Loading...
Minutes-PC 1994/06/27 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1994 it: 0 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED) 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, PERAZA, MAYER, TAIT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MESSE PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS t. 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 Commisslon, 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 tf~e matter warrants. Ttie Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed receNed by the Commission In Each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will wfthhold questions until the public 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 nontlocumentary 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 terns of Interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda Items. Each speaker "..il be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. C0062794.WP ia. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 8, 1994 1c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3869 OWNER: MANUEL GARCIA and RUDY A. BALDERRAMA, 1200 S. Highland Ave., #108, Fullerton, CA 92632 LOCATION:. 606 East Orangewood Avenue. Property Is approximately 0.34 acre located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and approximately 156 feet west of the centerline of Spinnaker Street and further described as 606 E. Orangewood Avenue. To permit a church with waiver of minimum setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zone boundaries and maximum structural height adjacent to residential zones. Continued from the April 4 and May 2, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS !~ SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued to the August 8, 1994 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petftioner time to revise the she plan to reflect changes requested by the Planning Commission. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) I "'yk. 06/27/94 Page 2 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved ~~ yti ~ X994 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3245 Readvertised OWNER: DENNIE I. DYER and MADELINE B. DYER, NOAWALK INVESTMENTS, 1020 N. Batavia, Ste. B, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: CARLOS BARRAGAN, 532 S. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 532 South Rose Street. Property is approximately 0.52 acres located on the east side of Rose Street and approximately 390 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Street and further described as 532 South Rose Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the time limitation of a previously approved auto body shop. Continued from the April 4, 1994 Planning Commission meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued to the Juiy 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to submit revised documentation and plans pertaining to the proposed expansion of Conditional Use Permit No. 3245. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) I~ •~a,, i 06/27/94 Page 3 3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 6, 1994 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3685 OWNER: EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT-SERVICES, 1342 Bell Avenue, i Ste 3-k, Tustin, CA 92680 ~ LOCATION: 1600 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately I 18.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue ~ and Euclid Street. To permit a 1,989 square foot drive through restaurant within an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum landscape setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary. Continued from the June 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of Interest. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Ms. Hamedany, Construction Manager with Taco Bell, 17901 Von Karmen, Irvine, CA 92714. She stated they are proposing a new Taco Bell restaurant with Just less than 2,000 square feet of area in a Commercial retail shopping center. She explained ft is be developed as a standard Taco Bell restaurant with adrive-through. This is a Iimfted area they are leasing and they have worked out a layout with the issuesA co hawas 08esented.gShe furthering on regarding the concern on the adjacent property. PY P explained they are trying to avoid their drive-through being too close to residential; they wall alongtheiproperty whichthey aPe proposing to coveWwith trees andi bushesisetc. block THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Chatrman Peraza asked ff she had read the report where staff had recommended denial? had beenw orking with staff forithenpast few m thstand as late as la~ tMonday they mety and they thought they had addressed each Issue. On Friday they received a copy of the report with a recommendation of denial. Therefore, they had no time to discuss what the specific issue was. She thought the issue was in regards to the possibility of the noise. 1~ 06/27/94 Page 4 They addressed the issue of noise with a previous letter to Planning. They have adrive- through speaker system wfth an automatic adjustment so they can lower the sound at night. With this new layout they have tried to mftigate the level of noise by planting additional landscaping and vines against th, existing wall. She explained they also have a program where they provide security guards during the late hours as noeded. In addftion, ft givos the neighborhood additional security during the night. Commissioner Boydstun asked H there was any way they could move the building to the west? She explained there is a lot of parking there and there was a restaurant at one time to the west of that location which has been taken down. She asked could they move to the next driveway, i.e., could they renegotiate their lease and move so that they are more in the center of the parking lot away from the residents? Ms. Hamedany stated as long as she has been Involved wfth the project, this has been the only available parcel they could negotiate this deal on. Commissioner Caldwell asked why they would need to turn down the speaker at night? Ms. Hamedany stated basically the ambient sound is a lot less at night and so ft does not have to be as loud as for people during the day. With the traffic and background sound during the day, ft needs to be louder so they can hear each other. She added the sound goes dawn automatically at night. Commissioner Caldwell asked ft they had a sound study? Ms. Hamedany stated they have recommended that they do actual tests of the speaker. Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, stated there is correspondence in the project file that Taco Bell submitted that indicates at the property line, the sound level be 45 dBA. He stated that can change depending on how they work the controls within the restaurant, so ft can vary. Commissioner Henninger asked if there was any real need to have this restaurant open 24 hours a day this close to a residential area? Ms. Hamedany stated their national program is for their project to be 24 hours. In cases where they do have major issues such as noise, they can mitigate that by efther closing the drive-through at very late hours and Just leave the dining room open or again by adjusting the sound of the speaker. Commissioner Henninger asked what hours could they close the drive-through? Ms. Hamedany stated between 1:OOa.m. and 5:OOa.m. She explained at those hours ft is not as though they have continuous traffic through the drive-through. She stated they do have room to provide additional landscape to block the sound on the wall. Chairman Peraza asked if they have restaurants where they close the dining room and keep open the drive-through? Ms. Hamedany stated they do have the choice of closing the dining room and keeping the drive-through open orvice-versa. Commissioner Boydstun stated ft is not the speakers that bother her, ft fs customers coming through during the late hours wfth their radios blaring and other noises. v 06/27/94 Page 5 Ms. Hamedany stated with a security guard at the location, people are discouraged from doing things Iika that. They do plan on providing a uniformed security guard for this project dur(ng the hours from 12:OOa.m. to 5:OOa.m. