Minutes-PC 2001/04/23~
CITY OF ANAHEIM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MORI DAY, APRI L 23, 2001
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
CHAIF~.pER~'v-,~~'~ ~'~C~~t1~-1400S
~
•
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TO
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT `° ``Pf
~`;~ '~~~
STAFF PRESENT: -~
Selma Mann, Assistant Gi~ A~tbrne ~'
Greg Hastings, Zonmg LJ~vyyip ~ Man~
~ ~
Greg McCafferty, Sen~+~t' Planne~ .~~W
Linda Johnson, Princ~8l~rTi~r~ ~~
Della Herrick, Associ~~~ Planr~~r ~ ~-"
~
~ r s~ -`'~ s S
AGENDA POSTING~ ~lk~~"brr~~let~; ~o~
Wednesday, April 18~ ~p0~1, ~r~sicie~tt~~
the outside display krt~~k: ~~ -
PUBLISHED:
zy,.y;
CALL TO ORDER `°
PLANNING ~~
9:30 A.M. •
11:00 A.M. •
?AU~OSTWI~I~7 STEPHEN BRISTOL,
m ~.
`~,~S, _J~Ai~I Eu,.,VAN~~RB I LT
S~Tl1N~~ ~ ~; ~
5:00 P.M. on
ibers. and afso in
US CITY
DEVE~O~MEI~I~S ~D~,~S~;1~S (AS~R~~CIESTED BY PLANNING
COMMISSI(7N) `;~.~` ~~ °~ ,`
• PRELIMINARY PLAN F~~'~%fEW
RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSiON
RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish fo make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please
complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Vanderbilt
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWPRIL 23~P,C042301.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net
04-23-01
Page 1
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M.
~
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the
Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public
hearing items.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Items 1-A through 1-E on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no
separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the
Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A through 1-E, seconded
by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried (Commissioner Boydstun absent).
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) Approved
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2469 Approved retroactive
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04344) - RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF extension of time for
• TIME: Paul I. Kim Architect & Associates, 6280 Manchester
Boulevard, Suite 219, Buena Park, CA. Request for a retroactive one year (to expire on
November 8, 2001)
extension of time in order to comply with conditions of approval for a
previously-approved motel with accessory restaurant with sales of (Vote: 6-0,
alcoholic beverages. Property is located at 711-733 South Brookhurst Commissioner
Street. Boydstun absent)
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-
approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year
retroactive extension of time to expire on November 8, 2001, based on the
following:
(i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current
zoning code (as a non-conforming use) and General Plan land
use designation, and that there have been no code
amendments that would cause the approval to be inconsistent
with the zoning code.
(ii) That since the approval on November 8, 1999, the petitioner has
been working with staff through the plan check process. ln
•
addition, the property has been maintained and is free of Code
violations.
04-23-01
Page Z
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• (iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this
permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted
extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. SR7975KP.DOC
•
•
04-23-09
Page 3
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
B. a. REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3994 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04357 - REQUEST ~OR
TERMINATION): Pacific Theaters, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North
Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048. Requests
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3994 to establish an
outdoor swapmeet marketplace with waivers of minimum parking lot
landscaping and permitted encroachments into setback areas.
Property is Iocated at 1500 North Lemon Street (Anaheim Gateway).
TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-53
•
~
Terminated
(Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner
Boydstun absent)
SR2067DS.DOC
04-23-0'I
Page 4
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• C. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) Approved
b. VARIANCE NO. 4381 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2001-04436 - REQUEST Approved retroactive
FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVIEW OF FINAL extension of time for
PLANS): Phi(fip Bennett, 5535 East Cerritos Drive, Orange, CA one year (to expire on
92869. Requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with December 6, 2001)
conditions of approval and review of final site, floor, elevation, Approved finai plans
landscaping, and fencing plans, for a previously-approved three-lot with stipulations
sub-division to construct three detached, single-family residential
homes. Property is located at 1312 West La Palma Avenue. (Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-
approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year
retroactive exfension of time to expire on December 6, 2001, based on the
following:
(i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current
Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that
there have been no code amendments that would cause the
• original approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code.
(ii) That since the original approval in December of 1999, the
petitioner has been working diligently with various public agencies
to comply with all City requirements and conditions of approval.
(iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this
permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted
extensions of time permitted under Code Section No.
18.03.090.0301.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final site, floor, elevation,
landscaping, and fencing plans (Final Plan Nos. 1-6), on the basis that the final
plans are in compliance with Condition of Approval Nos. 12, 14, and 15 of
Resolution No. PC99-223, with the stipulation that the plans submitted for
building plan check show wood or stucco foam trim in a contrasting color added
around the windows on the north elevation of the building on Lot 1. SR2068DS.DOC
•
04-23-01
Page 5
APRIL 23, 2009
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• D. a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b) (3)
b. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2001-00009 - REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF APPLICATIONS FOR RECLASSIFICATIONS AND
TENTATIVE TRACT/PARCEL MAPS: City-initiated (Pfanning
Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805,
requests review and approval of revised applications for
Reclassifications and Tentative Tract/Parcel Maps.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class
15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Procedure and
Submittal Requirements Lists (Section 2) and the revised Petitions (Section 3)
for both the Reclassification and Tentative Tract/Parcel Map Applications.
E. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission
Meeting of April 9, 2001.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
• Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the
Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2001.
