Minutes-PC 1989/06/05. ~°~i
,;~ ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JITNE 5, 1989, AT 9:30 A.M.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
AND/OR FIELD TRIP INSPECTION (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
9:30 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
9:30 A.M.: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO DEER
CANYON E2:GINEERING ISSUES.
2. OVERVIEW OF GRADING PLAN PROCESSING PROCEDURE BY
THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE.
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The preponents in applications which are not contested will have
five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be
granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such
'- additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's
consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be
given ten minutes to present his case unless additional time is
requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The
Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time
a participant speaks, but rather by what he says.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the
Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public
prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is
closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if,
in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents are presented to the Planning Commission for review in
connection with any hearing, including photographs or other
acceptable visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall
be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be
available for public inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be
allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each
speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
0526b Page 1
la. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
lb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3158
OWNER: FULLERTON MOTOR PARTS CO., 140 W. Commonwealth Avenue,
Fullerton, CA 92632
AGENT: SHOOK BUILDING SYSTEMS INC., 2055 S. Baker Avenue,
Ontario, CA 91761
LOCATION: 120 W. South Street
To permit an automotive maintenance building.
Continued from the May 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3144
OWNER: TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC., 1926 E. Pacific Coast
Highway, Willmington, CA 90744
AGENT: ALBERT AGUERA, '100 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 100 West Katella Avenue
~~ To retain a towing service in an existing service station with waiver
iy~ of dedication of right-of-way.
Continued from the April 24, 1989 and May 8, 1989 Planning Commission
meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: requested waiver of dedication requirement with
this permit to become null and void when street improvements are made due
to widening since property owner will not make dedication of property.
Current lease is for 3 years.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Use has existed 23 years, and property will be
acquired when needed for widening.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attorney - recommended that a time limit be sit rather
than vagueness of 'when street is improved'; Traffic Engineer - street
will be widened shorY.ly; use has been there illegally, will work with
petitioner to prepare letter to Texaco requesting irrevocable offer of
dedication.
ACTION: Continued to 7-5-89
Petitioner to get letter from Texaco (property owner) regarding dedication.
-2-
., J
~.,~
,~
~-
Continued to
7-5-89
~; , ~.
6/5/89
~; 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11
..
3b. VARIANCE N0. 3945
OWNERS: WILLIAM A. ERICKSON AND LEIDA C. ERICKSON,
205 Owens Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 205 Owens Drive
To retain one 25-foot high (retracted) to 70-foot high (expanded) ham
radio tower with waiver of prohibited ground-mounted equipment.
Continued from the May 8, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 2 people present
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS: Did meet with petitioner to review plans to cover
tower, but antennea would not be covered.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Agreed slope needs landscaping, but has higher
priority to landscape fro.at yard. Slope will be planted with ground cover
and there are 17 trees planted on the slope now. Czin see tower from
neighbor's back yard, but not from their house.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Messe - went to view tower from Mrs. Blume's
property and it is very intrusive, but lack of landscaping on slope is
even worse; Herbst- Concerned that people do things like this without
getting proper permits first; ham radios do provide a community service in
case of disaster.
ACTION: Granted
Subject to revised plans with the ham radio tower to be enclosed on 3
sides by a 1"x6" tongue and groove cedar clad structure, and on the fourth
side by the garage stucco wall to a height of 20 ft.; approx. 8'3" of
tower and the 10-ft. mast and antenna would be visible above the enclosure
when the tower is in the retracted position; and subject to landscaping on
slope being completed within four months and being permanently maintained.
VOTE: ?yes votes
Granted
revised plan
structure to
Green tower)
C•
~~'a.
_3_ ~ 6/5/89
;.
f~'" ',]
s
,'rr'
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (REAnVERTiSED)
4b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-•89-50 READVERTISED
4c. VARIANCE N0. 3934 (READVER^'ISEnI
4d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13925 READVERTISED
OWNER: ELIAS DUIEDO AND JOHN WRIGHT, 6351 Santa Catalina,
Garden Grove, CA 92645
LOCATION: 227 North Coffman Street
RS-7200 to RM-3000 or a less intense zone.
