Minutes-PC 1991/09/23~^
Acmi~xv ~A
RECZTLAR MEETING OF THE ANAHETr! CITY PLANNING GTk4fISSION
NC)NDAY, Sy..PlII~ER 23, 1991 AT 10:00 A.M.
I
3:30 a.m. - !I' Aaerne ~.ldu' update by ngrl~.bi~r- Staff.
9:30 a.m. - Zb disaiss single-zoC~ ac~vparxp ~;r~,f~;ai latrl use.
PREGIl~LIIVARf PLAN REVIEW PiJBLIC HEARING
~x~IC TFSrzr~~
10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m.
Q71~II~LiSSZONF;<2'S PRESENT: i
P1~IDCTRE !b I~IDITE PLANNING Q7Mh1ZSSI0N FU9LIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five
minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon
..._ ...~! : ~_ ~- .reque$b- i€•r in ~.~he~p~ai.on• of tba-Commiasica.,.-Hoch. additiona~..t~imQ. will ..,.~ .
`'~ produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponento and opponent will each be given
ten minutes to present hie case unless additional time is requested and the
complexity of the mstter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not
determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what
~ is said.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in
each hearing. Copiee 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
I opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be nerved.
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 wil' 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
\J maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
PC910923
09/23/91
Page. 1
(;
-': .r:
C
?`
,, ,.
,~
Yr
i ,"j.(
;v~/t~:
J~:
.4y,.
~.
{t,µ;
)~
1.,
~
~
.
r~~ ~..
lv~~h
tr
~S~ ~'v~1
~ ~,
~
e G
,~,
~. '
1
r
~k
~;
.
}'
~}
lR y
}~~.Y"~C y
y
~~'~
3~ ~
fib:
., ~.., .. .~ , ; :5 n,'4'~^, 'fir /'!~`S(~t~
T
i .
~
~~~t.
Continued to
1a.
CEUA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
October 7, 1991 ~
~ ~,~
~
lb. VARIA*TCE NO. 4136 (WIT1~IiAWN) ~~
,
1C. TEN!'ATIVE TRALT MAP NO. 14429 i ~`~'
~
1d. SPECIl~3V TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 91-07 I +
~,
,
.a ~'~`
CWNERS: ..*.,'D :STERN, LINDAuTERN, MANFRED A GLASTETTER, CHRISTA ~~~(~
GLASTETTER, GARY F. LYONS, DONNA LEE LYONS, RAYMOND W. PEARSON, ~ ~
PAMELA J. PEARSON, CURTIS B. PEARSON, REITA BETH PEARSON, FRED r
~,~„
GLASTETTER AND LORI GLASTETTER ~ ~~.
,Y
.y
~
~
.
~
AGAR!'. FRED GLASTETTER, 25012 Via Del Rio, E1 Toro, CA E
92630 a
i;
~
LOCATION: Property is approximately 8.4 acres located on the .
;
'~
'
west aide of Henning Way approximately 350 feet south of the ~~~
centerline of Quintana Drive. ~'~
~;.
Waiver of minimum lot width to establish a 7-lot (plus a ;'~'s
1-common lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family subdivision. ~` ~`
~~,:
To remove fifty-eight (58) specimen trees. ,l3
(~~/
~ ~,~
Continued from the August 26, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. "~ b5;
A~.
3
~r,
i
~,
09/23/91 ~~
Page 2 ~ +~~
~2r
r ~:
5 ~+
7C,tyC'
. h~
~' `rri'' h~•,
N:
+~..~wme~w~xn!eT~&t'!N!~3?iCe'H?a'A'rY.V7:.!~~7 F'a~n^,'ry.'4 '.., . ..... ... .. , ,.
f (k)
(2~a.
{ '~.
JT4t~r
4. 41,
K~
. 1.~~ ~'~
t11C
• 3,4
s 3~ . .
tti¢ ~k :~
'~?~,
f~
b~ h 1`K !ti
~.
~~~~,
t ~~~..
~~;
~~.~
~ ~ j(hL1
,i, a
w~~q,
<<` ~
3~y,„t
~
s
~3y~ ~'
~ _ ._
_ ` '+?" 4P
~X
i '~'.i Aa
r
,.~~.
r~
o
. ~~
r,. _ ~_
.: =,
..
'WZ,vla
stn
~
h `..
~
2a. CQ~A MITIGATED NEGA'1'1VE DECLARATION Approved .~:
2b. MODIFICATION OF AREA DEJEfA~'1' PLAN NO. 108 Granted
2c. OONDP!'IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3453 Granted ~ ~s~r
,..
+ir';
~: HAROLD COYXENDALL, 2890 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, `~~;
CA 92806
AGE1V'!': PHILLIP SCHWART2E, 27132-B Paseo Espada, Ste. 1222,
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 `,
IOCATION: 2890 E. La Palma Ave. Property is approximately
14.3 acres located at the southwest corner of
La Palma Avenue and White Star Avenue.
Modification of Area Development Plan No. 108 to allow
construction of a cul-de-sac and a revised Circulation Plan for
L M A Area De 1 ment Plan No 108 for the
a esa ve. ve op
construction of up to 141,135 square feet of
industrially-related office uses within a proposed 205,685
square foot industrial park.
MObIFICIATION OF AREA DEVEL. PLAN N0. 108 PC91-142
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-143
~..
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1 concerned person
PETYTIONER'S COMMENTS: Their ultimate intent is when the oil wells
are removed they may expand again with some additional structures
approximately 50X to 100K feet; it is not their intent to request any
adjuetmen*-e to the CUP nor a parking waiver or anything at that time.