•
Concurred with staff
Approved with changes
as stated in the staff
report
(Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner
Boydstun absent)
SR7930BM.DOC
Approved
(Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner
Boydstun absent)
04-23-01
Page 6
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES
• PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04284 Withdrawn
OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas,
14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp,
151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: Property consists of two parcels located on the east
and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way
between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue.
Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Way and 1621
South Claudina Way. Property has a frontage of 270
feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet
south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue.
Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Way.
Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of
Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of
Katella Avenue.
• To establish a multipurpose storage yard for building materials,
recreational vehicle/boat and vehicle storage with accessory modular
office building.
Continued from the Commission meetings of December 4, December 18,
2000, January 17 and February 12, and March 26, 2001.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7969KP.DOC
Introduction by Staff:
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced the item stating that applicant had requested withdrawal of
this item as they no longer wish to pursue the application.
• • ~ • - • ~ • • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04284.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
• DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
04-23-01
Page 7
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMlSSION MlNUTES
•
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04294
OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas,
14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp,
151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: Property consists of two parcels located on the east
and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way
between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue.
Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Way and 9621
South Claudina Way. Property has a frontage of 270
feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet
south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue.
Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Way.
Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of
Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of
Katelia Avenue.
To permit a wholesale automobile auction facility with on-site storage of
vehicles.
u
Continued from the Commission meetings of December 18, 2000,
January 17, and February 12, and March 26, 2001.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
•
OPPOSITION: None
Withdrawn
SR790KP.DOC
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04294.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
DlSCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
04-23-01
Page 8
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04327
Continued to
June 4, 2001.
OWNER: The Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon, 333 South San
Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048
AGENT: St. John Maron Catholic Church, Attn: Reverend
Antonie Bakh, 1546 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: 1546 East La Palma Avenue. Property is
approximately 1.29 acres located on the south side of
La Palma Avenue, 140 feet east of the centerline of
Anna Drive (Saint John Maron Catholic Church).
To construct an addition to an existing church with waiver of (a) minimum
number of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum
front yard setback and (d) minimum rear yard setback.
Continued from the Commission Meeting of March 12, 2001.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
•
~
SR7931VN.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to June 4, 2001, Planning Commission meeting at the
request of the petitioner in order to finalize efforts with the Public Works
Department staff to complete a sewer study.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
04-23-01
Page 9
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
•
.
5a. CEQA CATEGORtCAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 Concurred w/staff
5b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04428 Granted
OWNER: William Richard O'Connell, 3802 East Roliing Green (Vote: 6-0,
Lane, Orange, CA 92867 Commissioner
Boydstun absent)
AGENT: Global Sign Systems, 8939 South Sepulveda
Boulevard, Suite 450, Los Angeles, CA 90045
LOCATION: 1100 West Katella Avenue. Property is rectangularly-
shaped, approximately 0.37 acres, located at the
southwest corner of Katella Avenue and West Street,
having frontages of 55 feet on the south side of Katella
Avenue, and 286 feet on the west side of West Street
(Coco's Restaurant).
Waiver of permitted number of wall signs and sign standards matrix
requirements (one business identification wall sign per building or store
front permitted; two business identification walls signs (one existing sign
on the north building elevation facing Katella Avenue and one new sign
on the east building elevation facing West Street) proposed).
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-54 SR7929DH.DOC
Introduction by Staff:
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, Planning Department introduced this item stating that this is a request
for waiver of permitted number of wall signs and sign standard matrix requirements, to permit two
business wall signs at the CoCo's Restaurant on Katella Avenue. Staff reviewed the plans and supports
approval of this waiver inasmuch as there are site constraints that would preclude the installation of a
monument sign on the property and this is a corner property, only one wall sign would allow visibility only
from one of the two streets. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this variance.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND THEN CLOSED, NO SPEAKERS.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental
documentation.
Granted Variance No. 2001-04428 subject to the conditions of approval as stated
in the staff report dated Apri123, 2001.
04-23-01
Page 10
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
•
~
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (1:32-1:34)
04-23-01
Page 11
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
•
•
6a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 (PREV. CERTIFIED) Approved
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS Approved, in part
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04346 Granted
OWNER: Northwest Hotel Corporation, Attn: J.P. Edmonson, (Vote: 6-0,.
1380 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 Commissioner
Boydstun absenf)
AGENT: STDR Architects, Attn: Mike Chico, 18201 McDurmott
West, Suite A, Irvine, CA 92614
LOCATION: 1400 South Harbor Boulevard. This rectangularly-
shaped approximately 1.5 acre property is located at
the southeast corner of Manchester Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard, having frontages of 293 feet on the
south side of Manchester Avenue, and 252 feet on the
east side of Harbor Boulevard, (Mimi°s Cafe).
To construct a new 6,581-square-foot full-service, semi-enclosed
restaurant with waiver of (a) interior structural setback and yard
requirements (10-foot wide fully-landscaped interior setback area
required; 0-foot setback adjacent to a portion of the east property line to
construct two interior driveways within the interior setback area
proposed); and (b) permitted number of wall signs and the sign standards
matrix requirements (one business identification wall sign per building or
store front permitted; two business identification wall signs (one sign on
the north building elevation facing Manchester Avenue and one sign on
the south building elevation visible from Harbor Boulevard) proposed).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-42 SR7973SK.DOC
Introduction by Staff:
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, Planning Department, introduced Item No. 6 as a request for approval
of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new, 6,581-square-foot, full-service, semi-enclosed restaurant,
with waiver of interior structural setback and yard requirements, and permitted number of wall signs and
sign standard matrix requirements. Staff reviewed the plans and would support approval of the
Conditional Use Permit and as the new outdoor dining area does comply with the Specific Plan and Code
requirements, and the design plan, which does encourage the outdoor uses along Harbor Boulevard.
