this matter. Also, for the recor~.;', Commission's acticn stands on this and it will not be going to the City Council for action. Therefore, the Planning Commission is the one who validates the continued adequacy of the EIR. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-30-99 Page 6 D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3239 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved final AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Novak and landscape plans Associates, Attn: Nick Frasca,132 No~th Maryland Avenue, Glendale, CA 91206-4235, requests review and approval of final landscape plans for the outdoor display of boats. Property is located at 3475 East La Palma Avenue - Angler's Marine. ' ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequete to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, secanded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Landscape Plans with the stipulation that the 1-gallon size "Westingia rosmariniformis" shrubs be replaced by 5-gallon shrubs. SR1003TW.DOC ApplicanPs Statement: Paul Novack, Novack and Associates, stated he is representing Parr-Bohn Carmentia the property owner, and Angler's ~~larine, the tenant. They had no objections to staff's recommendation and were availabfe to answer any questions. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the staff recommendation refers to the use of 24-inch box trees. In the illustration (the second sheet) shows the height of the trees surpassing what appears to be the height of the building. He asked if the landscape architect would indicate how long it would take before the trees actually appear as they are depicted in the drawing. Paul Novack stated that is an ultimate drawing and thought that was the reason why staff specified a particular size of trees at planting. He then deferred the question to staff since he is not a landscape architect. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated typically Eucalyptus trees are very vertical trees and assuming they are 24-inch box then it should be approximately 2 to 5 years to reach maturity as depicted in the elevation, but that is something that the landscape architect should be telling them. Commissioner VanderbilPs concern was that the drawings of the trees do not show what the trees are going tn look like once they are planted. Given what he knows of Eucalyptus trees, he did not feel that it is a true depiction of what a Eucalyptus tree is going to look like when it reaches the height that is being depicted in the elevations. Paul Novack stated Kathy Spitz and Associates were unable to be present today. They do a phenomenal amount of landscape architect work for cities. It would be his contention that they are very expert at what they do and he could not imagine that they would make a mistake in the depiction of this, based purely on professional ~eputation. He would tend to think they are reasonably accurate depictions of what those trees will ultimately look like. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 7 Commissioner Vanderb(It appreciated ihe landscaping and he thought it will improve the property. He was glad to see the improvements are made in the manner as they are. Since he voted no on the original proposal he is going to remain consistent and vote no again based on the previous vote and not necessarily on these depictions as they currently relate. City of An2heim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 8 E. a) CEQAEXEMPTION-SECTION15081(b)(3) Approved b) ADJUSTMENT N0. 2 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC Recommended PLAN N0. 82-2: City-initiated request for a Specific Plan Adjustment approval to the City to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zoning and Counci! ~~velopment Standards re!ating to the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties adjacent to Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area (Section 18.48.070.0~0.0901 of the Anaheim Municipal Code). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTiON CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061 (b) (3), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Cummission does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of Adjustment No. 2 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to reflect a minimum 20-foot wide setback requirement for properfies adjacent to the segment of Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area based upon the following: A. This segment of Manchester Avenue is designated as a collector street in the General Plan Circulation Element and, upon completion of the I-5 Freeway improvements, said segment will be an approximate 52-foot wide, one-way freeway frontage road; and, B. The proposed 20-foot wide setback area would be more appropriate and proportional for this street segmenf. It would also be more consistent with the setback requirement for other local roads of similar width in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area. SR7528DH.