Loading...
Minutes-PC 1994/01/24ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PViNNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1994, AT 10:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) 11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. 10:00 A.M. - PRESENTATION BY TRAFFIC AND TRANSPOFtTAT1ON MANAGER REGARDING PROPOSED PARKING ORDINANCE REVISIONS COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT MISSIONERS ABSENT: HENNINGER PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional 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 additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrents. 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 with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on Items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of flue (5) minutes to speak. ACA12494.WP 01/24/94 Page 1 ~_ OWNER: NORTH STREET PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Gilbert U. Kraemer, P.0 Box 275, Placentia, CA 92670 LOCATION: 1071 N. Blue Gum Street. Property is approximately 0.5 acres located on the west side of Biue Gum Street and approximately 210 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To retain a new boat dealership with accessory retail sales and boat repair and including three (3) temporary outdoor storage trailers with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, Ilmftations of uses, required front yard setback and required screening of outdoor uses. Pursuant to Code Section 18.G3.091, the Code Enforcement DNislon has initiated the proposed termination or modi0cation of Condftional Use Permit ivo. 1855 (to permit aboat/marine sales facility). Continued from tho November 15, 1993 and January 10, 1994, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 1a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Continued to 1 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1855 Readvertised February 23, 1994 INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd„ Anaheim, CA 92805 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Dave Anderson, 1071 N. Blue Gum. They had a meeting wfth Planning and the Redevelopment staff and they have agreed to a proposal, however, they need to get with the Landlords and work the rest of h out. Commissioner Messe wanted to go on record that this would be the last continuance. ACTION: Continued to the February 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) 01/24/94 Page 2 i ',1 ~` 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT February 7, 1994 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253 3414 AND 2905 (Readvertised) INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNERS: SO CAL CINEMAS, INC., Attn: Bruce Sanborn, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660; DEBEIKES INV'cSTMENT CO., Attn: Richard Debelkes, 2300 Mlcheison DrNe, X200, Irvine, CA 92715-1336 LOCATION: CINEMAPOLIS -Property is approximately 5.54 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of Impedal Highway (5635 E. La Palma Ave.). IMPERIAL PROMENADE - Property is approximately 4.4 acres located on the northwest corner of La Paima Avenue and Imperial Highway (5645-5675 E. La Palma Ave.). Request for possible revocation or modification to condkions of approval of an existing movie theater complex and commercial retail center. Continued from the January 10, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Initiated by the City of Anaheim. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering Department, stated today they received a fax from Impedal Promenade that they are willing to pay the portion of the parking study that they are suppose to pay. The check has been mailed and the City should receNe it some time this week. They have not heard anything from Cinemapolis yet. Mr. Yalda explained that imperial Promenade Indicated in their letter that they are nit willing to pay their fair share of their 2596 for the Installation of the traffic signal. Commissioner Messe stated Cinemapolis indicated at the last meeting that they were willing to pay for their share of tine signal and their share of the parking and circulation study. He asked Mr. Yalda ff he has tried to contact them to see ff the check was in the mall? 01/24/94 Page 3 a i~ Mr. Yalda stated he spoke with Mr. Singer last week and he said they were willing to pay, however, they have not. He would be happy to call them Today or tomorrow and ask them to forv~ard the chock if they are willing to do that. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained so far as the traffic signal fee is concerned, he believed that there is an agreement being drafted by an outside legal counsel for the City to deffne how much and when those payments would be due and owing from the various parties. Until we know that he was not sure they would know Itow much to send or when they would be required to do that. Commissioner Messe explained that one of the ;:^.les is nut willing to pay their fair share of the traffic signal. Mr. Slaughter indlc,rted he understood that. Ha also believed he heard someone say the other day that they were obligated as a condition under a prior CUP, or perhaps this one, to pay the amount they are discussing. He was told that by the legal representative for the other party. He was not sure if that was true or not. Mr. Yalda stated he did not believe there was any condffion right now. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they could write a condition that all of the parties have to pay their fair share? Mr. Slaughter stated the City's position in this case has been that ff the property owners do net want the City to extend tho center me.dlan of this property, the City would be willing to install a traffic signal at the Nroperty owner's expense. He further explained ff and to the extent the money is not forthcoming, to the degree the City requires, and assuming the C'~ty or the Redevelopment Agency is not willing to make up the dffference, ff would seem that we do not have an agreement whereby these traffic signal tees would be paid by third parties and the City would be left to its own resources to do as h suss necessary to corcect the traffic problem which may be to install a center divider. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Yalda ff the center dNidar co~:id be designed so that there could be a maneuver for westbound traffic to turn south? Mr. Yalda stated that could be des!gned as such. It would be right•in and right-out for the north side of the streat and the south side of the street would be able i!o make a westbound left-turn Into their site. Further discussion took place regarding concerns relative to this matter between Mr. Yalda and the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS' D. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Caldwell asked ff a continuance would be appropriate until the fifty recaNes the monies? Commissioner Tah agreed. 01/24/94 Page 4 ~. Commissioner Messe stated the internal parking and circulation is now a prNate matter ber~veen the two parties involved. Commissioner Tait stated he would Tike to see what solutions the parking study comes up wfth. Commissioner Messe stated he would go along wfth another 2 woek continuance. Commissioner Boydstun agreed and stated after that, then go wfth the 2 driveways and put the divider and protect the south side of the street. Commissioner Caldwell stated for the record, ft is the intent of this Commission that this will be the last continuance regarding the study. Mr. Slaughter expressed his concerns regarding the center divider. He was not sure what the arrangements were. They do not know ff the parties will have t~ go back to two drNeway:: or if they will simply continue with the single drNeway, however, that is aroblem between the twc property owners. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Yaida between now and the next 2 weeks, could he sketch the access for the property to the south so the Commission understands exactly what he has in mind? Mr. Yaida indicated he would do that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. _ Chades Cintron, owner of Togos. He wanted to persuade the Commission to go fora 2 week continuance. He had been in contact wfth Bruce, the owner of Cfnemapolis. He thought ft was an oversight that they were not here today. They expressed extreme Inic ~~st in getting that signal In. It was agreed that Mr. Yaida will contact the parties and tell them what transpired. (Parking study; traffic signal and today's meeting). ACTION: Continued to the February 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) 01/24/94 Page 5 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.365@ OWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS, INC., c/o TCW REALTY ADVISORS, 865 S. Figueroa Street, Ste. 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 AGENT: SANDRA QUIL.TY, COMMERCIAL CENTER MANAGEMENT, 865 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 LOCATION: 65 20 E• Santa Ana Can n R .Property Is approximately 10.63 acres located at the southwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. To permit an 8,710-square foot semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and roof-mounted equipment with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the January 10, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to February 23, 1994 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~~ OPPOSITION: None Sandra Quilty, 2922 E. Daimler Street, Sufte 103, Santa Ana, CA, representing the management company for the property. ACTION: Continued to the Febn:ary 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) 01/24/94 Page 6 ~. ,~ ~`, 4a . CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2681 Readvertised Approved amendment to previously approved OWNER: ROBSHAN, INC., 3131 Turtle Creek, Ste. 1300, Dallas, TX plans wfth a review in 75219 5 years (on 1-2499) Petl!loner requests an amendment to the previously approved floor plans to allow billiard tables wfthin an existing restaurant wfth on•premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC949 AGENT: MARK DIGIROLAMO, 627 Carlet, San Dimas, CA 91773 LOCATION: 480 N. Glassell Street. Property is approximately 6.34 acres located at the southeast comer of Frontera Street and Glassell Street. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: ~~ Chris Espinoza, 480 N. Glassell. He wouid like to add two addftional billiard tables to the existing plan. They have a menu and he clarffled h would be a restaurant and not a night club. Hs gave some background on his and his partner's background. He has read the conditions and has no problems or concerns. TftE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Boydstun asked how long his lease was and Mr. Espinoza stated 5 years wfth a 5 year option. Commissioner Tait suggested 5 years. Cummissioner Boydstun stated she noticed he had food being served up to 2:OOa.m. She asked fl he would like to change that to 1:OOa.m. so he has one hour to clean up? ~ Mr. Espinoza Indicated he would. 01/24/94 Page 7 ACTION: Approved CEOA Negative Declaration ~^ Approved the amendment to previously approved floor plans allowing four billiard tables wfthin an existing restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages for a period of five years until January 24, 1999. ModHied Condftion No. is to read as follows: a. Food service including meals shall be available until one hour before closing time on every day of operation. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) ~~ ~ ... ,.,,~ ,-.. 5a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 201 Previously Certified I Continued to 5b. SITE PLAN FOR TRACT MAP NO. 13286 February 23, 1954 OWNER: THE BALDWIN CO., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Haie Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Pro~ertv is aooroximately B 4 acres located an the south side of Sert'ano Avenue and aooraximately 1100 feet west of the centerline o1 Marblehead Drive (Tract No. 13266. The Summit of Anaheim Hills Sueciffc Pian (SPae-21. Petitioner requests a revision to the previously approved site plan for Tract Map No. 13265 wkhin The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Pian (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 October 4, November 15, and December 1, 1993 Planning Commission meetings. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 11 PETITIONER'S COMMENTS. Ron Freeman, Senior Vica President, Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA. Tills is a continuance of a public hearing for a revised site plan on their Summft Poi~~t product in Anaheim Hills. They prepared a summary of architectural changes since the Inception of this proposed she plan revision. They Incorporate, to the extent possible, concerns of City staff as well as existing homeowners in the community after hearing their input. These are homes that he feels are consistent with the existiny neighborhood. OPPOSITION: There vas a video presentation by Mary Ellen Dwyer. The video beams a part of the public record. Marey Penney, 8125 Oxley Court, Anaheim Hills; Mary Ellen Dwyer; Dr. Robert Minnow, 1071 Taylor Court; Jonathan Goldstein, 1096 S. Taylor Court; Mark Grossman, 1060 S. Taylor Court; Jim Steigal, 8140 E. Morning Sun Lane; Tom Lee, 8120 E. Oxley Court; Marie Zuta, 1055 Taylor Court; Harvey Casey, 1031 S. Taylor Court; Selma Scott, 8135 E. Oxley Court; Pat Padilla, 1061Sun Stream Lane. 01/24/94 Page 9 Major concerns of the opposition are: Not consistent with their community; proposed models are not ~• compatible wfth their existing homes and ft could cause a great Impact on their neighborhood; traffic Impacts due to different economic levels which could cause more than one family member to work; EIR is not adequate as many things have changed since the EIR was certftied in 1987; landscaping clutters the look of the houses; other current landscaping problems relating to Baldwin's integrity and honesty as to what they have told the homeowners when they purchased their properties such as maintenance and lrcigation; street view; rEar projections; ask that Baldwin simply comply with ihelr promises and representations that they made to the Commission and to the homeowners; trying to change rules in the middle of the game; had to comply wfth certain CC&R's to have custom homes built-they would never have allowed them to build the type of homes they are curcently proposing to build; putting in cheap tract homes; the proposed homes do not meet their previous guidelines. Dr. Robert Minnow submitted some correspondence that the City should already have copies of along with some photographs. REBUTTAL: Mr. Freeman stated a number of the concerns raised are not applicah!e to the hearing today. They are issues between the Baldwin Company and tha homeowners. Nevertheless they remain committed to resolving the Issues. He can assure them that they are Norking wfth the Public 1NOrks-Engineering group to end up wfth a satisfactory landscaped Installation wfthin the boundaries of the tract and all of the other tracis they would develop. There ars mechanisms in place to make sure that happens and they are making forward progress in a number of fronts regarding