Staff has looked at the two requested waivers and supports approval of the sign waiver, as this is a corner
property, and one wall sign which is permitted by Code would not have visibifify to both Manchester and to
Harbor Boulevard. Pertaining to the interior structural setback and yard requirement waiver. Staff does
not support approval of the waiver, as the purpose of this waiver is to provide for two driveways, to
provide interior circulation between this lot and the adjacent property to the east, in order for this lot to
have access to Manchester Avenue. Based upon staff's review of the plans, it is feasible to install a
driveway for this lot to Manchester Avenue. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this waiver.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Jerry Dennetty, STDR Architects. Architects for Mimi's Cafe and they have reviewed all the conditions of
approval. After some conversation with the City staff, they agree with the conditions that have been
approached.
04-23-01
Page 12
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Bostwick asked if he had any problems with the denial?
Mr. Dennetty replied he did not.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
z~]~R~~4~Ih[rlb`1_!•'i~l-41Pile~:~<tli1't~,~e1-1-1h(rlKi]i~iN~il6~9[~]- _ • -
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 is adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for the subject request.
Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows:
Denied waiver (a) pertaining to interior structural setback and yard requirements based
upon the following:
(1) That the proposed waiver is requested to provide for two reciprocal access
driveways to encroach into the interior setback area with the intent of providing for
vehicular access from the subject property to Manchester Avenue via the adjacent
property to the east;
(2) That the submitted evidence does not identify any special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, Iocation or surroundings which
would preclude the property from installing an on-site driveway to access
~ Manchester Avenue. Further, the strict application of the Zoning Code would not
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical
zoning classification in the vicinity in that the Code permits parcels with up to
300 feet of frontage to have one driveway per each street frontage (in addition to
the existing driveway from Harbor Boulevard, one new driveway could be provided
to access Manchester Avenue provided that the driveway is located a minimum
distance of 75 feet from the street corner and a minimum distance of 40 feet from
the driveway on the adjacent property to the east) and the submitted site plan could
be redesigned to accommodate an on-site driveway to access Manchester Avenue;
and,
(3) That the submitted evidence does not support the Petitioner's justification that the
reciprocal driveway access would enhance the parking circulation between the
subject property and the adjacent property. As previously indicated, the City Traffic
and Transportation Manager approved a temporary parking lot plan for the
transportation facility to the east of subject property. tn approving said plan, the
westernmost driveway on the adjacent property (the driveway immediately adjacent
to subject property) was designated as an inbound driveway only. No exits are
permitted via said driveway. If the proposed reciprocal access driveway is provided
between the restaurant site and the transportation facility, there could be conflicts
with the operation of said inbound driveway. In addition, the reciprocal access
driveways could result in the transportation facility traffic using the subject property
to access Harbor Boulevard, which access is not recommended by the City Traffic
and Transportation Manager, nor was it approved as part of the temporary
transportation facility parking lot plan.
•
04-23-01
Page 13
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Approved waiver (b) pertaining to permitted number of wall signs and Sign Standard
Matrix requirements, inasmuch as special circumstances applicable to the size, location
and surroundings of the subject property have been identified that do not apply to other
identically zoned properties in the vicinity, in that:
(1) The property is a corner lot with frontage on two major streets (Harbor Boulevard
and Manchester Avenue);
(2) The Code typically permits all properties within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
Area to install one wall sign per business or storefront which could be oriented
toward the adjacent street frontage. The strict application of the Zoning Code
would deprive the property of reasonable business identification inasmuch as
subject property has two street frontages (Harbor Boulevard and Manchester
Avenue) and one wall sign would not be sufficient to provide reasonable
identification visible to the two adjacent streets; and,
(3) The installation of the two proposed wall signs, in the locations identified on the
submitted plans, would provide for the restaurant to have business identification
visible from both Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, with only one sign
being visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties at a time.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04346 subject to the conditions of
approval in the staff report.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:35-1:39)
~
04-23-01
Page 14
APRiL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES
• 7a. CEQA CATEGORIAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 Concurred with staff
7b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04429 Granted
OWNER: Bass Resources, Inc., Attn: Thomas H. Brettshneider, (Vote: 6-0,
V.P., 3 Ravinia Drive, Atlanta, GA 30346 Commissioner
Boydstun absent)
AGENT: Young Electric Sign Company, Attn: Doug Purcell,
1443 South Cucamonga Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761
LOCATION: 1855-1925 South Manchester Avenue. This
irregularly-shaped, approximately 6.02-acre property
has a frontage of 933 feet on the southwest side of
Manchester Avenue and is located 570 feet south of the
centerline of Katella Avenue (Staybridge Suites and
Holiday Inn).
Waiver of permitted wall signs and the sign standards matrix
requirements (two hotel identification wall signs per building located on
non-adjacent building elevations permitted; two hotel identification wall
signs per building located on adjacent building elevations proposed).
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-43 SR7938DH.DOC
• Introduction by Staff:
Della Herrick, Associate Planner, Planning Department, introduced this item by stating this is a waiver of
permitted wall signs and sign standard matrices to permit two hotel identification wall signs per building on
non-adjacent walls. Staff has reviewed the plans, and finds that there are hardships on the property
relating to construction that would allow this variance to be approved. Staff recommends approval.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED, THERE WERE NO SPEAKERS.