He approached the exhibit board and explained this cul-de-sac is
proFgsed to abut adjacent to that property and no easement dedication
would be required from them, however, they would be happy to offer an
easement across the property and the full dedication of the
cul-de-sac as part of the CUP.
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS: Will be required to get an easement to access
their property; their issue is much more eminent then the buildout of
this structure. They would like to make sure they have access to
their property before fulfillment of the develpment plan eo they
would still have access. He explained that part of it involves
dedicating a portion of the land to the City for the roadway and a
cul-de-sac which they do not have access until it ie granted to the
City.
I
,'~
C ~~
y
,
?l . '
~ J.
Y~!
~^~'
A l
,~~ •
'~
1:, f
w
, N Y~.l_
. 7u
i ~~~~
L ~
y t
~t~~'
~ ~, QH.
a~ M1
M1
l.:Y T 1 1`~7b~M~~a~•~
n.r.... rr~"
Mxl
Henninger - It appears that it will be some time before they build ,
the cal-de-sac and the other proposal is seeking access more or lase ~~~?.
immediately; in the interim would the property owner be willing to ~.
give them a license to provide access across there?
-
;
Applicant - Yee i
-~
~
,~
.
x „Y..,
Schwartze - Mr. Coykendall just informed him teat they already have r,
'
an easement crossing the properties so it is simply allowing for the L
`
provision of that easement to continue. ,i;:
;; ~;<.
Mr. Winn - Was aware they did have an easement coming in off of White
Star but due to the concerns expressed by the Traffic Department, did
not want to get into a kettle of fish on the other aide of the
property with an unsignalized intersection.
Schwartze - It is their understanding that they do have the easement '~
passing off of the east; was not sure what to do about granting them
access across to the west; they will hurry alorq with their
development and the plane for the cal-de-sac have been submitted to
Engineering.
Melee - Recommends that they add a condition relative to the 240 feet
on La Palma Ave. for the developer to underground that section or
bond for the undergrounding of that section for utilities. I
Henninger - Asked Mr. Yalda, Traffic Engineering, if easement was not
granted to the property between them and the freeway, how would the
access be provided for that property?
Yalda - Believes there ie an easement agreement from White Star,
however, there are 2 property owners; one of the conditions of the
cal-de-sac is to grant an easement to Anaheim Disposal. He suggested
perhaps they could consider changing the condition.
Henninger - once the cul•-de-sac is in, it will be a public road, and
then they will not need an easement.
Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering - Even when the cal-de-sac
goes in the width of the property that abuts the cal-de-sac is not
wide enough for a driveway and would still need an easement for that
portion; it may be more appropriate an condition no. 18, since time
seems to be the issue, rather than delaying the easement until the
60 d 'i •~
~
ays
building permit, perhaps to a certain number of days each as ~
;
after approval, that the easement be granted. -
,~.
t
1
,.y ,.,
t
i
n
':~ ~I
74 ~qq
J R€
L"~~ i
. x~ tg
1>~".s~ .
~'.
~~~y ~,L
,f ~r,
f~kr~1
' ~ ~~~~
„~
:,y0..
':.1~9;.
',~-T S
y}1
Schwartze - There are 3 properties along the freeway right-of-way and
2 of them have direct easement and access to White Star and the other
one has acceae through them and onto La Mesa; the intent would be
that they would develop the cul-de-eac and the entire cul-de-sac
would be dedicated to the City; it is his understanding that the City
ie holding that easement pending resolution of the billboard issue;
it has nothing to do with them.
Hellyer - They do have an offering of a 60-day time limit and would
that work for theme
Schwartze - If the easement already exists, then they do not have to
do anything.
Adams - It is their understanding that the easements that are
existing are to White Star and the issue today is the acceae to
La Mean; right now this small piece of property under item no. 3 does
not have acceae to any public street; the access that the Public
Works Department would like to see would be towards La Mesa.
diti 18
Hellyer - Need to change wording in con on no.
Adams - Condition would be in terms of timing.
Mesas - It is hie understanding that the easement is in existence
because Development Plan 108 which took La Meea all the way
~ through. .._. -.._. __.
Yalda - If that would have gone forward, there would be no property
there and that is why when they talked to Mr. Schwartz, their
! understanding was that this cul-de-sac be designed ae such that it
would provide at least 30 feet of driveway to acceae through that
parcel.
Hellyer - Need language that would reidentify it to show that it has
acceae from La Mesa.
Henninger - The proposal on condition no. 18 is to change that
introductory phrase to say "within 60 days of this approval" and
insert in the third line after vehicular acceae easement, it should
say "from La Mesa" to the property immediately to the south of
subject property. (Strike the word "owner").
i Schwartze - It ie his understanding from Mr. Coykendall that he is
not interested in providing for that access until the construction of
the La Meea cul-de-eac; they already have easements and acceae out to
~~ White Star and they would continue to use those easements. When they
build the cul-de-sac, it would be dedicated to the City.
Mesas - Then you are suggesting that the property owner, under item 3
of today's agenda, take access from White Star?
Schwartze - They have access from White Star now.
Bouas - They have an easement through the other piece of property.
Schwartze - The problem ie between the other 2 adjoining properties;
once they develop and the cul-de-sac is built, then the email guy on
the westerly aide can take access directly through the cul-de-sac
that is being built.
Yalda - Doea not understand the reason; if he agreed to granting him
that, why should they not just give them an easement?
Schwartze - The problem is the 60 days; once they put the CUP into
play, and they start the cul-de-sac activities, there is no problem;
however, if for some reason the activity does not commence for 120
days, until they get financing, etc., they will be in violation of
the CUP.