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff the drive-through Is open will there be any time at night when they close the restaurant so that they only use the drive-through? Ms. Hamedany stated they were trying to go with 24 hours on this project, however, ff the Commission feels it is beneficial for them to have the drive-through closed and the dining room open, they will do that. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they have ever done ft In reverse? Ms. Hamedany stated they have done ft in reverse in the past. Commissioner Henninger asked ff they ever closed the drive-through from 11:OOp.m. to 6:OOa.m.? Ms. Hamedany indicated they have not. They typically keep k open until 1:OOa.m. or so. Chairman Peraza asked ff they have spoken with any neighbors? Ms. Hamedany stated Mr. Scott Duffner, Faucher Development Services may have spoken to some people, but the discussions were all favorable. Scott Duffner, Vice President of Fancher Development Services, representing the applicant. He explained when they initiated the Sfte Plan for this project they took an evaluation of the residential properties that were adjacent to this. A predominant portion were rentals and they were unable to contact the property owners. He stated they did check with staff after the notice went out whether or not any responses had come in to see ff they could Identify perhaps through the responses whether or not they had any concerns expr..,.~ea. He stated staff identffled one which appeared to be a Commercial owner of a rental property. He stated as Ms. Hamedany eluded to in the mitigation of the Impacts, they met with staff on two separate occasions to try and came back to adjust the Site Plan within the constraints that they were given, i.e., basically the drive aisle and the physicaP lot and ffs configuration Into the corner. He explained the Plot Plan is approved for the entire center wfth this being a fast food location. They came up with this Site Plan which was since revised to adjust the drive- through configuration as far as they could possibly get ff away from the wall. That portion where they do come back in and infringe upon a 10-foot setback, there is a little area that is comprom(sed and represents the transition from residential to commercial property on the opposite side of the property Ilne and all of which is still separated by :+ 6-foot cinderblock wall. They think with the measures proposed, they can mff(gate the sound and the lighting Impacts that they ant(cipate, not only with the speaker box which they can attenuate to an automatic swffch to reduce it down to a reasonable dBA level at night, but with the landscape they can help comprcmise the Ifght and the other impacts as well. They are still willing to work wfth staff and Code Enforcement should there be any concerns identified after the fact. Unfortunately, the property owner with whom they are dealing with on a ground lease is unwilling to address that as a potential mitigation measure. They may 06/27/94 Page 6 be able to come back and adhere some sound deadening materials to the wall to try and ~ further reduce the attenuate noise levels after they see what they are dealing wfth. He explained at the last meeting with staff they believed they had addressed all of the concerns relative to the drive-through activity. As to the remaining on-site activkles, they hoped they would be addressed or down played by having security on-site during the eady morning hours of operation. Commissioner Caldwell expressed his concerns that they would be putting the residential area into a position where this could be burdensome to their Iffe style. He was feartul and opposed to it. He did not think they should compromise the residents because the applicant did not want to move a drNeway or they do not want to reconfigure the parking lot. He asked that they go back and find a way to move this farther away so they do not have to depend on mitigation measures. He did not think that the residents should have to show up to every Planning Commission hearing and City Council meeting in order for their representatives to protect them. He added he would like to see them go back to the owner and ask that it be moved away a safe distance from residential, whereby, it will not be a problem Mr. Duffner stated it is not necessarily cast in stone from the standpoint of the developer's position, however, they are somewhat constrained as to what the landlord is willing to do from an economic standpoint. The landowner Is of the opinion that he had afast-food pad approved which Is a permitted use. Commissioner Henninger explained he had a pad approved at this Iota'?nn. The Sfte Plans they looked at this morning showed no drive-through. He stated they they need to find that the CUP is not a detriment to the surrounding community. He explained he sided with Commissioner Caldwell that 24 hours a day in this particular location, regardless of the proposed mftigations, is going to be harmful to these residents. He explained they have a sensitive situation in West Anaheim with their communities. They are in a very sensitive age and any irritants they put in the communities are harmful to them and they may create a situation whereby some of these units are no longer desirable to single families. Mr. Duffner asked for a continuance to meet with staff to see what they might be able to do to work out an alternate solution. Commissioner Caldwell clarified he was in favor of it, but not this close to the residential area. Commissioner Henninger stated he was not sure that adrive-through works at this location. He was not sure that it may need to be moved 150 feet. Commissioner Caldwell stated he has heard from at least 3 other Commissioners that they would like to see this moved 150 feet to the west. He would be happy to move for a continuance ff the rest of the Commission wilt support him. Mr. Duffner asked ff it would be appropriate to Ilmk the hours of operation in order to mitigate the concerns? Commissioner Caldwell stated the location is just too close. They do not want the quality of Ilfe disturbed for those residents. lie added ff they were willing to try to move the pad west, then he would be willing to move for a continuance. '~~ 06/27/94 Page 7 Commissioner Mayer stated there was a prior restaurant more centrally located wfthin that ~ parking lot. They were quite a bft to the west. Perhaps they could look at that location. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated ft they move the location, then they may have to readvertise to renotice. It was determined they should continue this ftem for 6 weeks to August 8, 1994. ACTION: Continued to the August S, 1994 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to submit revised plans. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioner Messe was absent) '._ , ~..% 06/27/94 Page 8 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3683 R.eadvertised OWNER: UKAWA CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, 1010 W. Chapman, #200, Orange, CA 92668 AGENT: KEN MUDGE HORIZON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, 1010 W. Chapman, #200, Orange, CA 92668; RICHARD R. MILEWSKI, 4421 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 4421 E La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.74 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 340 feet west of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue. To permit an automotNe modification (van conversion) facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-81 Approved Approved Granted FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~~ PETITIONER: Richard Milewski, (phonetically spelled) President of Wide One Bus Corporation. He stated they moved to 4421 East La Palma from 3051 East La Palma about a year and half ago. They were located at 3051 E. La Palma for 14 years. He stated they thought by staying in Anaheim they would not need any new permits, therefore, hay went ahead with this procedure and he Just receNed the staff report this morning. Under the conditions there is a fence behind their building that encloses some parking, and as a condition of this use permit they are asking that they tear down the fence. Their business consists