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner stated this is a city-initiated request for a Specific Plan Adjustment to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards relating to the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties adjacent to Manchester Avenue belween Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area. Currently the code requires for this segment a 24-foot wide setback area for buildings 75 feet taller or less and a minimum 30-foot wide setb~ck area for buildinc~s tailer than 75 feet. Staff recommended that a new standard be established to require a mi~imum 20-foot wide setback for the properties along this segment primarily because this segment is designated on the General Plan as a collector street. It will have an appropriate 52-foot wide width to the street. It will be a one-way freeway frontage road and staff believed that the 25-foot wide setback area would be more appropriate and oroportional for this street segment. The current standard relative to the 20 to 30-foot wide setback depending upon building height would still be applicable to the northern segment of Manchester between Harbor Boulevard and ClPmentine Street. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission, by motion, find ihat the proposed adjustment is categorically exempt under CEQA. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-30-99 Page 9 City of Anahefm Planning Commission Summary Action Agonda 08-30-99 Page 10 17T1=3~1 . _ : - ~~~~~~1 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLAI~ATION Continued to 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9-27-99 2c. CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 4130 OWNER: Jon M. Doweli, Nancy E. Doweli, Gabriel Patin, Virginia Patin, Shirley Almand, William U. Almand, Willa Jean Cornstt, Wilton B. Abplanalp, Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3335 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marshall, 1041 W. 18th St. #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 3335 - 3:ia5 West Lincoln Avenue - Lazv Livina Mobife Home Park. Property is 2.98 acres locate6 on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 1,070 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street. To construct a 96-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex with waiver of (a) permitted encroachments in setback areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces; (c) minimum side and rear landscape setback adjacent to one-family residentiai developments, (d) maximum strc~ctural height, (e) required elevators, (fl minimum floor area, (g) location of required private Storage areas, and (h) minimum required affordable units. Continued from Commission meetings of June 21, July 7, and August 16, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR6962DS.DOC • e • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 27,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to meet with the Planning Department, Community Deveiopment Department, and Anaheim neighborhood representatives to discuss va; ious concerns relative to adequate buffering to adjacent single-family residentiai p~operties, more reasonable distances from uNts to trash and parking facilities, and design improvements reflecting Community Development Department concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) DiSCUSSION TIME: This item v~as not discussed. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-30-99 Page I1 ;; _ >. I 3b. 3c. OWNER: Vito and Josephine Bucaro, Fred Kimura, Yoshiko Kimura, Allen Wattenberg, Richard and Enriqueta Wattenberg, Kathy J. Wattenberg, Eugene Pardella, Marie Pardella, Will~am Keough, Patsy Keough and Thakor Desa, 8300 Lexington Road #10, Downey, CA 90241 AGENT: Pacific Natio~~ai Development, Attn: AI Marshall, 1041 West 18th Street #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Aven~~e. Property is 1.92 acres located on the south side of Lincoin Avenue, 515 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Ta construct a 2-story 56-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of (a) permitted encroachment int~ setback are~s, (b) minimum structural setback, (c) minimum private recreational - leisure area, (d) minimum floor area, (e) required private storage areas, (~ minimum pedestrian access and (g) minimum required affordable units. Continued from the Commission meetings of July 7, and August 16, 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. 9-27-99 ) o • • Y • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting (staff report recommended a continuance to September 13, 1999) in order for the petitioner to continue to meet with staff and neighborhood representatives to discuss alternate design options. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commiss:on Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Pa~3e 12 I . . . . . . .. . . , .. . _ .,:.;.. ...1 . 5~' t. ~4 . . . . . . . 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Withdrawn 4b. GENERAL PI.AN AMENDMENT NQ. 368 ~ INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 3175 West Batl Road. Praperty is 0.36 acre located at the northeast comer of Westem Avenue and Bal! Road. City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this property from the Medium Density Residential land use designation ta the General C~mmercial land use designation. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 16, 1999. GENERAi. PLAN AMEMDMENT RESOLUTION N0. SR6964DS.DOC There was no discussion of this matter. ~~ FOLCOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PtANNING OMMISSION ACTION: OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept staff's recommendation for withdrawal of General Plan Amendment No. 368. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:04-2:05) City of Anaheim Planning Comm(ssion Summary Action Agenda OB-30-~9 Page 13 . . . . 1 .:.y ~ . ~:~ i a -.9 ~ t. . '~ , . . . .. ~ . ~ 'C ~.1it r ' . . . . . ~ ~. _ . ~ hi . . . 