To construct a 1 and 2-story 6-unit condominium complex with waivers
of. (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) minimum
front yard building setback, (c) permitted encroachment into required
yards and (d) minimum vehicle access requirements.
Continued from the May 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0.
------------ _ __
------------------- __
------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 2 people present
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS: Thought 8-foot high wall had been agreed to; would
like mature trees; parking spaces 4 feet from property line would be a
noise problem.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: 5 townhouses, and 1 one-story unit closest to
single-famiy homes; 2 parking spaces to rear, but most of parking towards
Coffman; varying rooflines; wall was similar issue on project next door
and thought it was to be a 7-foot high wall, with 5 feet of concrete block
and two feet of lattice or decorative material to eliminate prison look;
could eliminate one parking space in rear, spin one unit with access off
Coffman and one unit with access of Cypress; requested continuance to
review a 5-unit project.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: (Herbst) -felt 6 units is overbuilding the
property, all you see is concrete with wide driveway, no landscaping in
the rear; could be designed to be more acceptable to neighborhood; no
parking on Coffman; cumulative impact on street; standard size parcel and
could be developed within Code; would like to see 5 units instead of 6; no
hardshiip for granting waiver; (Messe) - 4 four-bedroom units; (Feldhaus)
- concerned about emergency access.
ACTION: Continued to 7-5-89 at request of petitioner in order to review
possibility of 5 units.
-4-
Continued to
7-5-89
Public hear-
reopened
" /:~
i/5/89
5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-53
5c. VARIANCE N0. 3941
5d. REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE
PERTAINING TO ELEVATORS
r!'
'w.;;<,~ OWNER: RODRIGUEZ, JONES & COMPANY, INC., 2045 S. Raster Avenue,
_ Suite 10, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: Property is approximately 2 33 acres bounded by Santa Ana
Street, Helena Street Elm Street and Clencentine Street.
RM-2400 to RM-1200
To construct a 102-unit "affordable" apartment complex (originally
advertised as 120 units) with waivers of (a) maximum structural
height, (b) minimum site area per dwelling unit, (deleted by revised
plans) (c) minimum structural setback and (d) maximum lot coverage.
Petitioner requests interpretation of Code Sec'~ion 18.32.070
pertaining to elevator requirements.
Continued from the April 24, 1989 and May 22, 1989 Planning
Commission meetings.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-153
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-154
a. minimum site area per dwelling unit - deleted by revised
plans
b. maximum structural height - approved
c. maximum site coverage - approved
d, minimum structural seL-back -approved
~ INTERPRETATION RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-155
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES>
OPPOSITION: No one present in opposition
There were several people present in favor of request - letter with 15
signatures in favor submitted. Two people spoke relating concerns about
current crime rate and current traffic problems.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Project no longer designated as "affordable";
neighbors support project because of existing crime problems; Parks
Department is going to enforce dedication requirement for first time on
apartment complex and instead of $186,000 park fees, will spend $500,000
to $800,000 for 1/2 acre property to be dedicated for park; site is on
edge of Redevelopment area; will be state of the art, high quality
project, more landscapi,:g; surrounding uses are RM 1200; explained 3 full
time employees will take care of getting trash to pick-up area; if project
could have been considered earlier than May 22, elevator would not be a~
problem; first floor units must be ii~ndicapped accessible; agreed to put
handicapped parking spaces inside security gate.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Questioned trash chutes; security for garages;
concerned about elevator since Code says anything 3 stories and above must
have elevator to all levels, but if not close to sincrle family, would not
be considered 3 stories; handicapped parking spaces outside the gate;
Approved
Granted
Granted Re-
vised Flans
Interpreta-
made
-5- REVISED 6/5/Bg
•''~':-;:,;) 5a. CE A GATIVE DECLARATIO
5b. RECLASS FICATION N0. 88-
5c. VARIANCE 0. 3941
5d. REQUEST F TATTF.ADD~mrmr
OWNER: ROD~UE2, JONES & COMPANY, INC., 2045 S. Has ter Avenue,
Suit 10, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION:
RM-2400 to RM-1200
To construct a 102-uni "affordable" apartment complex (originally
advertised as 120 units with waivers of (a) maximum structural
height, (b) minimum site area per dwelling unit, (deleted by revised
plans) (c) minimum struct ral setback and (d) maximum lot coverage.