FOLl.OWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the
California Environmental Quafity Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental
documentation.
Granted Variance No. 2001-04429 subject to the conditions of approval as stated
in the staff report dated April 23, 2001.
•
04-23-01
Page 15
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
u
•
•
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:40-1:41)
04-23-01
Page 16
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 Concurred with staff
8b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04430 (READVERTISED) Granted
OWNER: Automobile Club of Southern California, Attn: Mr. (Vote: 6-0,
Herman Fuette, 3333 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, CA Commissioner
92626 Boydstun absent)
AGENT: Integrated Sign Associates, Attn: Andy Glover, 7020-F
Havenhurst Avenue, Van Nuys, CA 91406
LOCATION: 5500 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. This irregularly-
shaped, approximately 2.9-acre property is located at
the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Avenida Margarita.
Waiver of permitted commercial center identification sign - one 26-
square-foot sign on a 36-inch high wall permitted per street frontage; one
62-square-foot double-faced seven foot, four-inch-high monument sign
proposed.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-44 SR7948VN.DOC
Introduction by Staff:
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this variance for property located at 5500 East Santa Ana
• Canyon Road and noted that this is a request to construct a 26-square-foot, double-faced monument sign.
Staff supports the request in part; there are hardships that pertain to the property in terms of identification
from Santa Ana Canyon Road. On the actual sign copy, staff recommends it display the Auto Club Plaza
and then one tenant name.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Applicant's Statement:
Andy Glover with Integrated Sign Associates. The issue is the amount of copy on the sign, along with the
allowance for a slightly larger sign to make it more complimentary to the corridor than a monument wall.
The Travel Agency is an entity within the Auto Club and is contractually bound to be displayed on any sign
display that the Auto Club does. The Auto Club Travel Agency Center is the actual name of the center; the
First Team Real Estate is the primary and largest tenant in the center. The increased square footage is
how the issue of the sign came up, to give them some identity from the street as the building is 200 feet
away from the street, and people do not know they are there.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if this sign would only have two tenants on it.
Mr. Glover indicated there are only finro tenants on the sign, one has two trademark names, Auto Club logo
and Travel Agency and First Team is trademarked by its name.
Greg McCafferty advised if Commission approves the variance then it will stay with the tand regardless if
the Auto Club is no longer there.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked to see the rendering Mr. Glover had with him.
~
04-23-01
Page 17
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Bostwick thought that the first condition is limited to the Auto Club and AAA Travel Agency
logo that would be considered one sign and the First Team Real Estate would be the second sign.
Greg McCafferty stated that the way this is interpreted from the Code, is that there are three tenants on the
sign now. Auto Club, Auto Club Travel Agency and First Team Real Estate. The Code reads that it has to
identify the name of the commercial center. That is why on the existing sign on the photograph in the staff
report it states, "Auto Club Plaza". That identifies the center, and that is a technicality, but that is what the
literal interpretation of the Code is. Commission could say "Auto Club Travel Agency Plaza", that would be
the name of the center and then First Team would be the one tenant and that would comply with the Code.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that it does not say `plaza'.
Greg McCafferty indicated this is why staff recommends it say `plaza'.
Mr. Glover stated that on earlier drawings it did have `plaza' and when they were going through all the
changes and suggestions, the word plaza came off, they added the larger address numbers to make it
easier for the Fire Department and vehicles traveling on Santa Ana Canyon would find the location.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, gave a background on the ordinance. He stated the ordinance
was originally intended to only identify the name of the center. This at any location in the Scenic Corridor.
There was a change made that the names of the centers did not reflect what the residents knew the center
by the one major tenant. The Commission and Council changed the ordinance to allow the name of the
center plus one major tenant; it was not intended to identify all of the uses in the center.
Mr. Glover indicated the center name is the Auto Club Travel Agency Center and the one major tenant is
First Team Real Estate.
• Chairperson Koos stated that "Auto Club Travel Agency Center and then First Team Real Estate" could be
put on the sign.
Mr. Glover indicated that they actually had 'plaza' and through the evolution, they started calling it the Auto
Club Travel Agency Center. When the initial layouts were done, and the revisions on the drawings, they
were asked by staff and Public Works to remove the word 'plaza' and the word 'center' and keep it to the
names. He stated that it would serve a purpose as the public understood it to be Auto Club Travel
Agency.
Chairperson Koos asked staff if they would be comfortable with Auto Club Travel Agency Center and First
Team as the one major tenant.
Greg McCafferty responded this would be acceptable to staff.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. McCafferty if staff was in agreement with the logos.
Chairperson Koos also suggested the "Auto Club Travel Agency Center" and have this book-ended with a
other different logos or names, or have the traditional logo and have the other one, the travel agency logo.
Commissioner Bristol stated that the case here is there is one tenant, name of the building. The intent is
to keep this from going to three or four names.
~
04-23-01
Page 18
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chairperson Koos asked whether Fairmont has a variance.
• Greg Hastings stated yes. The Hughes Shopping Center has a variance, there are several names on that
sign and staff recommended denial. Throughout the canyon they would be more in line with ordinance in
terms of what the signs say, with the exception of the Hughes.
Commissioner Bristol stated that this property, according to a hardship, would be the setback, he does not
think there is anything now in that area that has more of a hardship because of the depth of the setback.
The identification there makes sense, but if staff and Commission are talking technically about this, then
he agrees with Chairperson Koos about signage at the center when he suggested including both.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he believed the variance was for the size of the sign. There is no problem
with the variance. Mr. Glover is saying is that there are only two tenants on the sign. This logo is inclusive
of both the travel agency and Auto Club.