Meese - We will see the traffic from item no. 3 coming along La Palma
down White Star
Schwartze - If that item is granted, that would be true.
~~
i
i
zemel - If the 60 days is not appropriate, is there a time period
that would be7
Schwartz - 180 days.
Henninger - Have you changed your position, i.e., I heard you say you
did not want to grant this easement until your project begins
construction?
Schwartze - If it was their desire they would do it that way, but he
also knows that the CUP expires in 180 days unless an extension were
granted.
Henninger - Then you would be willing to accept a condition that Bays
you will grant this within 180 days?
Hellyer - Mr. Yalda, would you have an opinion of traffic coming down
White Star as opposed to the original plan?
Yalda - It is going to be used by heavy trucks and they will be
making left-turns onto La Palma which is not signalized and that is
their concern. However, if they make a right-turn, they could use
Kraemer in order to get onto the Freeway; it may not be that
difficult for 180 days if the applicant agrees to it unless Anaheim
Disposal, regarding item no. 3 has anything to say.
U
y,.
1-
};~~.
5,~,
i~'m.
p
r ~ x
~~ w~
~K
~~~
~`~~~ a ,...._ ..
Schwartze - Within 180 days they could grant a vehicular accesa
easement assuming that they are not talking about any major paving
and that the exietiny billboard and some of the other structures are
allowed to remain.
Henninger - Does not have to be an easement, this might beet be
handled by a license that would be in place until the cul-de-sac is
constructed and once the cul-de-sac ie constructed they could give
them a driveway approach easement which is pernanent.
Schwartze - We are designing and building the cul-de-sac to the City
requirements.
Henninger - Leave condition no. 18 the way it ie and add a condition
that says within 120 days you would provide them with a license which
would provide accesa out to La Mesa until such time that the
cul-de-sac ie constructed. He asked the Deputy City Attorney if she
agreed with him.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney - Stated she did not know how much
of a savings there would be with a license; they could do this with
an easement as well, i.e., it could include a provision that it would
be terminable at such time as the final construction of La Mesa takes
place to be replaced with a subsequent one as approved by the City
Attorney's office. She added that either way it could be done and
the license would be an agreement that would be recorded against the
property.
Henninger - A license may make the property owner feel more~~~~~
~~ comfortable because they are typically done on a temporary basis.
Hastings - Read the following correction into the record regarding
Condition no. 23: "That a covenant shall be recorded providing that
in the event a parcel map to subdivide subject property is recorded,
the rcciy:ocal access and parking," etc.
ACTION: CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration - Approved
Modification of Area Development Plan No. 108 - Granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 3453 - Granted
(Add condition to underground utilities or pay appropriate
fees for undergrounding along the La Palma Ave. frontage;
add condition asking to provide accesa license within 120
days for the properties to the south to La Mesa Avenue and
correct condition no. 23 ae noted by staff above).
VDTE• 7-0
U
..,.~.-.~ ,,....-~.,~.p-----'-
~„~...
,~,r ..
f.~
1•~y~
t`~
V
'~x3 ,
~ ,`.
,~ + m '<. ,
~ y ,
~~~::
4 ~~
ip~
~:) ~'
~; -~,
t
C
~y~ rv
1r ~~~' ;
7rt
p H~ y . r.
'}d:
~ ~1:
~~a
r ai „~
•, ~~,~~r
~~~
y
~n ~~~.
.. '^~-~4%'d'~'~ .ter ~,y ,~
I ,.
:~ Y Yn.
::. k ,
,~
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
CFbA NF~'IVE DA^.GARATION Approved ~,
RA:LASSIFICA'l70N N0. 87-88-47 (READVEI~'ISID) Granted ~ s ~~ i ?< sa
WAIVER OF Q~DE REtX1IRII~T1' Approved
oCJNDITIONAL USE PERMIT' NO. 3455 Granted ^ ~• ~'u' ' ~
9-~ 9~
CA~NII2: WILLIAM C. and VINCENT TAROMINA, P.O. Box 309,
Anaheim, CA 92815
AGIIVP: RICHARD WINN/THOMAS VOLT, P. O. Box 309, Anaheim,
CA 92815
1
proposed to pave the parcel with an experimental recyclable glass
product; they have inve3tigated thio and found that it ie not
appropriate.
Hellyer - Are you going to pave that area?
Applicant - If it is required they will.
Hellyer - Stated it ie required by Code and asked if they were
stipulating to that?
IACATION: Property is approxitn3tely 0.95 acre located on the
earth side of the Riverside ,(911 fxgeway and located
~proxim3tely 400 feet west of the renterline of the
southerly terminus of White Star Avenue. '
Petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval
pertaining to dedication retroactive-time extension.
To permit the expansion of a recycling/resource recovery
transfer facility for overflow parking of collection transfer
operations rolling stock with waiver of minimum yard
requirements. /
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC91-144 - ~~/Z .".~-~/- /J
CONDITI NAL USE PERMI RESOLUTION N0. PC9;-145 4/~
--------------------------------------------------------------------- L:
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO 8E
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION• ?!^.ne
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Small piece of land locked land adjacent to
the freeway has not bean able to be developed in a way that would be
commercially successful; consequently they would like to use this
small parcel on a temporary basis to park their roll-off containers;
to be placed behind a screened wall; then would allow them to develop
another parcel of property so tf:ey can be relocated.