Petitioner requests interpr tat
pertaining to elevator requi en
Continued from the April 24, 1_
Commission meetings.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC 8
INTERPRETATION RESOLUTION N0.
ion of Code Section 18.32.070
ents.
and May 22, 1989 Planning
--------------------- _
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMI ION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL•MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: No one present in opposition
There were several people present in favor of re est - letter with 15
signatures in favor submitted. Two people spoke lating concerns about
current crime rate and current traffic problems.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Project no longer designated as "affordable";
neighbors suppo:-t project because of existing crime p oblems; Parks
Department is going to enforce dedication requirement or first time on
apartment complex and instead of $186,000 park fees, wi 1 spend $500,000
to $800,000 for 1/2 acre property to be dedicated for pa k; site is on
edge of Redevelopment area; will be state of the art, hig quality
project, more landscaping; surrounding uses are RM 1200; a lained 3 full
time employees will take care of getting trash to pick-up a ea; if project
could have been considered earlier than May 22, elevator wou not be a
problem; first floor units must be handicapped accessible; ag ed to put
handicapped parking spaces inside security gate.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Questioned trash chutes; security for garag
concerned about elevator since Code says anything 3 stories and above must
have elevator to all levels, but if not close to single family, woul not
be considered 3 stories; handicapped parking spaces outside the gate;
-5-
ranted
ranted
nterpreta-
made
6/5/89
~ ~ .... _.
~ questioned height of berm on perimeter (4 or 5 feet)(petitioner agreed to
4 feet minimum); concerned about a car Eire in garage (garage fully
sprinklered); concerned about exposed pipes (sanitation & plumbing) (only
exposed pipes would be in garage; concerned about landscaped areas not
being maintained; concerned about deck (developer indicated it would post
tension decks)
MC:4
'~:~~~
STAFF COMMENTS:' Would not be considered three stories if there were no
single-family residences around it; Attorney - no legal way to exempt
development from Code requirement for elevator, unless Commission makes
Code interpretation such as multiple buildings, surrounding community, etc.
ACTION: Granted Reclassification S Variance - subject to berm being
minimum of 4 feet high, security of garage area subject to approval of
City Traffic Engineer, handicap parking spaces to be relocated inside
security gates.
Made interpretation of Code regarding elevator, ar..d since project has
multiple buildings and the surrounding community is 75~ developed with RM
1200 and RM 2400, and subterranean garage is 4 to 5 below grade, project
could be considered two stories rather than three.
VOTE: 6 yes votes
(Herbst - conflict of interest)
6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 256 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OWNER: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 5. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92803
City initiated a•-~ndment to the Circulation Element of the General
Plan to consider redesignation of Center Street (from Lincoln Avenue
to State College Boulevard) and Clementine Street (from Broadway to
Lincoln Avenue) from the designation of Secondary Arterial F:ighway to
local streets; Crescent Way (from Lincoln Avenue to Crescent Avenue)
from the designation of a commuter street to a local street; and Via
Cortez (from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Route 91) from the designation
of Hillside Secondary Arterial Highway to a local street.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0, PC 89-156
FOLLOWING IS A SL't+A~1ARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. 4TUT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
STAFF COMMENTS: Traffic Engineer explained necessary housekeeping duties
to provide consistency with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways.
ACTION; Approved
VOTE: 7-yes votes
-6-
roved
.• ~~
~~ +..%r
6/5/89
Zt 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
7b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 257 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OYv'NER: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim, Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92803
City initiated amendment to the Circulation Element of the General
Plan to consider redesignation of Convention Way from West Street to
Interstate 5 from its current designations of local street, Major
Arterial Highway and Secondary Arterial Highway to the single
designation of Primary Arterial Highway.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0.
8a. SUPPLEMENT TO ETR N0. 281 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED)
8b. REVISION NG. 1 TO PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NOS. NOS. 13266 13512 13513 13514 13515
13516 13517 13518 13535 13536 13537 13511 13533
13534. 13540, AND 13541 IN ORDER TO REVISE AtdD RE-FILE
SAiD MAPS AS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACTS
8c. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 13510, 13538, 13531
13542, 13986, AND 13897
OWNERS: THE BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION: Subject twenty-two (22) Vesting Tentative Tracts comprise a
portion (approximately 224 acres) of the 591-acre The
Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) development
area which is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of
the Weir Canyon Road/Riverside Freeway intersect5.on and is
bounded on the xiorth by the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
development, and on the south and east by unincorporated
Irvine Company property within the County of Orange.