of getting vans in from Crysler Corporation in a pool and changing them Into handicapped buses. They always have to have 5 or 6 clean, new vans from Crysler on the premises and that fence encloses those vans. There Is an opening there so employees can park in that area. If they don't enclose the vans, then they violate their agreement with Crysler that the vans have to be enclosed. When he received the staff report, he called Crysler and asked them if they could tear down the fence. He explained they do inspect them every month to make sure their vans are propedy accounted for. He further explained Crysler would not allow that because they are afraid ff they are exposed someone could come out and vandalize them. Chairman Peraza asked (f there was a gate that was open at all times? Mr. Milewski indicated there was and when they close the facility at night, they close the stated the fence is ratherpatt ct' a andnorganizes he la eaeS Without the fence herewou de be a lot more chaos because h is an industrial park and they are in the middle of four buildings. He aoded everything else was fine. 06/27/94 Page 9 THE PUBLIC HEARING 1WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger asked iF they do any outside work on the vans at this location? Ms. Galesky stated the van is completely flnfshed on the ins(de. Then they take the van out and wash ft and detali h. He added other businesses are washing vehicles outside also. Commissioner Henninger asked how many employees they have there at one time? Mr. Galesky stated right now they have a total of 23 employees and 4 on the night shift. Generally there about 19 employees on the premises. There are no customers visiting the plant and they do no selling. Right now they are building vans/buses for the City of Phoenix and later on they will be building them for a customer that is near Sacramento. He explained they prepare bids a: id send them out for contracts and sometimes they will take one of their buses up there. They very seldom have customers come to the plant. Commissioner Henninger asked staff if the fence could be left in place as long as the parking spaces are available dudng the day? Alfred Yaida, Traffic Engineering, stated when they field checked the area, the fence was closed and there vaere cars parked in front of ft and ft was not accessible to the east side of the building. He further stated iF they keep it open during the business hours and close it at night then they do not have any problem. Commissioner Henninger suggested they modify Condkion No. 2 to read that all parking ~~' spaces on site shall ba accessible between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on work days. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permk No. 3683 Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That all parking spaces on she shall be a.ccess(ble between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on work days. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) NOTE: Conditfon No. 3 should be amended to read: 3. That an unsubordlnated reciprocal access and parking agreement between sub)ect property and the property to the south, in a form satisfactory to the Clty Attorney, shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. 06/27/94 Page t0 ~^ II 5b. VA IANCEI NO. q25 MPTION CLASS 11 I Granted n OWNER: KMART CORP., 31000 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy, Michigan 4flooa-3163 AGENT: GREGORY SIMONOFF ARCHITECTS, 20101 Southwest Birch St., Ste. 10, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 LOCATION: 1035 Pullman Street. Property is approximately 18.64 acres located at the southwest comer of Old Canal Road and Pullman Street. Waiver of permitted type and size of shopping center identfffcation sign, permitted wall signage, and permitted freestanding directional signage to construct a 35 foot high pylon sign, an 8-foot high shopping center identffication sign and Trve wall signs. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC9482 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of interest. He explained his firm does civil engineering for K-Mart Corporation. PETITIONER: Tom Dombrowski, Project Manager for K-Mart. He stated this is regarding their signage. Due to their building size of the K-Mart center, they do not fit into the existing sign ordinance comfortably. He explained they would normally be allotted one sign and with the size of their building ff would be about a 1,000 square-foot sign. He explained 4his is a new identity for K-Mart, i.e., the Super K-Mart center. He submitted some photos and stated the normal signage on the building is several signs. The photo he presented was a photo of their existing store in Yuma, AZ. He stated they have worked with Redevelopment and staff and the result has been to go with their priority signage. The Redevelopment Commission recommended approval for 5 signs. They have the Super K-Mart Center sign on the front of the building; a 24 hour sign; afresh food sign; a pharmacy sign and a Super K-Mart Center sign on the side of the building. He stated with regard to the pylon, the Redevelopment Commission definffely thought that there was a need for some type of signage to identify their location, but they are going to work with Redevelopment a little bit further on the wayflnding program to see how they can Incorporate that in a better manner since they are in the Scenic Corridor area. He stated he would like to mention under the total signage, that they had 2 other signs they would like to see on the building and that is the Garden Shop sign and the Auto Service \..,,~ 06/27/94 Page 11 Center sign that they feel is a very big priority since they have different entrance locations. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISGUSSION: Commissloner Boydstun asked ff the 24 hour sign would not be lighted? Mr. Dombrowski stated that is correct. Commissioner Boydstun stated she agreed that the signage for the gardening and automotive sections be added. She stated that is a big building and a new store and they want it to be a success. Commissioner Henninger agreed. He asked ff they were going to withdraw the pylon sign? Mr. Dombrowski stated the Redevelopment Commission postponed that indefinitely. Commissloner Henninger, for clarification, asked Mr. Dombrowski ff he was going to withdraw the request and wok until the overall plans for the center were completed? Mr. Dombrowski Indicated that was correct. Rob ZurSchmlede, Redevelopment staff. He explained Mr. Dombrowski has accurately characterized the discussion that took place last Wednesday at the Redevelopment Commission. He stated the Commission did delay Indefinitely any action on the pylon sign pending fire outcome of the signing and wayfinding program for SAVI Ranch. '- He stated in regards to the monument sign, one thing that Tom did not touch on in his comments, was that there w9re two on-ske monument signs that K-Mart proposed which staff does recommend for appi~vai and which the Redevelopment Commission recommended for approval. He explained both are subject to the signing and wayflnding program outcome, nonethe~ass recommended for approval. He stated as far as the signage on the building is concerned, two of the Commissioners thus far have expressed some Interest in allowing the auto service and garden shop signs and that is not a fasition that staff feels very strongly about. He stated their objective in dealing with the sign program inRially was simply to treat the signage with some forethought. They do recognize this is a new store type for them and it is a large building. They would not have a strong objection ff the Commission would want to add that addfflonal verbiage on the building. Chairman Peraza asked Mr. ZurSchmiede to show the sign that he presented this morning for the record. Mr. ZurSchmiede referenced the elevation and stated this elevation shows the recommendation as it was made at the Redevelopment Commission last week. He elaborated. Commissloner Boydstun asked about the S-foot height freestanding directional sign. She asked where that was going to be placed? Mr. ZurSchmiede stated that is located on the Site Plan. He pointed ft out and there was a 06/27/94 Page 12 brief discussion. It is noted that Mr. ZurSchmiede's comments were not audible for the i-. record. I ACTION: Granted Variance No. 4251 as follows: Approved the two monument signs subject to compliance with the design guidelines of the SAVI Ranch comprehensive signing and wayflnding program being developed by staff. Denied the request for a pylon sign on the basis that it was withdrawn by the applicant at the public hearing. Added the following condition: That the wall signs shall be consistent with the revised elevation plan submitted at the June 27, 1994 public hearing with the addition of the "Garden Shop" and ',4uto Service" signs on the east elevation. The "Garden Shop' and "Auto Service" signs shall be the same letter height as the 'Fresh Food" and 'Pharmacy' signs currently shown on said plan. VOTE: 5.0 (Commissioner Tait declared a conNict of Interest and Commissioner Messe was absent) "~~ l.i os/27/94 Page 13 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3693 Granted OWNER: PAUL MITTMANN AND MARGARET ANN MITTMANN, 14501 Phillip Lane, Sonora , CA 95370 AGENT: ROGER STAHLHUT, 621 S. Clementine, Anaheim, CA 92805; PAUL KOTT C/0 Paul Kott Realtors, 504 N. State College Btvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1011 N. Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.76 acre located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and located approximately 250 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To permit a church Including on-site food collection, distribution and storage facilities in conjunction with church activities with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum setback and yard areas for institutional uses. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94-83 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 2 pc~ple present Paul Kott, Agent, 1225 W, Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, representing Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, explained the church operates fru,n Savannah High School Auditorium on Sundays. Pastor Roger Stahlhut, 621 S. Clementine, Anaheim, explained they believe this a perfect location because of the teenagers ~Nho gather around La Palma Park, and they want to support the junior colleges in the community, plus there is a hospital and a convalescent home nearby. He was formerly ateacher/coach at Anaheim High School, and is concerned about the activties in La Palma Park and the difficulties families have taking their children there and would like to see ft cleaned up. Concerning food distribution, Pastor Stahlhut explained the organization runs the food bank as part of their fellowship and they distribute quantities of food to churches or non- profit organizations upon regt:ast; that they do not give out food on an individual basis but support other organizations so they can help the individuals who attend their churches. Don Parsons, 700 West Julianna, long-time resident, explained he grew up in the neighborhood and represents his family and a number of people on Julianna which is just north of this facility. They have become very weary of the condRlons in that part of town pointing out there are three liquor stores, a welfare office, transient living accommodations at the Harbor off-ramp; and they are concemed about the food distribution and think it will be a problem. The applicant has said they will not hand out food, but ff people know there is food available, they will be there. He thought parking could be a problem, and as of today, there is no permit to park at Horace Mann School for overflow parking; and Fullerton Water District will probably not allow parking there because of the liability to the 06/27/94 Page 14 pumping station. He stated they need more evidence that this will be a good thing for the ~ neighborhood. PETITIONER'S RESPONSE Paul Mittman, 811 Jade Way, Anaheim, owner, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for over 40 years and knows ft well and knows what it needs and he is proposing this church to help the neighborhood and they realize a lot of things need to be considered. Mr. Kott stated the major concern brought up is transients and they do not want to bring transients Into the area, but this will not be a place where transients can Just come to have free food. They have adequate parking for the s(ze of the congregation. They have had Informal meetings wfth the Fullerton Water District and they have indicated verbally on two occasions they are open to negotiations and that they are open for that possibility in the future. There could be growth in the futuro and they do not want to Infringe on the residents' rights. They have discussed parking at the Horace Mann Schooi and the principal has recommended to the school board that permission be granted. Presently parking is adequate for the church. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Mr. Mittman explained the church has been meeting at Savannah High for about one year without incident and this building is Ideally suited for what they want to do. Roger Stahlhut responded to Commissioner Caldwell that they do not plan to feed people on site. '- Commissioner Caldwell asked how they propose to clean up the park and help the neighborhood. Mr. Mittman responded they would bring their familles Into the park and let them participate in pot luck after the service is over so they can have access to a place where their children could play after the services. Commissioner Boydstun asked what they would do H someone came to the church and wanted food. Pastor Stahlhut stated they do not plan to have food distribution at the church, and K a family comes to the church and needs food, they would deliver ft to the family where they are living and not on site. Commissioner Caldwell clarified they currently only plan to have services on Sunday and Pastor Stahlhut explained one of their proposals stated they planned to have small group meetings, but not church services. Commissioner Caldwell clarftied the food would be delivered Monday through Friday during regular business hours and asked how many deliveries would be made in a week and what type vehicles would be used. (Pastor Stahlhut responded there would be about 50 trips per week.) Commissioner Mayer asked about use of the park and plans to have families go there after services. She had a real problem wfth people accessing the park safely from this location. This is a very dangerous vehicular area and she was concerned people would crass without the signal and traffic does come rapidly off the freeway south on Harbor. 06/27/94 Page 15 Mr. Stahlhut responded that is a concem and they do not have plans to do that every ~ Sunday and they would plan to come back to the park about 2 p.m., not right after services, allowing families to go home and bring their food and suppiles back to the park for the event. Commissioner Henninger asked how many people would be involved in the small evening group meetings. Mr. Stahihut responded 6 to 15 people would be involved and k would be training classes; that most of their extended work is done on other sftes by small groups throughout the county. Commissioner Caldwell stated his concern is mainly land use and he did not think this Is the place for a food distribution service and it should be in a commercial area. Commissioner Henninger indicated he would be willing to approve it because distribution would be Iimfted to 50 trips per week and Commissioner Caldwell responded he did not know who would police those 50 trips per week. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered the motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 14 of the staff report). Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Taft and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioners Boydstun and Caldwell voting no) to approve the waNer of Code Requirement (findings In Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the staff report). Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 94- 83 to grant Condftional Use t^ Permit No. 3693 (findings in Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the staff report) subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions, and wkh the following changes: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 4 to read: That subject use is hereby approved for a pririod of three (3) years and shall terminate on June 27, 1997. i I ~' ;~ 06/27/94 Page 16 h r~. 