Asked to delete a section under the evaluation where they have
09/.23/9]
Page 8
/~
I
i
{ ti~
+~ a, .
rA .~
_
~ I
a of ~..~
. - `. ~ 7 .
t
'
5
~
~i
i ~ {~•
iJ
~ ~~~•
~ I .
~ ylj
h 4;
~!
~t~~b ~.
'
~
4fL
~~p4 ~»
y. J t., I
L,. ~
yy~~
~J.
~
A(
n `l .
~
Y
,,.
y~
'
~ ~~r,'
.47
4l151y; T~Sifly°YR'4r
.,
..,z ..
. .
' .- ., .',ytak ~.
y
.
. ~~~~f
'
~
k~
Applicant - Indicated they would; also took exception to ataff~e a'r!,'
recommendation on denying the waiver relative to the landscaping !#
.'
~
issue; if put 10 feet of landscaping along fence, it will abut the ~
`
~
t
weeds that are presently there by the freeway aide of the fence by
~ :
13
Caltrane; wou1Q restrict the parking especially on the west end ,,''.~"°
towards La Mega; it is a knife shaped parcel with a sharp tip and it `F~i`
would hamper their parking significantly; need apace to move the ='.~S°
trucks around.
Would entertain complying with condition no. 9 as far as the clinging
vines to cover the fencing if that is deemed appropriate, although he 'r`
was not sure if. it would 4+~ake that much difference; the fencing they
use on their sites are not that unappetizing.
Hellyer - It ie a chalk board for the graffiti.
Applicant - If there is a condition to take care of that within 24
hours, they do not have a problem with that; auppoes they would also
have to get a easement from Caltrane to access their easement.
Concern expressed regarding having a knox box; they are not storing
anything flammable.
i
Hastings - That condition is there only if it is required by the Fire
Department.
Meese - What are these containers?
Applicant - Something that can be carried by their roll-off trucks; }`
maximum size is 22 feet long, 8 feet high and 8 feet wide.
'
Mesas - Will any of these containers be visible from the freeway? '::
Applicant - Doea not. perceive that to be the case.
Henninger - How long do you think you will have this use at this
location?
Applicant - 2 to 5 years.
Henninger - Not an appropriate use along the freeway; would like to
start opening up windows into the industrial area; losing an
opportunity by creating this corrugated metal wall look along the
freeway frontage.
Hellyer - Any chance there could be a trade (land swap) between you
and the previous applicant (COykendall); i.e., in return for this
parcel they give you another area of their land for storage; has
there Dean any conversation?
Applicant - Have not contemplated that; Mr. Schwartze indicated they
have had several other offers for the property and those offers would
include their property ae well.
09/23/91
Page 9
- ~~:
`^wn.79C?D~'LY:S~',f(~?.":'1;~'~~.). ~. ~-. ~_...~{9 : ). ua,': .. ~.. '::. ,,-.. ..n...~..,. ,, -..,. ~`1f^.... v.w_new~...._.,v+z...,n,h`.nNw -... _. ..._.~m~.~~~,
' ,~ ~~~
l'
.'~'
~~ ,
;`
r
~4~
)~';
.. y
9 y
, ~ l'vt
f>-
'i
,r~t `
$
e
:. ~~ ..
~~F }.
ne. ~Sr`k: 1,
~
~ y~
.
~
Y
`
'~
7i
' S a%
FM1i .. '
1~j `
"'Yn S
t i
'
Hellyer -Also has concerns regarding the frontage along the freeway ~
~f'
and the fact that they will be going to erect this wall that may or
may not be painted.
~~~;'
'
Mr. Schwartze indicated that they would not be starting their project ,
~,.
~`,~}
immediatel the have another CUP
y; y pending that makes this somewhat
~ ~~~''~"
r
an immediacy for their operation. Need acme place to put the ~ 5;~~:'
containers temporarily. iC!_
,R4
~;'
Peraza -Could we place a time limit on this?
Applicant ~- One o€ the recommendations from staff was a time limit. ~`
'
-
;n~":
Henninger - Hcw long will it take to finish the depot area?
'iS
Applicant - It is going through plan check; once it gets started,
`
construction will take about 6 months. °A
3i
Henninger -Could have use for 9 months or a year and then vacate the
site from this use.
';>i:
Applicant - If they are only going to have the use for that length of ~
time, then would like to be relieved of some of paving requirements.
Henninger -That may be appropriate.
souse -When would time limit be up on this? Do you have another
area?
Applicant -The proposal is to relocate them onto the original site
once the new structure is in place. `; ~`
Messe - I would think you would b.e most comfortable with a 2 or 3 ,'~~,
year conditional use permit.
Bristol - if paving ie not a serious issue, then what other 3c
alternatives could they discuss?
Hellyer -Paving only; close to groundwater; not inclined to vote for
anything but paving.
Messe -Shat would be another variance.
Applicant -Nut planning on brining in any vehicles that have oil,
hydraulic fluid or fuel; this is strictly empty containers,
±
therefore, the EIR impacts would be minimal. '~;,
! Meaee -Trucks still have to enter the premises.
ACTION: CRQA Negative Declaration -Approved ~~
~
Reclassification No. 87-88-47 - (Time Extension) Approved
(1 year)
Reclassification No. 87-88-47 (Amendment) -Granted ~I
Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved (6-1) Henninger NO j .
Conditional Uae Permit No. 3455 -Granted (6-1) Henninger NO ',
^._
~`Jl (2 year time limit; Eliminate Conditions 9, 10 & 14
pertaining to landscaping)
VOTE: Waiver and CUP (6-1) Henninger N0; all other items 7-0
09/23/91
Page 10
,
~,
:l~ .~$K~11$A`iN`!RN`SI.M'hc.V~:imc-ti[`xtla••~•~ Th f.;ry r..+.r...v~.-n-~..~.r~a.v,..~.-,..-...~-.-. -n~•~~+'~^I4ra~.nrtnl•~own-r~-maww~YrnYT~T4~.