that, however, they have not made the progress they would like wfthin this tract, but they will continue to do so. In spite of same of the emotional pleas heard today, staff s recommendation Is that these plans aro consistent with the existing structures. Some points were discussed regarding the rear elevations. He passed out some copies of some proposed rear elevation changes which should give some rear elevation reitef to the plans. He eluded to the video presentation and referenced the rear elevations. They feel that some of the pop out editions and some of the roof extensions would give that same feel and they do believe that these houses are consistent as well as staff wfth what is curcently existing. He spoke about the roof file issue. At the first hearing he made reference to concrete tiles as a potential option. It is not a potential option, all houses will be concrete file as are the existiro~ homes. Fie apologized for any miscommunication. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Boydstun asked how does the project fft the CC&Rs on this tract, I.e., would this product m^at all of the requirements of the CC&P,'s on this tract? Mr. Freeman explained there was a set of custom lot guidelines, not requirements, as to how a potential custom lot buyer could develop an individual house within the tract. All were recommendations and they were clearly the ones who wero involved in approving those recommendations, but these plans ars consistent with those. Chairman Peraza asked ff there was a reason they did not have a rendering of model 1? 01/24/94 Page 10 Mr. Freeman stated they have 2 out of 3 models to gNe a street scene--he could not put anymore ~ houses on an existing street scene and have a comparison of an equal number of Summit Point houses and Summit Point 2 houses. Commissioner Mayer asked ff the 4 car garages were an option or could they have a 3 car garage? Mr. Freeman stated 4 car garages would be in the best Interest of the purchaser of that unft. They find it to be an attraction. The existing homes do have 4 car garage spaces, i.e., one of them is a tandem spot and they do believe that is a marketing benefit. If some lots would not handle a 4 car garage, then a 3 car garage would be optional, but it would be their intent to maximize the plotting with 4 car garages because that is a benefit for the buyer. Discussion took place regarding the 6 custom lots. Commissioner Caldwell stated the Issue is compatibility and consistency. He does not have enough information that he feels comfortable that they are consistent. He has seen enough to make him feel strongly that there is some inconsistencies and he would 11ke to have the opportunity for them to go back and give them some direct views of the front and rears and comparisons between the houses they are proposing and the houses that are existing. Mr. Freeman explained those comparisons exist in the two sets of plans. The elevations that are proposed in the plan are front elevations as are the existing Summit Point plans. There are not any computer generated formats. Commissioner Messe asked staff if they have the resources to make a comparison between the custom specifications that Baldwin issued and these plans? Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated they probably could, however, they would need some more specific details from the developer and they are attempting right now to see ff they actually have a copy of those CC&Rs. Commissioner Caldwell stated this is a decision based on compatibility and consistency between the existing protect and the proposed project so the more information, drawings and views he could see would be helpful. Right now these are not conclusive. He suggested a continuance. Mr. Borrego suggested if this item is going to be continued, the Commission could take a field trip to the proposed development to look at the different products. Discussion took place regarding the rear projections. The homeowners would like to be able to see ff it is a flat finish; if there are shallow projections; and what the projections are on the side. Commissioner Messe stated he felt the field trip would be helpful and also a comparison in the custom specifications versus what this application is, would also be helpful. Mr. Slaughter stated in addition to the CC&Rs, Baldwin may have developed certain development standards. Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering. She stated she would like to comment on the landscaping. There has been a concern of the homeowners in the area. They have been working wfth the Baldwin Company concerning the landscaping, but wanted the Commission to know where they stand. 