4. That the number in attendance at any worship service or church-related activity be Iimfted to a maximum of seventy (70) persons on Sundays and twenty (20) persons all other times. This condftlon may be amended by the Planning Commission as a report and recommendation ftem upon recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Added the following conditions of approval: That the trips generated by the food distribution activty shall be Iimfted to a maximum of fifty (50) tripends per week. That all food deliveries, both to and from the site, shall be done with small del(very vehicles. That the southern driveway located on Harbor Blvd. shall be closed and replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. The driveway area located between the sidewalk and the bu0ding setback shall be landscaped and Irrigated. ~I That the location of the freezer shown on the exhibft shall be shifted so that the freezer is located to the east of the refrigeration unit. That canopy trees shall be planted along the north property line on 20-foot centers. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Boydstun and Caldwell voted no and Commissioner Messe was absent) l .% NOTE: Condiion No. 7 should be amended to read: 7. That prior to commencement of act(vfty authorized by this resolution or pdor to final zoning inspection, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 5 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said condtions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Selma Mann presented the written right of appeal within 22 days to tFa City Council. RECESS: 3:15 P.M. RECONVENED: 3:25 P.M. +•~t:, 06/27/94 Page 17 e !^. 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3691 Granted, in part OWNER: LOCAL NO. 887 UAW-CIO BUILDING CORP., Attn: E.J. Schaies, 14910 Garfield Ave., Paramount, CA 90723 LOCATION: 1221 N. Placentia Avenue. Property is approximately 1.69 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard. To permft a 10,000-square foot church wfth accessory living quarters wfth waiver of minimum landscape requirements. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9484 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Father Antoinne Bakh explained their church is currently operating from the auditorium of Cornelian Connelly High School; that they are Interested in purchasing this property which is currently being used as a labor union building. He pointed out there is a error in the staff report and the size of the property is 1.92 acres, not 1.69 as shown. He did not understand why the staff report indicates they were requesting a waiver. ~. t Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, noted the plans submitted do not show that they are meeting the minimum Code standards and the waiver is listed so the Planning Commission can decide whether or not it should be permitted, pointing out staff would recommend that landscaping in conformance with Code be provided, except along the eastern property line. Joseph Karoki, agent, stated they have not reviewed the staff report and asked for a few minutes to allow time for that review. This matter was trailed until Item No. 8 was heard. Following the hearing for Item No, 8: Mr. Karoki stated they did review the staff report and explained they would like to have the landscaping setback waiver for the north property line granted since it is adjacent to apartments. He explained the existing property line is landscaped and has trees and they wanted to maximize that property by having additional parking spaces rather than landscaping because the church will grow and they will need more parking in the future. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated she thought the waiver for landscaping to the east could be granted because of the apartments, but felt from looking at the plans, the structure could be shifted a Iirile to provide the landscaping on the north and that trees should be provided along the street. ~~ 06/27/94 Page 18 Mr. Karoki stated they would have no problem increasing the trees on Placentia and State ~-~ College, but adjacent to the apartments on the north would like to provide parking rather than landscaping. Commissioner Henninger stated most petitioners would Ilke to provide more parking and less landscaping and that Is a standard request; and that he understands there are trees now and existing landscaping next to the apartments, but the Commission is Interested in providing as much landscaping setback as possible and h appears they could provide the Code required landscaping by shifting the plans. Mr. Karoki stated they could redesign the plans, but would lose about 25 parking spaces. Alfred Yalda stated they would lose about 26 parking spaces and would have to move the driveway and would lose a couple of spaces on State College, plus 2 or 3 on the inside. Mr. Karoki stated there are five tall Palm trees which would have to be removed H they shift the structure. Commissioner Taft suggested a continuance in order for the applicant to consider revising the plans. Mr. Yalda stated if they provide the 15-foot setback along the northerly property line, they would lose more than t5 spaces, but thought they could redesign the plan and maximize the loss of parking spaces, but providing the 15-foot landscaped setback along the northerly property line would Impact their whole H1an. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like for the applicant to consider making that change and suggested that some parallel parking spaces could be provide next to the structure. ~~ Commissioner Caldwell suggested the Commission could approve this today with the changes as suggested by denying the waiver. Mr. {laroki stated they would like to have this approved today, but asked if the Commission would consider a compromise with something less than 15 feet, such as Islands of landscaping. Commissioner Caldwell explained the whole idea (s to provide a buffer between the two uses and Islands of landscaping would not provide that buffer. He added he is in favor of the use and the waiver on the eastern property line, but not on the north. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the applicant is asking if the Commission could be flexible with regard to the existing building and that he did not think they would loss all those spaces and could probably provide some landscaping and some parallel parking spaces adjacent to the existing structure. Mr. Yalda thought they exceed the parking code and that they could probably revise the plan and still be within the Code. He responded to Commissioner Boydstun that he did not think the applicant had attended the IDC meeting. Jonathan Borrego pointed out 82 spaces are required and they are showing 112, so they do exceed Code requirements. Mr. f(aroki stated there is existing landscaping along the front on the north side and H they have to widen it to fifteen feet, there would just be low growing trees. 06/27/94 Page 19 AC1 ION: Approved Negative Declaration (Ondings in Paragraph 12 of the staff report) ~ Approved Waiver of Code Requirement for the east property line only (findings in Paragraph 17 of the staff ;;port) Granted, in part, Condkional Use Permk No. 3691, (findings in Paragraphs 18 & 19 of the staff report) subJect to IDC recommended condkions, wkh the following changes: Added the following condkion: That prior to Issuance of a building permk a landscape plan shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation hem showing the landscaping on site including the 15•foot landscaped setback required along the north edge of the property. Said plan shall also illustrate the installation of the Cade required trees within the street setback areas. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the decision within 22 days to the Clty Council. i^ l \"~ •- ~~ 1, ~,./ 06/27/94 Page 20 8a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved ~ 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part Bc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3692 Granted, in part OWNER: IMPERIAL THRIFTY AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, C/0 Catalyst Resource Group, 8465 Wilshire Blvd., #630, Beverly Hiils, CA 90212 AGENT: JORDAN-VALLI ARCHITECTS, INC., 34700 Pacific Coast Highway, #200, Capistrano Beach, CA 92677 LOCATION: 919 and 959 South Knott Street. Property is approximately 3.26 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Knott Street and Ball Road. To permit aself-storage facility with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary, (c) r:.+nimum required landscaping at street frontages, (d) minimum parking lot landscaping and (e) maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone boundary. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-85 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke/correspondence was received Bruce Jordan, agent, 34700 Pacific Coast Highway, Capistrano Beach, explained they did give consideration to the surrounding land uses, including apartments, the railroad right of way and the plan was prepared wfth those uses in mind; that the she has problems now with dumping and wfth security. He stated they propose a "state of the art" security system and will be the best neighbor possible to the neighbor to the north; that self-storage facilfties generate very loflothe~similartuses~theyafind 11 parkingispaces are equired and 16uare proposed nd review He explained they are requesting a waiver for the north property line and explained they have more than required structural setback, and are proposing a 4'3" planter along that property Tine because there are carports on the adjacent property line and there would be a 10-foot high wall and a 10-foot wide setback would be a hardship and of benefit to no one. They will remove a 38-foot high building and replace it with a 20-foot high building, 25 feet from the north property line. He explained they are proposing dense landscaping; and that there will be a second would be from Ball Road aminim zing traffichimpacts onfthe orthedy part omthe sfteat access it e;i41 bealan enhancementdto the area. pHe presented lcopies of handouts for theareoordd stated He stated the wall is set back 10 feet on Knott and they will provide dense landscaping that will prohibft graffiti. 0-~ 06/27/94 Page 21 OPPOSITION: ~ Joycs Keeter, 3501 4i1. Ball Road, owner of property at the comer of Knott and Ball, stated she noticed they are requesting a number of waivers and she was concerned about what is being proposed. She indicated hor attorney had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission stating her concern about the negative Impact on her property. She asked ff the property will be developed like h is shown on the rendering and ff the landscaping on Ball Road will be as shown on the rendering and also ff that is the minimum landscaping. She added she has provided dense landscaping on her property at Lincoln and Ball and she did not know H the driveway proposed would be an advantage or disadvantage. She stated she would like to be able to improve her property In the future and would not want ft negatNely Impacted. She added almost ali self-storage facilities do not have a very good reputation. PETITIONER'S RESPONSE Mr. Jordan stated he heard the opposkion's concern that they are providing minimums and proposing the maximum, but they are proposing something that is not very aggressive for this site and are requesting a waiver for the landscape setback and the Impact to the adjacent apartments is really minimal. Concerning parking, he sta~~ aferences to self-storage in the City's Zoning Code are to warehouse/storage type u. ~fth lots of employees but this is not a warehouse facility and there would be only 5 or 6 tops per hour, with only two on-site employees. Ray Tuohy, 3132 N. Ashwood, Orange, In-Storage, explained they purchased this property with the Intent of keeping IT and they do not develop and then sell their skes. He provided a brochure about their company. He stated staff was concerned about noise from the alarm system so they had the security system redesigned and ft would be monftored by an off-site agency so there would not be a nuisance of noise M the alarm is set off. Jim Barisic, 340 S. Flower, Orange, explained he is a partner and has been in the storage business for about nine years and one of the considerations to being successful is being a good neighbor and they would be pleased to meet with the adjacent property owner to discuss their concerns before they start construction and explained he diJ meet with the apartment owners to the north. He explained the color green shown on the exhibit is where Waigreen will be located. Grace Howard, IPS Management, managers of the prcperty to the north, explained she would be taking the plans back to be reviewed by their company and ff there are concerns, they can appeal the decision to the Ciry Council within 22 days. She added they want to Insure that their residents have a nice area and that she has had cooperation from the petitioner. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Peraza stated Waigreen h4~ sent a letter of opposftion. Commissioner Caldwell asked about the signs. Mr. Jordan responded they are proposing two pole signs, one on Knott and one on Ball and described the signs proposed. He explained the signs would be Internally lit and they are in conformance wfth Code. 06/27/94 Page 22 Commissloner Henninger asked ff they would make those monument signs, rather than pole ~ signs and Mr. Jordan responded he did not think that would be a problem. Commissioner Henninger asked that the hours of operation be included as a condkion of approval and also that no individual businesses shall be operated out of these storage unfts. ACTION: Commissloner Caldwell, offered the motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger (Motion Carcled, Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the Negative Declaration (findings In Paragraph 21 of the staff report). Approved Waivers a, b and a (findings in Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the staff report) and denied waivers (c) and (d) on the basis that they were deleted following public notification. Granted CondNional Use Permit No. 3692 (findings in Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the staff report) subject to IDC conditions, wfth the following added conditions: That the applicant shall submit revised sign plans to the Planning Department for review and approval and any freestanding sign shall be limited to a monument style sign not to exceed 8 feet in height. That the hours of operation shall be limited to daytime hours (7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sundays). That there shall be no Independent business operated out of the storage facilities. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent) ~^ _ Selma Mann presented the written dght to appeal the Commission's decision wfthin 22 days to the City Council. `'$s, ,.. 06/27/94 Page 23 Approved Amended conditions of approval OWNER: CALIFORNIA DRIVE-IN THEATERS, INC., 120 N. Robertson B!vd., Los Angeies, CA 9004F3 LOG.ITION: 1520 North Lemon Avenue. Property is approximately 24.9 acres located at the southeast comer of Durst Street and Lemon Street Petitioner requests amendment to condftions of approval pertaining to the expiration of apreviously-approved outdoor swap meet and the removal date of the existing theater screens. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94 9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3344 Readvertised FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Terry Dickens, 120 N. Robertson Avenue, Los Angeles, California, explained they have been before the Commission in the past for extensions to this CUP and the most recent application was for afive-year time extension and staff recommended two years. He explained they are requesting the extension because a number of condftions were impose;, (ncluding traffic modifications, infrastructure enhancements, including expensive storm drain ~- systems and they have met all those requirements. He stated, however, the Cfty of Fullerton created some difficult negotiations relative to the placement along Lemon and the costs were substantially more than anticipated. He added in discussions with the Redevelopment Commission, they suggested they do a current structural review on the screen towers and he thought that is reasonable and they plan to have a licensed structural engineer do that review. The towers survived quite nicely during the recflnt earthquake and also the Whittier earthquake and actually did better than some of the more recent structures. Mr. Dickens stated they recently worked out an arrangement wfth the Cfty to waive the reimbursement agreement for the storm drain Improvements. He stated there was a speaker at the last hearing from Bryan Industrial Properties and he wasn't sure if they were present today, but that they did communicate with them and asked them to have someone speak in favor of this request; that they have been good neighbors and did not think this would be a problem on any of the properties; and that they are not aware of any Code violations. He added the site functions a lot better now with the traffic signalized and aligned with Orangefair Way, the parking in front is paved, etc. Concerning the time extension, Mr. Dickens stated it is their plan to ultimately develop the property; that the property was recently placed bite a redevelopment area and that caused some argument from the City of Fullerton and he thought the settlement did not help development there. He stated given the current economic condftions and the settlement of that redevelopment arrangement with the City of Fullerton, he did not see development happening immediately; however, they will develop as the opportunity arises. ~~.~ 06/27/94 Page 24 f He stated they would request approval of the five-year extension and to allow removal of the ~"1 screen towers at the conclusion of that five year term. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIC~ (Commissioner Messe absent) for approval of Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 9 of the staff report). Approved extension of time (findings in Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the staff report) and, amended Condftions Nos. 19 and 21 of Resolution No. PC90-240 to read as follows: "19. That this condRional use permft shall terminate on October 6, 2000. 21. That the existing theater screens shall be properly maintained (painted, repaired, etc.) even though they are not being used; and ff the movie I activities have not been resumed when this permit expires (October 6, 2000), the theater screens shall be removed prior to issuance of a new conditional use perrnft." i VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right of appeal. l 'e.:,~. 06/27/94 Page 25 10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS t A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3241 - REQUEST FOR AN Approved EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF (to expire 10.1-94) APPROVAL: Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests an extension of time to comply wfth conditions of approval far Conditional Use Permit No. 3241 (to permit a 384 room hotel facility) to expire June 19, 1995. Property is located 201 West Katella Ave. Action: Approved extension of time to expire on October 1, 1994 subject to the following condftions: 1. That within a period of sixty (60) nays from the date of Commission approval of a time extension (60 days from June 27, 1994), or prior to the Issuance of a building pE~ mit, whichever occurs first, the property owner shall Irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim additional right-of-way along Katella Avenue to Its ultimate half width. ,-_ l 2. That a cash payment shall be made to the City of Anaheim for the cost of construction of a three hundred (300) foot long right tum only lane for southbound traffic to be constructed at the intersection of Kateila Avenue and Hester Street; said payment shall be made prior to Issuance of a building permit. "In the event these Improvements have been constructed by the City, the property owner shall reimburse the City for their fair share of the actual costs of the right turn lane'. 3. That wthin a period of thirty (30) days after Planning Commission or Ciry Council approval of a time extenslon, the petitloner shall submit a letter to the Planning Department requesting that Conditional Use Permit No. 3241 be terminated thirty (30) days after adoption of :neciflc Plan No. 93-1 (the Hotel Circle Specific Plan). Frank Elfend, petitioner, explained as a part of the Hotel Circle Specfic Plan protect for 'iarsadia, they had proposed a time extension of this conditional use permit; that the recommendations by staff in this request asks them to comply wfth similar landscaping setbacks which they could only meet by completely redesigning the she plan. There is no room to Increase the setbacks on fCatella or on Zeyn and they would like to retain 7 feet on Katella and 5 feet on Zeyn. Concerning Items c, d and e, Mr. Elfend stated complying would create a hardship, but they could comply. Concerning f, he stated they would have a similar problem as it relates to setbacks adjacent to the parking structure. l.,/ 06/27/94 Page 26 Assuming the City Council approves the Hotel Circle Specific Plan, this approval would be null and void; that Disney had asked that it be denied and that is the reason for this request; that they could go ahead and build, but could not build that site with the recommended setbacks for landscaping. Mr. Elfend stated they would like to retain 7 feet on Katella and 5 feet on Zeyn and keep the landscaping as presently proposed on Condition 2f. Doug Moreland, Disney Development Company, 1313 Harbor Boulevard, pointed out the City adopts new standards and when a CUP is granted, they are granted for a year at a time for that reason and ff circumstances change, it gives the Ciry an opportunity to bring the permit Into conformance with the new standards. He added he thought the staff report does an excellent Job trying to make this conditional use permk consistent with the overall vision which the Ciry is striving fior in the commercial, recreation area. He stated he would 11ke to correct the information and that the 1A'alt Disney Company is in favor of new development in the Commercial, Recreation area, but feel it should meet the standards of the vision which the Ciry Council and Planning Commission are trying to adopt for that area and as long as any project is consistent with that vision, they are 10096 in favor of it. He stated this CUP was conditioned last year to dedicate right of way on Katella within 120 days of the extension and that right of way as of this date, still has not been dedicated. He noted the staff report Indicates the applicant is trying to work wfth the Cfry staff to make that happen, but after 365 days, ft still has not happened and he had a question on this applicant's willingness to comply with the conditions Imposed on the CUP> He referred to the environmental review for this particular project and stated there are a number of things that have happened in this area since ft was originally approved and they do not feel that the environmental impact report upon which ff was originally adopted is current at this time. Mr. Moreland submitted letters stating their concems for the record. He stated with the staff's recommended conditions, as being proposed at this time, they would be comfortable with the CUP being e~:anded, but short of that, they would have continuing concerns about the precedent this sets for adhering to the standards of the vision for the commercial recreation area. Frank Elfend stated the question concerning Katella Avenue was asked about 3 weeks ago in the Hotel Circle public hearing of staff as to why that condftion was not met and staff indicated the applicant had requested the Information from the Ciry in order to be able to make the dedication and there were some problems and confusion on the City's part. He added for the record, that was clarified at that time and that they will continue to work with staff. Mr. Elfend stated he was not sure of the concern about the EIR raised by Mr. Moreland, and he d(d indicate they would have no problem with the time extension as staff had recommended, and he did not understand. He added far the record that the Disney Resort Specific Plan documentation included this