... ~
,
.
~l
t r~.
)~'.
'~
y
~'
~~ `+c37
~
7
~
~
r .co
, ~~~°
~t~ a
Ji~q~ ~
~
~
k
~ ~ ~
~+
t
7
1 ~.
' ~*~, ~ ,
~'x"t,
A,
a
jay~a
rt
<~~'3Y
~
y
. - e.
af
if"
i~~~'
-
~ i
i
~
~~ ,
1
~~ t :
`
ry a^3
~~
(
i
4 i,
~
~~
~
JA
.
h~ ~~
4a. CQ)A MITIGA4BD NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Continued {~~~
r~~.
4b. TENTATIVE TRACT NAP NO. 14185. REVISION N0. 1 to 11/4/91 .z:
4c. SPECIhffiJ TREE RII~lOVAL PERMIT NQS. 91-10 AND 91-11 ~ =;. ~'
,~-1
Ct9NER: ROBERT D. and HAROLDENE WIENS, 7536 Vista Del Sol, ~ ~,
Anaheim, CA 92808 "'~
LOCATION: Property is ap~oximstely 11.4 acres located on the_
east side of Oalntty Hill lmad and appmxir~te2y 830
feet east of the intersection of CCUntry Xi11 Road
and Vista Del Sol.
To establish a 17-lot single-family residential subdivision.
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NOS. 91-30 AND 91-11: For the
removal of 122 specimen trees (including 44 dead trees). ~/~
<:':
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: Approximately 14
OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Too much density; concern that construction
will go on for a number of years; safety of the children is an issue
due to the truck traffic; do not_waat..roads .widaned...aad...want to keep _ _ ..-.
~~
the rural atmosphere; not necessarily opposed to developer developing
' ~ his property.
PETITIONERS COMMENTS: The Commission has seen a prior development "
proposal on this parcel; that proposal requested a variance and _
subdivision map approval; the proposal was denied primarily based on
a lot of information that was not planned or researched or provided
regarding how some of the lots would be developed; spent the last 9
months redesigning, with staff, a project which they believe meets
all of the aubdiviaion requirements and is consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning criteria
COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Planning Commission generally agreed with
the issues that were brought up by the residents and suggested that
l
the developer try to resolve some of these issues and get back with '`
the neighbors with some other alternatives.
`
'ai,:
ACTION: Continued to November 4, 1991 to resolve some of the ~`
i
I neighbors concerns.
09/23/91 `
?age 11
i ~
,
~
k,
~`. ~ tit
~
w
-~^~ _
~Sz.
I i :rtyL~..
~auS ~
~ ~x,±@4E~ts~srn
Rttxr.~~~~a.,er'.^:•,.,.,,...T.....m,.,~,.... .:•, ~ :. . . ...... ... ,:c:~ ~-~,..-r-,......-.,_.-+r-,~.n.*,--~...,.+......-- _.. .. _
- -'-"°~.+-sr4
'~ '.,
n i 'I
;~~
s a '+~
'~~,
'
55
~ Y
~
f~ ~ raJ~,~;,
i >w
~'~ 7~ ,
Y
)
f ~L
#
' ~ _ f
qx
~~
..
,C~
t}
Y''e . ~~~
~3
~
2~ ~ 5 - ~
p
+j'~~~,u7 f
r 1 ¢,%
~
.. ~ry~;
M
... ~ X45 . .. ..
5a. CEUA NF~ATIVE DEY:LARATION
Sh. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-03
~ CWNE12: Attn: Marshall McDaniel, JOHN B. KILROY, 2250 E.
Imperial Hwy., #1200, E1 Segundo , CA 90245
LOCATION: 3340 East La Palma Ave. Property the southerly
1.1 acres of 10.3 acres located on the acuth aide of
La Palma Ave. and approximately 690 feet west of the
centerline of Miller Street.
RS-A-43,000 to ML (southerly 1.1 acres).
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC 91-146
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Make the zoning conaisten•: with surrounding
area.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Reclassification, unconditionally.
VOTE: 7 yea votes
~•.
r,
Y
d`~ I
tr t ~
'~: ~'...YN_?S1t7.~7
N
`fit
V wy ~
a
3t -,
r,
~ °y;'-
1
~f . ~
a ~~{~_
ray t
c.
~r
Y
~4
~iF ~'f
a~{Qy;. ~
~;,~~
1r'4~
~. Cx^n Y
Approved
Granted,
Unconditionally
w~
r 1'f % ~yl
t a},
~'S
3{a r..
r.
y ~<,
~;;t;.
°~r'-
t
;a
t.
~ ~'~
1';.
~f`.
~~ r;
lj
09/23/91 tR,.
Page 12 ~~
~"'~.~
fir....
. k F<
,`~~'.:
~~~~ Y
~~~~^ C
i '~i3Y
Nr
i
,t x~~
l.i'•
~ 1 ~~vy t
}~4~ M'(i4y<
~~.
r ~~.
Y 1 4
"' r'E~ ~~
y ~~~~N.
1 '~.a
'. d7. ~~
yt'~'n
~rf
6a.
6b.
6c.
6d.