01/24/94 Page 11 The plans approved for tract 13266 and tract 13512, have been approved by the City and they are in ,^ compliance with the City's Slope Landscaping Cade in terms of the number of trees, bushes and ground cover. Planting is not yet to full maturity as ft should be. They would continue to approve plans in this same fashion unless the Commission sees some ercor In their determination of the aesthetic Impacts. Chairman Peraza asked how much limo would staff need and Mr. Borcego indicated 4 weeks to do it comfortably. Ms. Adams asked ff that would Include a landscaping consistency and the Commission indicated it would. Mr. Freeman expressed his concems regarding the continuance butting up against the 6 month time frame for approval. If that passes the time that they would have to waive the right to require a decision of the Commission, they were certainly willing to do that as well. He wanted it to be a time certain thereafter in which a decision could be rendered. Commissioner Messe asked iF the 4 week continuance falls within the Streamlining Act? Mr. Borrego stated ft would probably go beyond the 6 months, however, from what he understands under similar circumstances in the past, as long as the applicant is receptive towards waiving that requirement, that would not be a problem, I.e., continuing it to the meeting of February 23rd. Mr. Freeman stated they will accept that as a continuance date and waive their right. Mr. Slaughter raised some concems rega~.iird 1`e appeal process through City Council. Discussion took place. Mr. Freeman clarttied as long as they are not giving up any approval, privileges or rights available to them, th3y are vAlling to waive the requirement. ACTION: Continued to February 23, 1994. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) 01/24/94 Page 12 ?, (~ 6a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 Previously Certifled I Approved 6b. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 14076. Approved 14079. 14080. 140$1 AND 14082 OWNER: BALDWIN COMPANY, Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale Ave., Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Petftloner requests approval for the following tentative tract maps: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14076 (to estabish a 3.97 acre, 29-lot single-family detached subdivision including 27 residential lots and 2 open space lots); Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14079 (to establish a 9.38 acre, 35-tot single-family detached sufxlNision including 32 residentlal lots and 3 opeil space tots); Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14080 (to establish a 4.7 acre, 27-lot single-family detached subdNision including 25 residentlal lots and 2 open space lots); Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14081 (to establish a 7.56 acre, 29-lot single-family detached subdfvisb~n including 27 residential lots and 2 open space lots) and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14082 (to establish a 3.78 acre, 20-lot single-family detached subdivision including 17 residential lots and 3 open space lots). Property consists of approximately 38.3 acres generally bounded by The Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1) Development Area 9 to the north,'The Summft of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) Development Area 204 and 209 to the east, The Summft of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88.2) Development Area 206 to the south, and The Summft of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88.2) Development Areas 202 and 208 to the west. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING CONlMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Ron ~~•::man, Senior V(ce President, Baldwln Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Taft asked if this was identical to the previously approved tentative Tract Map? Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated there has nut been any changes proposed from the inrtial submittal which was approved a few years ago. These are identlcai plans. Of/24/94 Pegg 13 ~ ACTIOPJ: Environmental Impact Report No. 281 -Approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 14076, 4073, 14080, 14081 and 14082 and she plans -Approved VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) :,,k~+t 01/24/94 LJ Page 14 ~~ 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 7b. VARIANCE NO.4242 Granted OWNER: TCW REALTY FUND, VA HOLDING COMPANY, 965 S. Figueroa, 35th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 AGENT: MVA ARCHITECTS, 20201 Southwest Birch, #180, Santa Ana, CA 92708 LOCATION: 610 South Olive Street.. Property is approximately 20.4 acres located on the northeast corner of South Street and OINe Street. WaNer of minimum number of parking spaces to construct 49,615••square feet of office area wfthin a 406,992-square foot industdal complex. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. P,~P4.10 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL. MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Jeff Filmore, MVA Architects, represent~ne in an lOnld a trial bu5d n Sorwned byiTCWto better market t e facility build a maximum amount of office spa.. 9 on the properh/. They have done traffic studies showing the site prese!