Commissioner Bristol stated that there was a major-anchored tenant, and technically the name of the
building is AAA and the Agency and a one major tenant, being First Team. The name of the building
happens to be a major anchor tenant.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that if this was called Crossroads Center, they would have Crossroads with
Auto Club underneath as the major tenant. Auto Club is the name of the center. If Auto Club leaves the
center, there are still only two names on the sign. There is no change to the Code; they are only allowed
two names on the sign.
Chairperson Koos stated that there is only one name technically, you have the name of the center and one
tenant. It just happens to be naming the center after another tenant.
• Greg McCafferty stated that the variance is actually for not only the square footage or sign area, but it is
also for the type of sign because the sign is a single-faced sign into a 36-inch-high wall. It is the type of
sign and also the area of the sign.
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty how this particular application for variance is unique and
different and if it might be a precursor of a number of these types of signs along the Scenic Corridor? He
asked Mr. McCafferty to explain.
Greg McCafferty explained that Commission, historically, has been very prudent in deliberating on
variances in the Scenic Corridor because of the intent of the whole Scenic Corridor Zone, in terms of
maintaining the rule of character of the area. In this case, you have a building with a large setback off of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, the intervening horse trail that further impedes visibility, as does the tree that is
at the corner. Staff believes that because of those reasons the monument sign is justified. This is a
unique case in this specific situation because of those constraints.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that they are interested in the variance on the size of the sign because
they feel there is a hardship in terms of the visibility. In exploring that, it makes sense that the text be large
enough to be seen and by including the additional logos, he feels it crowds the sign defeats the purpose of
seeking a variance, which is to have a larger sign so it is easier to find. If the word `plaza' is taken out logo
area added, it becomes "busy'. He appreciates the fact that the address is larger and feels this is a step in
the right direction.
r1
~J
04-23-01
Page 19
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Glover indicated that part of the design is that the columns and arching to the top make it attractive
• aesthetically to the Scenic Corridor. If you remove those elements, the sign does go back down to the size
that it needs to be as far as meeting the existing Code. The reason it was suggested removing the word
`plaza' was so that it did not have so much content. The way the design is, the top panel, the background,
does not light up, just the top does. It is just the top half so that if any change was made, removing Auto
Club for instance, it would go back to one name, whatever the center was called. You have the primary
tenant, which is First Team, if they ever left. They are not listing services or other tenants or anything else
in the center.
Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated he is more comfortable with staff s recommendation because he sees
how the sign is today with the word `plaza'.
Chairperson Koos indicated he is in agreement with staff's recommendation insofar as they have to have
the center identified somehow, whether it is called the Automobile Club Center Plaza or something else.
His concern with staff's recommendation on Condition No. 1 is that the tenants are actually named and the
last sentence says that a change in the sign would come back for an R&R. He would prefer that it be re-
worded to indicate that the sign should be limited to the center's name and one major tenant, because First
Team Real Estate could change and he does not want to see the applicant return for a Reports and
Recommendations item just because First Team Real Estate changes. If you actually name First Team
Real Estate in the resolution that does not make sense. If another tenant moved in, they would need to
return as a Reports and Recommendations item.
Commissioner Arnold agreed indicating that this gets away from regulating the content and instead looking
at the land use impacts of the sign.
Mr. Glover indicated the name now, Auto Club Travel Agency Center is fine.
• THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Greg McCafferty asked Commissioner Bostwick for clarification on Condition No. 1, referring to the name
of the center.
Commissioner Bostwick explained it would become the Auto Club Travel Agency Center or plaza,
whichever they choose.
Chairperson Koos stated that this is for clarification not as part of the resolution that goes with the land.
Chairperson Koos stated the way this is worded now it requires the center to have a major tenant.
Commissioner Arnold asked what would happen if they have, for example, the Crossroads, Vons's,
Blockbuster, and a bagel shop.
Commissioner Bristol indicated that is why it should say "not to exceed one anchor tenanY', this would
eliminate the confusion.
Commissioner Arnold asked if this would be in the center's title.
~
04-23-01
Page 20
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Bristol stated that he is aware of a definition for anchor tenant.
Chairperson Koos stated that Commissioner Arnold is indicating there is not a definition for a center name.
He asked Greg Hastings if this would be looked at soon.
Greg Hastings indicated they would be looking at the entire Canyon area signage program with the rest of
the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Arnold stated he feels that when this goes to Planning, they need to clarify what qualifies as
a center name.
Commissioner Bristol said this is the first time where there are two trademarked names in the same
building. Technically if you took your argument, you mentioned three or four companies, they are all
trademarked, there would only be one. There are ways of doing this.
Mr. Glover indicated they would all have equal space in the center to be equally the main tenants.
Commissioner Bosfinrick explained the change to Condition No. 1 is that in the second sentence,
identification on the sign shall be limited to the center name and not to exceed one other tenant.
Greg McCafferty asked if the ownership was to change, with new tenants in the center, it would still keep
the dimensions, just what the sign said would change.
Commissioner Bosfinrick agreed.
• OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Chairperson Koos and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental
documentation.
Granted Variance No. 2001-04430, subject to the conditions of approval as
stated in the staff report dated April 23, 2001 with the following modifications:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
1. That the monument sign shall be limited to one, 62-square-foot (31 square
feet per face) double-faced sign having maximum dimensions of 11'6" wide
by 7' 4" high, and a sign copy area not exceeding 31 square feet per face.