CAA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REY:L.ASSZF'IGz1TION NO. 91-92-04
W.4_IVER OF ODE RII.7JIRII~gNP
CX)NDITIONAL USE PEP+IIT NO. 3454
C3h~NER: SO. PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION, Attn: Don Caldwell,
1200 Corporate Center, #100, Monterey Park, CA
91754
AGII4'l: JORDAN-VALLI ARCHITECTS, INC. Attn: Ariel Valli,
15375 Sarranca Pkwy., ~E-106, Irvine, CA 92718
LC.L:ATION: 155 South Adz is Street. Property is approximately
3.3 acres located on the no.-th e~de of Broadway and
the boutherly terminus of Adams Street.
From RS-A-43,00 to ML (northerly 1.7 acres).
To permit a self-storage facility with a manager's unit with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and permitted
encroachments.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC 91-147
COh'PITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC 91-148
Approved
Granted
Approved
Granted
OPPOSITION: Nane
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: ;undition No. 3 required dedication prior to
issuance of building permits and they would like that changed to
prior to certificates of occupancy.
Condition No. 19 requires removal of graffiti within 24 hours and
that not be pasoible.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Henninger asked if hazardous waste study has
been conducted. (Applicant responded it has and that the top 12" will
be skimmed and removed.) Henninger suggested a condition requiring
continuous remediation if necessary.
Mesas asked if the applicant would be willing to provide heavy
landscaping if any of the ildinga on Manchester are removed.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Reclassification
Granted waiver of minimum number of parking spaces
Granted waiver of permitted encroachments
Granted Conditional Uae Permit, subject to following:
"That prior to issuance of building permits, all on-site
~~ ~ ~..
l
contamination will be eliminated subject to approval of the
Orange County Health Care Agency."; and that if any
,~.z, buildings are removed on aancheeter, he~svy landscaping will
V be provided. j
VOTE: 7 yes votes `•
t~i
09/23/91 ~
Page 13
~~"~!.Y?~;tiw~'+~';.:, r ,-~.r-~....rr.•rnrv>wm+...-*rfC9l~Mrn.-. -.-+.+..+.ttj~^ACN~~ J,
. ~ ~ a
~' '}JV.
t'ir
1
f~,•
~i.
,e1
,:
~,X
~'.
r.,
~~,t ~'k.
,.,~. r
h',o~~
~x3i,
'.ta:~'e1rY~.. ...
.. ~r~
v
' ~:~
~ '.,F'i~%h
a ~~~~~
#
y~
i '
A ~
'
,
r ~~.
r ~ ,`
~~4, s
~~ .,•
~~~~
Y w4;+
il
L
y X
t
~ti_y'y
7~~',+~
~ %'~~ s7~'-<
v ~ ~ 3~`Y
;, ~~
~f a~,...
~~~.
7a. C;'Q7A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved ~~~
y
F ~
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3452 Granted ~
~,
CWIJER: RAYMOND AND PAULINE TEDFORD, 9071 N. Marchand,
I 1
x,rZ r
~
Garden Grove, CA 92641 '~~~
LOCATION: 2806 W. Lincoln Ave. Property fie approximately Y~+t~ ^~:
N.~+.'
49 acre located on the south aide of Lincoln
0 s
.
Avenue and approximately 200 feet west of the ~'-rr!`.
'
F
`
.
centerline of Dale Ave. ,,
J
~
``
To permit a convenience market with take-out fast food. . , ,.
;~{;~`
~:~~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. RESOLUTION N0. PC 91-149 "'Jay
•
~_
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE ~; Y,.
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Trying to restore the center to the same as
it as with the same type store. Questioned Condition No. 12,
regarding street lighting facilties. Stated when Lincoln is widened k
~
it would take out their sidewalks and one sign. '
`~C':
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mesas -concerned about signs. (Applicant ~'
'
explained they want to just rebuild the existing sign.) Hellyer ~~ `+
suggested a monument type sign, and lowered to 8 feet. Henninger ~°`'
suggested giving the applicantr 3-years to replace then sign. t~~
'
(Applicant icidicated owner is planning to have a new building and a ;~
3-year limit might not work out.) Houas -nothing is being Rxt
^
~ requested wh;ch was not there before and he just wants to restore it. ~,~~;
,_w.~•.
STAFF COMMENTS: Street ]..fight facilities determined by Electrical -55~c,
Division. ;:
r.
ACTION: Approved negative declaration
Granted CUP
a -:
~i
VOTE: 6 yea votes
(Commissioner M~sese voted no on the basis that he would like to :k,~, .
~ ~.
see the sign removes.)
i
1 ;~-.
'~
09/23/91
Page 14
rs+~
;,~ ,~
s,,
,,, ~;~v~.r c. ~.,,.,pc..,..yY•a~-.~-.,m r-raa: r.^,^?M'A'.'°-' ^-'---- vag".s* ~
~+o:
x
,~
- ..Fr:
'
~
t
s~..
. tlb
~~'
'
' ~F
~
r~ .
}Yl ',
~; ,:
~'
4~ f,
. ~ b2.,
t,
Y}~ T}: .
. ~lK~{~
'
~~'.
t `
L
~
t
:,k.6~~:..:
~
.
k~A
~ ~ ..
~Jx~~'L7
~~~~~~
i
~~:.. ~ ~~^r' i m
r
''
3
e ._ ~ ~~
a ^y ~,
,.
~~.m
'i
.r ~ - ~ ~ ~ .~~X'~
nn
l ~ G`
L
` T
~~~~1
f
.... .~...:..... ... .,, ~. ~,..-. r,.~~.wr,ww A'u'!: ~3:,~tY s`h~fi„~`M1
~~~qq ~~, ,1
vy j~ ~.