+Uy in use wfth the parking available on the site which is greatly over parked; they would like to bring the project up to fts potential as far as office and warehouse industrial, maximizing the parking on the she to better Increase the office space available. THE Pi1BLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Messe referenced condftlon no. 2. It says "the total combined office area shall not exceed 49,615 square feet and the total combined warehouse area shall not exceed 357,377 square feet " He suggested they take out the last statement and Iimft the combined office area. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated as long as ft was fine wfth the City's Traffic Engineer, that is fine with Zoning staff. That was one of their condftions they recommended as a result of the information that was in the parking study. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated there would be no problem. Chairman Peraza asked ff they needed a condftion fur a reciprocal access? 01/24/94 Page 15 a G Mr. Borrego explained they would like the required recordation of a reciprocal access and parking agreement between the two properties. Mr. Filmore stated that is underway and they will be provkling that at the time of their first permit Commissioner Messe stated they would put that in the condftions. Mr. Borrego clarified access and parking. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4242 wfth the following changes to condftions: Modified Condftion No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That the total combined office area shall not exceed 49,615 square feet. Added the following condftion of approval: That a reciprocal access and parking agreement shall be recorded between the two properties. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) ::.;~, 01/24/94 Page 16 t (~ A. VARIANCE N0. 4155 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 14185. REV. NO.3 Determined that the - REQUEST FOR SUDSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION: proposed gated entry is Request for substantal conformance determination to construct a gated entry in substantial within a previously approved 13-lot RS-HS-22,000 (SC) single-family residential conformance wfth final subdivision. Property is approximately 11.4 acres located approximately 830 Tract Map Nc. 14185 feet east of the intersection of Country Hill Road and Vista Del Sol. Continued from the December 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Peraza stated they receNed a request for continuance. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Plan~,er, stated tho property owners in the area were asking that the Planning Commission consider continuing this item so they could review the plans which had been submitted. It is up to the Planning Commission whether or not they want to grant a continuance. Ed Mandage (phonetically spelled), cNil engineer on the project. He asked ff everyone receNed the package with the photos that sketches the gate and the responses from the homeowners. They feel that all of the required approvals up to this point have not be9n obtained. The gate is well constructed and meets the requiremants of the Traffic Department ;;nd ft is a far better situation then previously existed at that location where there was a dead end street with no tum- arou~d whats"~ver. He felt ft should be approved because ft meets all c? ~:he requirements of the City. Commissioner Messe asked if all of the condftions have been met ~n the plans? Mr. Filmore stated it has been reviewed by the City Engineer and they have a verbal o.k. from them; they have an o.k. from Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering; the Parks Department has reviewed it and gave them their o.k. It was also mentl~~.ed on the condftlons of approval that was approved by the City. Commissioner Messe stated the condftfons of approval also said something about Mitigation Monitoring fees that have not been paid. Mr. Filmore was not aware of that. He corrected himself and said he meant the CC&Rs mentioned the gatd and that was approved by the City. Further discussion took place regarding the Mtigation Montoring fees for $272.00. Bob Wiems, 7536 Vista Del Sol, owner of the Property, will be glad to pay them. He explained he has never receNed a bill on ft. Mr. McCafferty stated a letter went out to Mr. Wiems on September 23, 1993, and he has had phone conversations wfth Mr. Wiems or his son. (Discussion continued on next page) 01/24/94 Page 17 _ .. .. _ v, Mr. Wiems stated he had an Invoice that he spoke with Mr. Ortez about recently. The invoice vras ~ for approximately $2100 and that was for Fletd Engineering and he was going to send him a breakdown for ft. He promised to pay ft wthin a day or two. Commissioner Messe indicated that would be acceptable. Jahanger Shahidzadh, 7531 E. Vista Del Sol, Anaheim. He would Iiite to see some plans and make sure of the safety of the street and make sure ail standards have been met. They expressed his concerns about stacking the cars due to the massive ravine that is on one side of Vista Del Sol. The proper place for the gate should be right on Vista Del Sol and Country Hill due to the fact there is no ravine. He elaborated. He requested a continuance in order to obtain plans and have the neighborhood review them. Ivan Martinez, 7540 Vista Del Sol. The gate is next to his property. He expressed his concems regarding the ravine and that a lot of cars tum•around by his driveway. He is not opposed to the gate, but wants to be sure about the safety of the gate. He was not certain there would be room for a fire truck to turn around. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated the gate meets their minimum standards. The Fire Department usually needs a Icnox box at the gate. In case of emergency they can open ft. It does provide the turn-around area for this she. They do not see any problem for the location of this gate or the design. It does meet all of our minimum standards. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3301 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Approved a one year NO 1413JREV NO 11 -REQUEST FOR AONE-YEAR RETROACTIVE extension of time to expire EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: on August 21, 1994 Slash Momeny, 2082 Business Center Drive, Ste. 185, Irvine, CA 92715, requests aone-year retroactive extension of time to comply wfth condftions of approval for Condftlonal Use Permit No. 3301 and Tentative Tract Map No. 14130 (Rev. No. 1) (to permft the construction of 2 dwelling unfts within the flood plain overlay zone and to establish a 19•lot (18•unft) residential subdivision) to expire August 21, 1994. Property is located at the eastern terminus of Garland Circle. NO DISCUSSION 01/24/94 Page 18 r'~ C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3449 -REQUEST FOR AONE-YEAR Approved a one year RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TiME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS retroactNe time extension to OF APPROVAL: Calvin Lin, 1360 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA, expire on December 7, 1994 requests aone-year retroactive extension of time to comply wkh condkions of approval for Condkional Use Pernik No. 3449 (to permk a 208-unk (5-1; Commissioner Caldwell single-room occupancy (SRO) residential hotel) to axpire December 7, voted No) 1994. Property fs located at 1360 S. Anaheim BNd. Commissioner Caldwell stated this is a horcible location for an SRO. We cannot continue to pound these areas thet already have a problem. Let's put this in the hills. It would be a beautkul place for them, but certainly not in this part of town. Commissioner Messe explained they had 3 months of headngs and the arn~,ments were considered at that time. RESOLUTION INITIATING APPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN Granted AMENDMENT NO 336 AND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0.92-1 AMENDMENT NO. 1: Request for Planning Commission to inkiate amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan to redesignate an approximate 9-acre portion of the Specfic Plan area from 'Parking District" to "District A". Said amendments would also remove subject property from the C-R Overlay and the East Parking Area Option, and remove public parking facilRies as a permkted use in District A. Property is located at the southeast corner of Freedman Way and Harbor Boulevard and is further described as the Anaheim Plaza Hotel. RESOLUTION NO. PC9411 Mary Anne Harvey, representing the Walt Disney Company. This amendment is being requested to amend the Disneyland Resort Speckic Plan and the General Plan to reflect the changes that are being proposed to the Specific Plan. This has to do wkh the Anaheim Plaza property that is in the east parking area of the parking distdct of the Specific Plan. This would delete the reference to parking as the plan would refer to the Anahalm Plaza property and while leaving the property in the Specific Plan boundaries, would move k out of the parking district and Into a new district that would be governed by the existing regulations and zoning and development guidelines of the Specific Plan. Also, there are two optional configurations allowed by the Specific Plan for the east parking area structure. It would delete the one optional configuration that is referred to as the east/west configuration and would leave the north/south configuration as the proposed configuration for the east parking structure. 01/24/94 Page 19 E. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY -REQUEST TO DETERMINE Determined to be in CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE conformance with the PROPOSED LEASE OF OFFICE SPACE FOR THE COUNTY SOCIAL Anaheim General Plan SERVICES AGENCY: Request from County of Orange General Services Agency, Real Estate Division, P.O. Box 4106, Attn: Jonathan W. Bordeaux, Santa Ana, CA 92702. Property location is 2929 E. Whfte Star Avenue. Greg MacCafferty, Planning Department, stated the County had ocher commitments, therefore, they had to leave. He would answer any questions on behalf of the applicant. ADJOURNMENT: THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 3:35 P.M. TO THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED FEFlRUARY 7, 1994 MORNING SESSION AT 11:00 A.M. 01/24/94 Page 20