(A) Petitioner reques~.s approval of Revision No. 1 to sixteen (16)
previously-approved Tentative Tracts in order to revise and re-file
said maps as Vestinc Tentative Tracts and to develop 82 single-family
attached residential structures and 354 single-family detached
residential structures as follows:
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13266
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 6.4-acre, 14-lot (plus 3 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13512
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 16.1-acre, 33-lot (plus 3 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13513
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 32-acre, 30-lot (plus 7 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
o VESTING TENTATIVE: TRACT MAP N0. 13514
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 11-acre, 26-lot (plus 3 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
-7-
tinued• to
7-5-89
i~j
ntinued to
6/19/89
i.y/~-, J
6/5/8
.'',;t;r~;r~ o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13515
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 22.6-acre, 45-lot (plus 6 open space lot)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13516
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 6-acre, 27-lot single-family detached
residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13517
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 8.4-acre, 27-lot (plus 3 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0, 13818
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 5-acre, 11-lot (plus 3 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 101)
oV_ESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 13535
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 6.9-acre, 20-lot (plus 1 open space lot)
single-family attached residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13536
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 3.7-acre, 32-lot si:.gle-family attached
residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAF N0. 13537
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 3.4-acre, 30-].ot single-family attached
.~zµ` residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13511
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 12.7-acre, 29-lot (plus 2 open space lots and
one water reservoir site lot) single-family detached residential
subdivision (Development Area 105)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13533
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 11.3-acre, 21-lot (plus 1 open space lot)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 105)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13534
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 179-acre, 38-lot (plus 2 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 105)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13540
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 1.0.5-acre, 29-lot (plus 1 open space lot)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 105)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13541
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 8.1-acre, 24-lot (plus 1 open space lot)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 105)
(B) Petitioner requests approval of six (6) Vesting Tentative Tracts in order
to develop 148 single-family attached residential structures and 23
single-family detached residential structures as follows:
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13510
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 4.9-acre, 26-lot (plus 2 open space lots)
single-family attached residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
-8- 16/5/89
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13538
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, b.4-acre, 20-lot (plus 1 open space lot
single-family attached residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13539
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 3.7-acre, 32-lot (plus 1 open space lot)
single-family attached residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13542
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 9.1-acre, 34-lot (plus 3 open space lots)
single-family attached residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13986
To establish a SP8S-2 Zone, 3.9-acre, 36-lot single-family attached
residential subdivision (Development Area 104)
o VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO_13987
To establish a SP88-2 Zone, 13.6-acre, 23-lot (plus 2 open space lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Ares 105)
9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT to 6-19-89
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3163 PH reopened
~~
,; ,
OWNER: ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF ANAHEIM, P.O. Box 4073, ;
v,- ~;!:!. !_.~
Anaheim, CA 92$03
AGENT: C. J. (CAL) QUEYREL, ANACAL ENGINEERING CO., P.O. Box 3668,
Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: 1341 W. La Palma Avenue
To permit expansion of an existing private club with waivers of (a)
minimum front yard setback and (b) minimum side yard setback.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. _
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING CObLtifISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 8 people present
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS: Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council presented
letter opposing land use of parking lot '.n middle of residential
neighborhood; problems with people in parking lot at night, drinking and
throwing beer or wine containers into yards; homes in area have been
upgraded and this would reduce property values; suggested they
incorporated parking with hospital rather than encroaching into
neighborhood; problems with graffiti; problem from lights in parking lot
at night; willing to work with Assistance League to solve problem, but
' _g_ 6/5/89
~~~.