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4152 9-13-99 OWNER: Myma Wiener, Wiener Family Trust, 9323 La Alba, Whittier, CA 90603 AG~Nt: Karen Finke, Anaheim Hills Festival, 8020 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: Property is 3.97 acres located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road,1,320 feet west of the cente~line of Roosevelt Road. To construct an identification sign for the Festival Regional Shopping Center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESQLUTION N0. SR1007TW.DOC Chairperson Boydstun stated, for the record, there were 9 letters received in opposition of this project. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated for the record, there had since been additional letters in opposition received. • • e • • • OPPOSITION: 13 letters were received in opposition to the request. Approximately 7 penple in the audience indicated they will be available to speak at the September 13,1999 meeting. ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 13, 1959 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the petitioner. VOTF: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) DISCUSSfON TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commissien Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 14 . .. , , _ . _ , sa. GEQA NEGATIVE UtGLA1tAI WN (PREVIOU5LY-APPROVED) Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4035 (REAOVERTISED) 9-13-99 OWNER: Alex Bahrami, 329-331 North State CoUege Boulevard, Anatieim, CA 92806 AGENT: Robert D. Michelson, P.O. Box 932, Orange CA 92856 LOCATION: 329-331 North State Colleqe Boulevard - Kris Kars. Property is 0.37 acre on the west side of State College Boulevard, 150 feet south of the centerline of Redwood Avenue. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains ~a time limitation (approved on August 18, 1998 until August 18,1999) to retain an existing automobile sales lot with a maximum of five (5) display vehicles. CONDITIONAL USE PERINIT RESOLUTION N0. Chairperson Boydstun announced that there was a request for a continuance for Item No. 6 to September 13th and asked if there was anyone in the audience for this item. There was someone (who did not identified themsel~ in the audience that opted not to give testimony on this item today but would return to the following public hearing. e • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present at the public hearing. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item ~vas not discussed. City of Anahe~m Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-3d-99 Page IS 7a. I 7b. OWNER: Robert and Beverly Hollis, 310 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Mark Handler larchitect),1211 West Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 9282~ LOCATION: 310 South Gilbert Street. Property is 0.27 acre located on the east side of Gilbert Street, 130 feet south of the centerline of Broadway. To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RS-i200 (Residential, Single- Family) Zcne. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. Following Item No. 8(the last item heard), Chairperson Boydstun asked peopla in the audience if they were present for any specific item. An unidentified man in the audience stated he had a question regarding consideration of reclassifying property on Gilbert Street from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RS-7200 Zone. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager explained this is the property at Gilbert and Broadway [Reclassification No. 99-00-06, at 310 South Gilbert Street] which was withdrawn earlier today. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED(one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Reciassification No. 99-00-06. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:06-2:07) City of Anaheim Planning Cammission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 16 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3841 (READVERTISED) 5-13-99 OWNER: Tarek Berri, 260 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Michael Obert,12188 Centrai #323, Chino, CA 91710 LOCATION: 2180 West Ball Road. Property is 0.52 acre located at the southeast comer of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to location of outdoor public telephones. CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. to SR7499VK.DOC Steve Halstead, Public Phone, 12188 Central Avenue, Chino, Califomia, stated he had just received information which he was not privy to before hand and there was ~one other parry involved that he woui 1 like to speak with on this matter. Therefore, he requested a continuance to September 13, 1999. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff for their comment an the appiicant's request. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner responded.staff was in agreement with the continuance request. • • e e e i~` 4PPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 13,1999 Planniny Commission meeting as requested by the applicant at the public hearing. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:08-2:09) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page 17 ADJOURNED AT 2:10 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13,1999 A711:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Submitted by: Ossie Edmundson, Senior Secretary Received anc+ approved by the Planning Commission on q' 13 ' 9 9 Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-30-99 Page t8