project and they are required as a part of that Specific Plan to pay their fair share of meeting any CEQA requirements. Commissioner Henninger asked when staff thought the Tarsadla project would be approved. Greg Hastings responded he thought that was scheduled for about the first part of August and Selma Mann, Deputy Ciry Attorney, explained there is an ordinance involved, so ff would depend upon when the second reading of the ordinance occurred and that could possibly 06/27/94 Page 27 be the second week of August, and k would become effective 30 days from the date of the second reading. Commissioner Henninger stated that would make it about September Ist. He asked ff Condition No. 2 requires a complete redesign. Greg Hastings stated there have been changes in the vision of that area since this project was approved. Commissioner Henninger added those changes have not been codified. Mr. Hastings explained there was a CR Code Amendment about four years ago but this project was exempted and projects which were approved or were in the process of being approved were exempted. Ms. Mann stated that ordinance did exempt certain projects with existing CUPS but ff any of those expired, that would no longer apply. She explained ff the project had been constructed, then the exemption would apply, but she thought ff a CUP has expired, it would be up to the Commission to determine ff they wanted to impose different standards. She added ff it appears there are going to be substantial changes to the plans as approved, it should not be done as a report and recommendation hem, but rather as a public hearing. She added that would gNe surrounding property owners who may be impacted an opportunity to address the Commission. Commissioner Boydstun ac'ned ff there had been other time extensions granted on this project and Greg Hastings responded this project has had 3 or 4 time extensions granted by the City Council before the ordinance was adopted giving the Planning Commission the authority to grant time extensions on projects approved by the City Council. Chairman Peraza asked ff the project was delayed because of the moratorium placed on the projects in that area. Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission could deny this request or apprrnie it as recommended by staff or ff could be extended for less than one year and suggested October 1st, pointing out the applicant could always ask for additional extensions ff desired. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION CARRIED to approve the time extension, deleting Condition No. 2 as recommended by staff, with the time extension to expire on October 1, 1994. Commissioner Henninger explained the reason for his motion is that there has been Improvement of landscape standards along Katella Avenue and this project was approved prior to the adoption of that ordinance and the new standards have not been adopted as yet and ff they are required to conform to those standards, the entire plan would have to be redesigned. ACTION CONTINUED: Approved extension of time to expire on October 1, 1994 subject to the following conditions: 1. 'That within a period of sixty (601 days from the date of Commission approval of a time extension (60 days from June 27, 1994), or prior to the Issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim additional right-of-way along Katella Avenue to its ultimate half width. ~ 06/27/94 Page 28 (CUP No. 3241 Continued) ~, 2. That a cash payment shall be made to the Cfty of Anaheim for the cost of construction of a three hundred (300) foot long right tum only lane for southbound traffic to be constructed at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Haster Street; said payment shall be made prior to issuance of a buliding permit. "In the event these Improvements have been constructed by the City, the property owner shall reimburse the City for their fair share of the actual costs of the right turn lane". 3. That within a period of thirty (30) days aftsr Planning Commission or City Council approval of a time extension, the petitioner shall submft a letter to the Planning Department requesting that Conditionai Use Perrnft No. 3241 be terminated thirty (30) days after adoption of Specific Plan No. 93-1 (the Hotel Clrcie Specific Plan). B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3828 - REOUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Koll Business Centers La Paima, C/0 Koll Management Services, 2970 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3628 (to establish a church in the ML Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Property is located at 2995-B White Star Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC9467 C. VARIANCE NO 3041 -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO Continued to COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Andrew W. Klein, M.D., 7-25.94 191 South Starlight Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 requests an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for : nriance No. 3041 (waiver Subject request of maximum fence height and minimum structural setback to construct will be renoticed an accessory living quarter, garage, and fence) to expire September 19, to surrounding 1995. Property is located at 191 South Starlight Drive. property owners Andrew Klein, 191 S. Starlight Drive, Anaheim, applicant/owner, cxpiained the ~~ariance addressed the setback requirement, allowing ft to be within 6'9" and ft was extended In 1986 by the Ciry Council. He explained he did not comply with construction of the project because the property was i,'. 3ftigatlon and financing was denied. He added the area has not changed and there was a public hearing at that time and the Immediate neighbor which this would affect has given him a letter indicating he does not object to this request. He stated there are seven{ structures on this street which are similar in size with similar development and There is an identical plan across the street where the garage structure is even closer than proposed here. Commissioner Henninger stated the variance was granted in 1978 but that he would have to agree with staff's recommendation and another public hearing should be held before this is approved. t""'~ 06/27/94 Page 29 Mr. fgein asked ff the notice would be just to consider this extension. ~q Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated he thought the notlca could be sent out for a Report and Recommendation ftem and that ft could be done in four weeks. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun voting no, and Commissioner Messe absent) that consideration of this matter be continued to the meeting of July 25, 1994, in order for the matter to be readvertised. Commissioner Boydstun was concerned about the cost to the applicant to advertise this matter and wanted to be sure the applicant knew what all the costs would be, pointing out there are large parcels in that area, so there shouldn't be a lot of owners. D. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHANTERS 18.01. 18.08. 18.31 Recommended AND 18.32 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO adoption to the PARKING REQUIREMENTS. City Council E. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.31.050 OF THE Recommended ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DETACHED adoption to tho CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS (ORDINANCE NO.5478j: Cfty Council DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Appcinted Commissioners Taft and Peraza as Alternates for Commissioners Mayer and Messe to the Underground Utilfties Conversion Committee. B. Request was made by Commissloner Taft to agendize a 'SCAG' discussion. Commissioner Henninger explained SCAG is looking at a regional comprehensive plan and part of the effort is to adopt a policy that would encourage density on the edge of the ex(sting urban areas, and noted that means building more apartments and that is what the Sierra Club is always advocating. Commissioner Taft asked ff staff could report back to the Commission so the matter could be discussed and then possibly the Commission could make a recommendation to SCAG. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:55 P.M. ~.,,a 06/27/94 Page 30