"~' feel strongly this will be detrimental to their neighborhood; would rather
have them park on the residential streets for their monthly meetings; did
not want to look at block wall across the street from home; Assistance
League was aware this was single-family home when they purchased property;
young people raising children in the neighborhood; invitation for crime
and would be an escape route for criminals.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Showed plans to two residents directly across the
street and they did not indicate opposition; rest of people in general
area are renters; at one time had agreement for parking with hospital, now
have letter from hospital saying they can no longer use lot because of
their proposed expansion; when facility is rented for wedding receptions,
security guard is informed to patrol parking lot and no drinking is
allowed and no liquor is served there; parkway would be heavily landscaped
and you would not be able to see vehicles from Glen; church could be built
in single family neighborhood; this is private club and conforming use for
the property; could put gate across access to prevent people from driving
in at night;; do not want to be bad neighbors and want to benefit
neighborhood; League meetings are on Thursday which is street sweeping day
and hospital has had problems with residents parking on their lot;
lighting of lot would be ground lighting.
COMMISST_ON COMMENTS: Messe - Questioned whether all avenues have been
closed to park on hospital property; (applicant indicated had seen plans
showing a Phase 4 second office building on La Palma and there was
~~ discussion of stacked parking); parking lot between two single-family
homes could be a tremendous burden on those residents; tena:zts are
entitled to same consideration and rights as property owne-s.
Herbst - felt this would impose real problem for the neighborhood; noted
churches are permitted in residential neighborhoods by approval of a
Conditional Use Permit; was not comfortable with use even with
landscaping; felt if this is allowed, and the hospital needed more ground,
they would encroach further.
McBurney - suggested landscaping on east and west sides and a gate to
prevent people from entering lot;
Feldhaus - neighbors have indicated willingness to work with Assistance
League suggested continuance to work out problems by providing screening
on both sides and a gate
ACTION: Continued to 6-19-89
(Bouas - conflict of interest)
-10- 16/5/89
.,' 10a. CEOA NEGATtvF DE('LARaTrnu
lOb. VARIANCE N0. 3961
lOc. PE IMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N
lOd. O 89 06
WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY
N0. 542
OWirER: N,ICHAEL ADAMS, TOM TARBUTTON AND GORDON DAVIDSON,
326 N. Ratella, Suite No. 4-L, Orange, CA 92667
LOCATION: 1261-1271 Allwood Circle
To waive required lot frontage to establish a 10-lot RS-5000 zone,
single-family residential subdivision, including the removal of one
specimen tree.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING TS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 6 people present
Petition presented
hazardTfor'emerge ncysvehiclesngclosehtosrailroadrandttrainsepassind caus
houses further away to shake; will change character of neighborhood; e
houses would be below the average size of other houses in community; after
Gr San Bernardino runaway train accident, concerned whether or not the house
could be sold, affecting property values; maintenance of private street. s
Did not feel developer had considered the people who bought there first
a.nd what they thought the future development of this property might be.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: These homes would be larger than homes in
community; suggested sound study would be ready before the tentative tract
map in 4 to 6 weeks and requested approval.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Herbst - would be more comfortable voting on this
project if he had sound engineer report first; and felt mitigation
measures could be a 20-foot high wall; pointed out flag lots with private
streets have been allowed in the hill and canyon area.
Messe - Concerned about grade of private street (10~ to 12~) and fire
department capability to ge: Eire equipment there (staff noted Condition
No. it says grade shall not exceed 10~, except as approved by the Fire
Department and Engineering Department.
STAFF COMMENTS: Conditions of approval include standards and maintenance
of private streets;
ACTION: Continued to 7-5-89 to be heard at same time as tentative tract
map, with sound study to be submitted, and will be readvertised.
-11-
.~ti}A~4 . - ... .. .... _. ~.