5
~~ y
1~~~~j. .
~ "'LR~
~i
&L'IOD1
'
'
Continued to ~~~ ~
IVE DEGLAR
!
8d. CEDA NFX:A
8b. VARIANCE NO. 4147 11-4-91. ~,,,~`,. `
~~ ~ v~
,
i CWLAER: RONALD AND DOROTHY FIELD, P.O. Hox 8, Anaheim, CA ~
a
,'!'b
92805 r
, o- ~! ski
'
Ar P: HOWARD PARSELL CO., Attn: Julia Carroll, 4854 Main d s n
-
~ i,~~~
Street, Yorba Linda, CA 92686 ,._;;s,~'~,
~ ~S,
LOCATION: 125 East Ellsworth AVe. Property is approximately fi~~°b a
0.13 acre located at the northwest corner of
Ellsworth Ave. and Claudina Street. '~~
t ~H,
Mkt .r
~.
~
Waiver of maximum structural height, minimum structural
minimum dimension of garage
ent
i
d y~
~t~,
~,~~~~
,
requ
rem
setback, minimum yar k
'''~t`f~1
parking spaces and minimum recreational/leisure area to
ith uk. V•
``f~`
an
construct a second dwelling unit in conjunction w ~~~'".`L~~~
existing single-family residence. ~ ;ijxx>
yy
~
~
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. ~5
.{i.
1
--------~------- ,t
~ W'!i
--~--~--~-----------------------~ .
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE ;vL.
~,~~
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~~~~~~,
i'L~r,.
-4 ~,
4; ~~~
_ `r.
=~
L
k;
,C;~
~:.
' as
r,
S
i ~^ `^.
51
y,
'ri.~
'
~
I ~ ~
:
~ ~; ~~~
~ 09/23/91 :~
, Page 15 ?;~
u_
; V~'
a
'u~~4
f~~.
~- ~~
„ ~~ ~%~
~
4 ~ I
:.-.'~ ,~. rrrresYS:nnor ....y:,Ty:r~.....;r..,~!?^,.,~. 5%~:vK'.';r+.~~wP~¢!.'r~+-~'yre!;xr,^r..rx~-< .....,
.. __ .
s, .- k~zs
iri
~ . y '
r
~ ~
.
.
~`
n
~1
~
~ Y t
S~^;'
s
_
r _ ,~l
t`y r+ ~. _
J:'
C ~;~ ~~,..
~ ~~
~~+
~
.
~u•~ y
a
- ~~
,`fir
COL ~
P -
~ 11
PI t
yn
L ~l
~.~
~
~ 1
Y~:,~T
...r.
.
r ~,, `~ "4
1 .w.
i~
/"`
<%4
4 ~F
Za'
~ -?
"f
t
`
l}~.
"
~
~ ~
:
any .,•,~
~ . S,r1 l
?t:% N}l~
~.r~,~I.
b~
'
9y
.
,
14 ~' ~•{
~~.
1
r
r
t y
'~`~.
~~
^
?~
~
~
"f
rL~
r rL ~.
4
•
~
t-
;: yq
~.y
~.:~:1 N - +.~tt~k+
i,
~~.
~
~
)
Y Y
u f~
~ J~~
h
/
~
Y
Y
S
9d CEt3A I~'IVE DDCLARATION Approved !
'
,,
9b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 91-92-05 Granted ~ Y ~
9C. WAIVER OF ODE RE<7UIRII~1'P Apprd. In part i ~~(
Q~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3456
9d Granted, In par ~,~~;
. Waivers A & D ~~,
CWNER: DHANSNXHLAL RATANJEE, 1235 Rosewood Drive, (approved) I 5
San Bernardino, CA 92408 Waivers B & C
~
(denied) ~ elf`
~
AGEYVP: THE BOTICH PARTNERSHIP, 883 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 2865 West Lincoln Ave. Property ie approximately
0.6 acre located on the north aide of Lincoln Ave.
and approximately 220 feet east of the centerline of
Bel Air Street.
CL to RM-2400 or a less intense zone.
To permit a 10-unit, 28 foot high, deck-type condominium
complex with waiver of minimum front yard setback, maximum
permitted identification sign area, minimum side yard setback
and minimum landscape treatment of deck surface.
RECLASSIFICATION PERMIT NO. PC 91-150
PC 91-151 GJ~j~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. r,
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
4
OPPOSITION: None
(2 PEOPLE PRESENT IN FAVOR OF REQUEST) ,
9~~
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Have incorporated neighbors' concerns into
plans; questioned Condition No. 3, regarding public utility easement
and No. 4 requiring termination of Variance No. 4101.
Explained a 20-foot wide landscaped area is required and they plan a -
5-foot row of trees, then another 5 feet and it steps down five feet -
and another raw of trees, and then the patios/barbeque.
TWO PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF PROJECT - Expressed acceptance of plans and ^`
referred the block glass windows proposed to prevent an invasion of
their privacy; moat important concern was to have a significant
la
k
d
h .?q
Yg
y
en p
e sun
t
landscape buffer and not the 8-foot high wall; like
~
ground.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mesas - would like more landscaped area on both
sides of that patio area. Henninger - suggested the entire area
being lowered two feet with a 6 foot high wall on the neighbor's aide
and 8 feet high on applicant's aide, with 20 feet fully landscaped.
.;,r>~
,.•r.
. ;:ri\~
`ti4+~•
~-
... , :r ~~~,.
~~'
IC~1~y~
'~ 1t i.y9*,.,
yP' ~,
ti ~:'~.