Identification on the sign shall be limited to the name of the center and one
tenant. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits. Any changes to the design of the sign shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and
Recommendations" item.
a
04-23-01
Page 21
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
~
•
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (1:42-2:02)
04-23-01
Page 22
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) Approved
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3832 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04342) with deletion of time
limitation
OWNER: Kenneth W. Holt, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim,
CA 92802 (Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner
AGENT: David R. Jackson, c/o Fairmont Private School, 1557 Boydstun absent)
West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1557 West Mable Street. This irregularly-shaped,
approximately 2.15-acre property has a frontage of 442
feet on the north side of Mable Street and is located
420 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street (Fairmont
Private School).
Requests reinstatement of this permit and deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 15, 1996 to
expire on April 15, 2001) to retain a previously-approved temporary
modular classroom building.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-45 SR7954KB.DOC
• Introduction by Staff:
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item as Conditional Use Permit No. 3832, (Tracking No.
CUP 2001-04342) for property located at 1557 West Amble Street. It is the Fairmont Private School and
this a request to reinstate and delete a condition of approval pertaining to a previously approved modular
classroom building. Staff is recommending approval of the reinstatement and the removal of the time
limitation with the condition that the modular building be placed on a permanent foundation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
ApplicanYs Statement:
Daniel Jackson, Fairmont Schools, representing the whole family trust. After reviewing the conditions
they determined they were able to meet the conditions, but would ask Commission to allow for the
amendment of Condition No. 3, and grant an addition eight months to complete installation of the building
onto a permanent foundation. They are experiencing cash difficulties with a project on Sequoia in
Anaheim, and have determined in the next six months they can do this, but roughly they have 2.5 months
during each summer to complete work like this, as it necessitates closing down buildings for two to three
weeks to build the foundation and reinstall the buildings. August 1, 2002 to comply with the Condition No.
3. He stated that 180 days with an additional eight months, or an additional six months to what they are
being given, as this will allow them to complete it in July.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion during the action:
~ Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff if there are any problems with timing?
04-23-01
Page 23
APRIL 23, 2001
PLAIdNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Greg Hastings advised as long as the CUP covers this for the temporary nature, this should not go into
• effect until the time they are ready to put in the permanent foundation in terms of the time period. Perhaps
another one year on this and have it come back. So it is a shorter period of time, that way there is not an
unregulated temporary trailer there.
Commissioner Bostwick asked whether this is time certain? If there is a date in the resolution that they
need to put in the foundation~by August 1, 2002.
Greg Hastings stated staff could check to make sure it occurred.
Chairperson Koos asked if they still needed to submit the plans in 60 days.
Greg Hastings stated that between the time of the plans and actual work, the building permit is going to
expire. If Commission is leaning toward the applicant's request, he suggested having the applicant get
their permit within nine months of today.
Chairperson Koos asked the applicant how they came up with eight months.
Mr. Jackson stated that July is the best month to actually complete the work, as school is out.
Mr. Jackson stated they can actually do the work earlier than June, but they cannot physically do it until
the building is not in use.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there would not be any construction until next summer?
Mr. Jackson stated yes. He said that as they are focused on the project on Sequoia, which is underway,
• financially it has been estimated it wifl cost $20,000 to lift the buildings up, build the foundation and
replace them.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked when will construction start and finish?
Mr. Jackson stated it would not start until 2002, it will take two weeks to a month. Plans can be submitted
in 60 days if necessary
Commissioner Bostwick stated that this will expire so this needs to be re-worded.
Commissioner Arnold asked how far in advance of construction do plans need to be submitted?
Greg Hastings stated for building, generally six weeks is a comfortable time frame to go through plan
check.
Greg Hastings stated that if applicant does not follow through with that, staff would have to ask
Commission to initiate a modification to conditions, that is the only down side.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he has a problem with them coming back and paying another fee for
another year, and then more money is spent, he is trying to make it easy on them.
Chairperson Koos asked if they could submit their plans by next March.
Mr. Jackson agreed.
~
04-23-01
Page 24
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Determined that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to
serve as the required environmentai documentation for the subject request.
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3832 (Tracking No.
CUP 2001-04342), and deletion of a time limitation to retain the previously-
approved temporary modular classroom building
Amended Resolution No. PC96-37 in its entirety and replaced with a new
resolution with the following conditions of approval:
That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner
and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein.
2. That the classrooms replaced by the temporary structure shall be used only
for "front office" and/or a teacher's lounge.
3. That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division no later than
June 1, 2002 to place the modular building on a permanent foundation.
• 4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed
request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal
Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations.
Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or
approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulatian
or requirement.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:03-2:12)
CJ
04-23-01
Page 25
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
•
~~
~ J
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
10b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00388
10c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00043
10d. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04437
10e. EXEMPTION TO ENGINEERING STANDARD DETAIL NO. 122
10f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.16181 (READVERTISED)
10g. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 10a, 10c, 10d, 10e, AND 10f Approved
Recommended adoption of
Exhibit A to City Council.
Granted
Denied
Approved
Approved
Recommended City
Council review.
OWNER: Orange County Water District, Attn: Mr. Don Jackson,
10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92728
(Vote: 6-0, Commissioner
AGENT: BV Engineering, Attn: Jim Pedergast, One Corporate Boydstun absent)
Park, Suite 101, Irvine, CA 92606
LOCATION: 2901 East South Street. This irregularly-shaped,
approximately 1.04-acre property has a frontage of 68
feet on the north side of South Street, and is located
130 feet east of the centerline of Westgate Drive.