Continued to
7-5-89
Public Hear-
ing Reopened
(rl~'I L(
6/5/89
t
~`~
-i ~a.; 13a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
"ti;:;~ 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. "s 165 Granted
OWNER: ANAHEIM LAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 450 Newport Center Drive,
Suite 304, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 2430 E. Katella Avenue
To permit a commercial retail center and on-sale alcoholic beverages
in two proposed freestanding restaurants with waiver of required site
screening.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC 89-158
Waiver of required site screening - approved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Restaurants would be developed in two phases,
would complete first phase of the parking structure before starting on
second restaurant, should have adequate parking at all times; would like
to start first phase (Hungry Hunter) asap; originally had two conditional
use permits - one Eor hotel and one for office building, and initially
intended to develop hotel.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Suggested 3 foot high berm along Katella;
STAFF COMMENTS: This particular project requires d+~al left turn from
Katella; 12 feet is maximum
ACTION: Granted
Subject to minimum 3-foot high berm along Katella
VOTE: 7 yes votes
-13- 6/5/89
lla. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Approved I
llb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3166 Granted
r
OWNER: VANDERBILT, LTD., 27401 Los Alto:,, Suite 400, '-
Mission Viejo, CA 92691 ~:
AGENT: STEi7E DUNBAR, 20429 Yarba Linda Boulevard,
Yorba Linda, CA 92686
LOCATION: 8285-95 Santa Ana Canyon Road
To permit an animal hospital. ~,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-157
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OF: 'ITION: None
PETITIONER'S CvMMENTS: Currently operating in Yorba Linda; will treat
household pets, not large animals would not board animals other than when
necessary due to illness or surgery.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Concerned about sound proofing.
ACTION: Granted
VOTE: 6 yes votes
i
(McBurney - conflict of interest)
'2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
~.
12b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-59 Withdrawn
12c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
12d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3167 ~ ,
~;
OWNER: BURNETT-EHLINE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
ATTN: JOHN KILLEN, 2050 S. Santa Cruz, Suite 100,
Anaheim, CA 92805 ~
LOCATION: 1521 North Imperial Highway
RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC).
To permit a commercial retail center with office/retail uses and two ~
semi-enclosed restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages and three ~
walk-up restaurants with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking ~
spaces, (b) minimum structural setback and (c) prohibited I
i
roof-mounted equipment.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
t
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. t
1
-12- 6/5/89
13 a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3165 Granted
OWNER: ANAHEIM LAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 450 Newport Center Drive,
Suite 304, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 2430 E. Katella Avenue
To permit a commercial retail center and on-sale alcoholic b~2verages ~
,~/~,L~
in two proposed freestanding restaurants with waiver of required site
screening.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-158
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Restaurants would be developed in two phases,
would complete first phase of the parking structure before starting on
second restaurant, should have adequate parking at all times; would like
to start first phase (Hungry Hunter) asap; originally had two conditional
use permits - one for hotel and one for office building, and initially
intended to develop hotel.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Suggested 3 foot high berm along Katella;
STAFF COMMENTS: This particular project requires dual left turn from
Katella; 12 feet is maximum
ACTION: Granted
Subject to minimum 3-foot high berm along Katella
VOTE: 7 yes votes
-13- 6/5/89
r4 a_: 14a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Approved
~~ 14b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-55 (READVERTISED) Granted
14c. VARIANCE NO 3944 (WITHDRAWAL REQUESTED) Withdrawn
14d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied
14e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3168 Granted,pt
(a&b denied)
d deleted)
14f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13997 (READVERTISED) Approved
OWNER: DONALD HUNT, 12844 Inglewood Avenue, > > -J
Hawthorne, CA 90250 }
~
AGENT: WILLIAM PEARCE, 12844 Inglewood Avenue, /j
~;.
Hawthorne, CA 90250
LOCATION: 400 West Wilken Wav
CG to RM-2400 or a less intense zone.
To establish a 1-lot 106-unit condominium subdivision with waivers of
(a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) handicapped access and (c}
minimum recreational-leisure area.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-159
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC 89-160
~
~
~
A. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces - denied
B. Waiver of Y~andicapped access - denied
C. Waiver of minimum recreational-leisure area - deleted by
revised plans
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: it people present
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS:
traffic and access to the Smoketree condominium project
strongly objected to opening Willowbrook
will increase noise
affect children's safety
no traffic signal at Willowbrook and Chapman
during rush hour cars do back up on Chapman
could not prohibit access to the Smoketree open area
Smoketree project is very remote and separated by Willowbrook
with private areas on both sides
inquired about subject property when purchasing his unit and was
told that would be self-storage units and that there would be no
access from that property to Willowbrook
would be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare
'~J putting storm drain in Willowbrook would be disruptive
suggested access on Wilken Way be left turns only
property owner on Wilken pointed out Willowbrook was originally
planned to be a through street
people would chose most convenient route
-14- 6/5/89
- .
a concerned about decreased property values.
will there be a study of traffic
originally planned with fire gate on Wilken Way, and suggested a
fire gate on Willowbrook with traffic flow to Wilken Way
gated community which means the occupants of new project would
have access through Smoketree, but Smoketree occupants would not
have access through their project.
why not open Tiller
. (Traffic Engineer - was applicant's decision not to have
access to Tiller and appliclant said they felt they had
adequate access without Tiller).