1. 5
~~
~~ w-AS~.."~
,~...
r~~ ,
4~4
i ~.
Sr~
F~
'~J` .
i
i
r ~,
t i~ ',,a~ Y .,
"F Y
'~~~N~
~N
.t~ $ t ,~
a': ~ i
~;t~'~a :;3F'
ri
w
~ 'sc~.u
+, ~~ ~~ r
~~
i L~~ ~~~~
'G? , ~. .
:~ T~^''+
l ` ~~.
•...
.. _., ... .. _ { ~s~~fil.~
~ ~.1ti ~
,~~~ y..
~„~~
~~~w~~
SE!t~Si~.
'~~w~ tg~
~ :....~~q4 ,
STAFF COMMENTS: Planning: Staff is recommending approval of waiver A, ', t~~
'
denial of waivers B and C and approval of waiver D. Concerned the ~.
'
~,~,:.
'"
`~~~
sunken play area would not be landscaped. ,~
,r
~
ACTIONS Approved Negative Declaration `
` ~ *~C
~~
rR
Granted Waivers A and D; and Denied Waivers B & C. `~i~
~
Granted Conditional Uae Pernit, subject to revised plane s
„~h
with a 20-foot wide fully landscaped buffer and the entire area ;~,~,
sunken two feet, with an 8-foot high wall on the development side and ~ ~~
'tF~f.
6 feet high on the neighbor's aide. 7-;~
ti
VOTE: 6 yes votes
Commissioner 2eme1 voted no on the revision to the landscape
~-m
',';
buffer.
a;is+
,Yc
~.
J \/
L~ .
-.~
~',
~ .
Lr
6{ .
• R
1t ~
r~ ¢ Jk ~ ~' - ~.
~ s ': ....
5{rrr~ ..
x;N '. . .
l f i r'
i~~
tr{
y5. f
1 ~'
?~
t" z<"~ ' "
A
~~ a
~~~7
'~i~ ~
x ~
~~~~f
~~
.... ~ r.. ~.,
S
:(;
r1r'
I
09/23/91
Page 17 ~
"Y
y ~
_._ ~ ~~,
~~ ~k
,~
r~~q'
~~
'~1t3 1
y ~F
p
~+a
"~iy
~! ~~t'
"'`~~,
r tv,r~'
,.~~
,,3 z:
v~r .
i
:y ~ ,
r
4'~~~
_
__ ~ r >C
c ~)
,,°~ y.vey ,~P,hfE~~,~
ri~~~7nC
1 Stye
~~~ X
,
' 1 ~ tr'~f ~~ S'..
' ~ ~
..'. ~~~
tR~~
I
? `p ~; M
Glk~! ` i
4 ,y ~~ M
!r
t ~
~
1SY
4 ~
ed
ab 'yj1~ . G
~
~~+
10a. CEKiA AlEGA4'IVE DEQ,ARATION to
continu
9 c.
'
~
Q'xiDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3299 (READVE7a'ISID)
lOb 30-21-
1 ;
„
,
.
lOC. TENTATIVE TltACl' MAP NO. 19406 (READVE7~'ISIDJ ?3~„~
/~ i , r~dtt ~~'
P. DEVELOPMENT, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia,
M
CW[VER: O ,
.
.
~,
CA 92670 z
~ ~ .,'r
'? > ~`'~s
LOCA'L'ION: 1575 W. ICatella. PmperLy is approximately 2.21 ,,
~
acres located on the north side of RateIla Avenue .:
and apprtudn~ately 314 feet east of the onterline of '~;t
~
~
Carnelian Street. 3
~
iU.
`
~
Amendment to conditions of approval of Resolution No. PC 91-41 K:~~{,,,
f,
pertaining to recordation of a tract map prior to issuance of
fi '''`r~,
r~,
re
building permit and a subordination requirement for a
truck turn-around covenant. ~ ~~
plN
CONDITIONAL USS PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~
• ~
'~".`
V
:'~i'"
l~ '. ',
~"'~~
r~l
C
,
.
.
J~
~(S ~
~
~!~
'
4l
t
h~,;
a f
~-
~
~..,
S uF t3.
~.i~' ~ .. - ,
ru ~.-,
~
r '
~~
~w ~
~
t
x
~~
~
~~' -
4'M ~
... ..t' -
11. REEtORTS AND RECI~DATIONS:
A. Q3NDITIONAL USE PERMI'!' NO. 3045 - RA7L~'S'!' FUR EXTF2ISION OF Approved
TIME 2!7 Q~fPLY WPl7f CIJNDITIONS OF APP%1VAL: Diann Lin to a-15-92
.'~ (Childlife Learning Center) requests aone-year extension of
time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional `y~; .~
Use Permit No. 3045. Property is located at 1597 West
Katella range Ave.
I
12. DISCUSSION: None
ADJOURNMENT: To October 3, 1991 at 8:00 a.m. for a field trip -SRO
Housing Tour in San Diego.
r~,t;;
r xx~~
'~~u
~ C,w
~~4 .
i
~ ~~~
~'
~~:''
ref
;a.
,, ~_,~.
{
'G
>~~;
{,
i ~;
09/23/91
Page 19 ;'~r;
-°c
,lK~k~~.
3 \~~ ^~~
~4~, ~
4YS.
~~
~~t 3
~~~~
' 7
. ~~ ~ ~,
~,:~~~`;
i
-/M`~~~r
*, r~,s;.
~~~~~r:
tip. , Y
~ ir~ 4'F
t~ti~~ .F .j+ ,
x
~' f`~'C
. ~
~~5
..
.;
:; -!'?,.