Petitioner requests approval of the following:
General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00388: An
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan Map to redesignate this property from Open
Space to the Low-Medium Density Residential
designation.
Reclassification No. 2001-00043: To reclassify the
subject property from the RS-A-43,000
(Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RS-5000
(Residential, Single-Family) Zone.
Variance No. 2001-04437: Waiver of minimum
private street standards to establish a five-lot single
family residential subdivision.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16181: To establish a five-
lot single-family residential subdivision.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-46
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-47
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-48 SR2000TW.DOC
04-23-01
Page 26
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Introduction by Staff:
• Letter submitted by Residents of Westgate Village.
This item was introduced by Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner. This is a request for a General Plan
Amendment No. 2001-00388 to redesignate the property from open space to low-medium density residential
land use designation, a Reclassification No. 2001-00043 to reclassify the subject property from the RSA-
43,000 Zone to the RS-5,000 Zone and Exception to Engineering Standard Detail 122 pertaining to the
minimum private street standards and also a Tentative Tract Map No. 16181 to establish a five-lot detached
single-family residential subdivision, for property located at 2901 East South Street and staff is
recommending approval of the project.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Greg McCafferty stated a petition was received from homeowners in that area regarding the project.
Applicant's Statement:
Jim Pendergast, BV Engineering. BV is working with the Orange County Water District on this project. They
have reviewed the conditions and they are acceptable to the Water District.
PUB~IC TESTIMONY:
Theodra Mack, 62 South Westgate Drive. She brought the petition letter in. She stated she spoke with
Planning Department Staff (Ted White) last week. She indicated concern after speaking with Mr. White who
• informed her that the homes would be two-story homes. Presently there are large lots with one-story family
residences. They have lived in their home for 31 years, they bought the home because it was a quiet,
peaceful neighborhood, no one behind, to the south of them or on the corner lot. They had privacy. They
are concerned about the small size of these lots, they are not as wide as hers or as deep, she is also
concerned about having two-story homes built behind their one-story residences which would be a loss of
privacy. She stated that when the Water District considered selling this land, that they would have consulted
the homeowners in the area as wel{. They want to give their opinions to them and receive some
consideration. Some homeowners might want to purchase this land to extend their own backyards.
Mr. Charles Lopez, 2883 East South Street at South and Westgate, he asked if the petitioner checked with
all the residents on South and Westgate concerning the five-lot family subdivision that is proposed? Is the
nursery on the current site willing to sell their property? Is Orange County Water District willing to sell its
property for the development of these houses? Who would want a view of the Santa Ana River? People jog
in that area, a track that goes to Huntington Beach and goes north as well, and people ride bicycles. He
feels that a different site for this development needs to be considered.
i
Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Pendergast if he had comments or questions?
Jim Pendergast stated that regarding the existing nursery, they are leasing property from Water District, he
is not sure when the lease is up. The Water District will sell the property. Regarding the neighbors wanting
to buy property, he cannot speak for the Water District on this. The District is looking to develop the property
with the subdivision proposed.
Chairperson Koos clarified that the Water District, is, technically, the applicant on this project.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
04-23-01
Page 27
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Bristol noted that per the conversation in the morning session, it is agreed this is a nice area,
• secluded. If it is not a nursery, and it is owned by someone else, which it is, what other uses should go
there? Would you prefer apartments? It's not retail. Not commercial. The single-family dwelling is most like
their property. It is one of the few properties he has seen in a long time where when you drive there, it
makes sense. It woufd be nice to have a nice single-family development next to a very nice single-family
development. He asked Mr. McCafferty if it is a two-story project.
Greg McCafferty stated that currently they are not proposing any specific homes. The purpose of plotting
homes on the map is to show they can comply with the development standards.
Commissioner Bristol stated these are large homes and according to the map. He asked could they put a
single-family with that square footage on that site plan without it being a two-story?
Mr. Pendergast stated that he is not sure, the Water District will be looking to sell the property, it will likely be
a two-story product. Originally they had come in with a proposal to put in a nine-unit condominiums, they
thought this would be a good transition from the single-family to the apartments on the north. In working with
staff it was decided to put in five single-family in lieu of the nine-unit condominium.
Greg Hastings pointed out that this property is currently zoned to allow for one single-family house, RSA-
43,000 and there are no restrictions on that zone, there are no restrictions on the zone on Westgate nor the
proposed zone. There are no restrictions in the Code that limits anything to single story, there may be
increased setbacks for a two-story development. As with all single-family zones, they do not have
restrictions with this situation.
Commissioner Bostwick stated this is a less intense use for the property. They do not have a developer yet.
If neighbors want to buy this and ask Water District before they get a developer to do this. Hopefully the
~ Water District will present what they are going to do with the neighbored before they do it, so they
(homeowners) can see it and understand what is going to happen next door to them.
Chairperson Koos stated he initially thought it was a good fit, and this is going to be five potentially single-
family houses. It is going to be good for the neighborhood and this is not an incompatible land use.
During the Action:
Commissioner Arnold directed a question to Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, he stated that one thing
mentioned in the letter was that more people wanted to be present and what she indicated was City Council
will consider this at a subsequent meeting, which would provide another opportunity for those not present
today to attend?
Selma Mann verified that was correct.
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns and a petition was submitted with 11 signatures.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration.