. EIR done in 1980 was 4 years before Smoketree was developed
. did not think Commission could make finding that it will not
affect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
. Due to timing, Phase 2 portion will be in front of Commission in
two weeks
. need parking waiver on interim basis for Phase I, but waiver
would not be needed when Phase II is done
understands it was not the City Council's intention to require
handicap access on projects with "for sale" units, and that an
interpretation will be made by the City Council to that effect;
and that the intent was with reference to deck housing
. Met with residents at Ponderosa Park and tried to resvond to all
their concerns; residents want to make sure that Phase II is
actually submitted, and they were afraid developer would stop
here and then come back with something strange, and insured them
proper paperwork is in and that there will be a hearing in two
weeks to addr~:,ss Phase II.
. Traffic report was done for the mini storage facility and it was
determined there was adequate ingress and egress using both
Willowbrook and Wilkes way
. proposed gated community with two accesses and hopefully limit
traffic thi:ough both, with no access on Tiller
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
(idesse) - questioned number of units proposed for Phase 2
will be 44 units, for a total of 170 units
- suggested reciprocal parking agreement between two phases
(Bouas) - was EIR done on this property in the past
- (applicant indicated documentation of a much larger project
than, this with a mitigation plan worked out and that
Traffic Engineering staff looked at this;
- asked if Willowbrook could become a private street if it
was not opened
(Herbst)- problem with parking abutting homes in Phase 2, not acceptable.
- abutting back yards with trash
- buffer req~Sred for multiple-family units abutting single family
`1 STAFF COMMENTS:
Engineering
- Sewer & drainage facilities will not be prohibited due to any
abandonment of Willowbrook Lane;
- agate with tur.•n around area to make Smoketree a gated community
may be difficult to achieve unless the right of way is obtained
-15-
6/5/89
from the commercial area or from the Smoketree cond~~minium
property owners and that would make Willowbrook a private street.
- May wish to consider serwer and drainage facilities construction
as part of CEQA process
Planning
- EIR 228 was do2~e for a Tentative Tract in 1980;
- May want to consider no elavators in RM-3000 Zone, but problem
would be where do we draw the line between apartments and
condominiums if we drop it in the RM 2400 Zone.
- State law primarily applies to apartments, and not to single
family or units for sale.
Attorney:
- Neg. Dec. appropriate if Commission can make finding that there
is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant impact on the environment; or a mitigated Neg. Dec.
if they find that the primary impact is discreet, for example,
traffic, and if the identified impacts are something that the
developer has agreed to mitigate by the particular conditions
that have been imposed, subject to the particular mitigation
measures that have been agreed to by the develo er.
P
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Reclassification
Withdrew Variance
Conditional Use Permit granted, in part
Waivers A & B denied and Waiver C deleted by revised plans
Code Interpreted pertaining to elevators - was not intended
that they are to be required in units that are to be sold, and
when there are multiple buildings, with subterranean parking
garage below grade which could be considered two story if not
adjacent to single-family zoned property.
VOTE: % yes votes
-16- ~ ;
• '5/89
~,fw;t~ 15. REPORTS A1dD RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO "LAUNDRIES"
IN THE ML (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) AND MH (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL)
ZONES.
Approved
H. AMEND ANAHEIM MiINICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING RE iIIF.EMENTS. Continued to
PC work ses.
6/12/89 3pm
C. REOiJEST FOR FORMULATION AND ADOPTION OF PRELIMINARY PLAN
FOR PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. Approved
RESOLUTION NO. PC 89-161
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST•
1. Opposition to Item No. 14 felt Commission had not answered their
concerns adequately and were told the matter could be appealed L•o City
Council, and traffic access altern atives could be discussed with Traffic
Engineering and developer.
-17- 6/5/89