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-
00388, Exhibit A(to redesignate this property from the Genera{ Open Space land
use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation).
• Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00043 (to reclassify this property from the RS-
A-43,000 Zone to the RS-5000 Zone) subject to the conditions listed in the staff
report.
04-23-01
Page 28
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. Denied Variance No. 2001-04437 since it was deemed not to be necessary.
Approved an exception to Engineering Standard Detail No. 122 regarding
minimum private street standards based on the Public Works Department staff s
recommendation that this development would be adequately served by the
proposed street width of 20 feet with a 4-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of
the street, and that the irregular and narrow shape of the property along South
Street precludes development of the private street in strict compliance with said
standard.
Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16181 (to establish a 5-lot, detached single-
family residential subdivision).
Recommended City Council consideration of the negative declaration,
reclassification, variance, tentative tract map and waiver of Engineering Standard
Detail No. 122 in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of the general
plan amendment.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 16181
and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions.
• DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (2:13-2:30)
~
04-23-01
Page 29
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
. 11b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00389 Recommended adoption of
Exhibit A to City Council.
11c. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00390 Recommended adoption of
Exhibit A to City Council.
11d. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00044 Granted, unconditionally
11e. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00045 Granted, unconditionaliy
11f. C{TY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 1TEMS 11a, 11d and 11e Recommended City
Council review.
OWNER: State of California, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100,
Irvine, CA 92612-0661 (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner
Vanderbilt abstained,
LOCATION: Parcel 1: This irregularly-shaped approximately 3.5- Commissioner Boydstun
acre property is generally located south of the terminus absent)
of Crescent Avenue and northeast of the Santa Ana (I-
5) Freeway, and has a maximum depth of 390 feet and
is located 150 feet west of the centerline of Westmont
Drive (1830 West Crescent Avenue).
General Plan Amendment Nos. 2001-00389: A City-
initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to redesignate certain properties from the
Medium Density Residential land use designation to the
Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
Reclassification No. 2001-00044: Reclassification of
~ this property from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-
Family) Zone to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single
Family) or less intense Zone.
LOCATION: Parcel 2: This irregularly-shaped 1.2-acre property is
generally located southwest of the intersection of
Glenoaks Avenue and Greenleaf Avenue, northeast of
the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, and has a maximum
depth of 363 feet (2030 West Greenleaf Avenue).
General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00390: A City-
initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to redesignate certain properties from the
Medium Density Residential land use designation to the
Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
Reclassification No. 2001-00045: Reclassification of
this property from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-
Family) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-
Family) or less intense Zone.
GENERAL PLAN 2001-00389 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-49
RECLASSIFICATION 2001-00044 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-50
GENERAL PLAN 2001-00390 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-51
RECLASSIFICATION 2001-00045 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-52 SR7953VN.DOC
r ~
~J
04-23-01
Page 30
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
lntroduction by Staff:
~ Greg McCafferty introduced this item as a series of General Plan Amendments and Reclassifications. The
first General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00389 is a City-initiated amendment to the land use element of the
General Plan to redesignate the property from medium density residential to low-medium density residential
and the Reclassification No. 2001-00044 is afso City-initiated and that proposes to go from RM-1200 to RS-
5000, General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00390 is a City-initiated amendment to the land use element of the
General Plan to redesignate the property from medium density residential to low-medium density residential
and the last Reclassification No. 2001-00045 is a City-initiated reclassification from the RM-1200 Zone to the
RM-2400 or less intense zone.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he may have a conflict with Parcel No. 2 he advised he would be abstaining
from 11 c and 11 e(just prior to the voting he decided to abstain on this item completely).
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
No one was present for testimony.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bristol indicated that there has been issues before and Commission made land use issues on
remnant pieces from CalTrans, more specifically as stated this morning was the one by Lakeview, which he
understands is proceeding. He stated a lot of comments were received from Council regarding setback and
next to the freeway. Now they are taking a remnant piece that had housing on it that lost frontage on the
property and they asked to come back in and rezone this residential at RS-5000. He has no problems with
that, but what is the most and best use for the land?
~ Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff whether the previous action Planning Commission took on this a year
ago was already in process.
Chairperson Koos asked was this to initiate this?
Greg McCafferty stated this was correct.
Commissioner Bostwick stated since this was residential before, it is appropriate to put residential back on it.
Since there are now sound walls along that area of the freeway, whatever will be built will not have any
impacts.
Commissioner Arnold pointed out that Commission has recently seen considerable pressure on the City from
the State with respect to the provision of housing in the area. He feels this is an important policy
consideration.
Greg McCafferty advised if there is a tract map or request for variance, that would be brought back to
Planning Commission.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
~
04-23-01
Page 31
APRIL 23, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No.
2001-00389 (redesignating Parcel 1 from the Medium Density Residential to the
Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation) by adopting Exhibit "A".
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No.
2001-00390 (redesignating Parcel 2 from the Medium Density Residential to the
Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation) by adopting Exhibit "A".
Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00044 (to rezone Parcel 1 from RM-1200 to
RS-5000 or a less intense Zone) unconditionally.
Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00045 (to rezone Parcel 2 from RM-1200 to
RM-2400 or a less intense Zone) unconditionally.
Recommended City Council consideration of the negative declaration and
reclassifications in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of the
general plan amendments.
~
~
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained and Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:31-2:37)
ADJOURNED AT 2:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 7, 2001 AT
10:30 A.M. FOR WORKSHOP WITH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Respectfully submitted:
a ice O'Connor
ior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~ ~
04-23-01
Page 32