Minutes-PC 1992/01/27 (2)ACTION AGENDA
REG(TLAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING Q~NAIISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1992 AT '10:00 A.M.
i
I
REGULAR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING ~
(F.IBISC TESTIMONY)
10:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
CbMh9ISSI0NERS PRESENT: BrJ[IAS, BRISIt~L, HELLYER, MF.SSE, PERAZA,
ZEMEL
GbhII~ISSIONERS ABSENT: HET4NINGER
Pfit7CEDURE ~ EXPEDITE PLANNING CbMMISuION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five
minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon
request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will
produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given
ten minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and
the complexity of the matter 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.
q. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its
opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection
with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual
represental•ions 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.
~_i PC920i27
1/27/92
Paae 1
la. c'T1VII.C)NMr'.~i1TAL IMPACT REFZ7RT NO. 298 (NO ACTION Rq~UIRED) No action
lb. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 317 (Ft3RTIONS 1 AND 2) Granted
lC. SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 90-3 !INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOFI'+~'1' Granted
STANDARDS AND A FUBL7C FACILITIES PLAN
CWNER: JAMES O'MALLEY, Coal Canyon Company,
25200 La Paz Road, Ste. 210, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
LOCATIGt7: Subiect property. which is described as the
1 546.5-acre Coal Canvon property. is u~~incorporated
land located within the County of Orange in the City_
of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence, and generally
bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway
(SR-911 and the Coal Canvon Road interchange, on the
west by the Gypsum Canyon property (Mountain Park
development) recently approved by the Local Aaencv
Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation to the
City of Anaheim on the south by unincorporated
property within the County of Orange in the City of
orange's sphere-of-influence and on the east by
unincorporated property within the Citv of Anaheim's
sphere-of-influence and by the Cleveland National
Forest.
REQUEST: General Plan Amendment No. 317 (Portions 1 and 2) is a
request for an amendment to the Land Use, Environmental Resource
and Management and Circulation Elements of the City of Anaheim
General Plan. Portion 1 (northerly 663 acres) is a
property-owner initiated request and Portion 2 (southerly 883.5
acres) is an Anaheim Planning Commission initiated request.
Also requested by the property owner is adoption of the Cypress
Canyon Specific Plan for the northerly 663 acres (Portion 1 of
GPA 317) to serve as preannexation zoning and subsequently
regulate the development of the site. A Fiscal Impact Report
has also been submitted as part of the project application.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 298) has been
prepared for the project and circulated for public/responsible
agency review in compliance with the California Environmenta'
Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA
Guidelines. A Response to Comments document has been prepared
to address the public/responsible agency comments on the Draft
EIR. On January 21, 1992, Planning Commission recommended
certification of EIR No. 298 including a statement of overiding
considerations and a statement of Findings and Facts.
At the time Draft EIR No. 298 was circulated for public review,
the original Cypress Canyon project acreage included the entire
1,546.5-acre Coal Canyon property. The southerly 883.5 acres
has subsequently been acquired by the Nature Conservancy (a
non-profit organization acting on behalf of the State Department
of Fish and Game and the State Wildlife Conservation Board) for
1/27/92
Page 2
the preservation of a Tecate cypress tree habitat area. As a
result of said sale, t'r.e applicant's proposed General Plan
'~ Amendment (GPA 317 Portion 1) and the Cypress Canyon Specific
Plan project area have been reduced to 663 acres. The Planning
Commission has initiated GPA 317 Portion 2 for the southerly
883.5 acres .in order for the General Plan to reflect the
preservation of permanent open space for said area.
The Genera: Plan Amendment request includes, but is not limited
to, proposals which would amend the existing Land Use Map for
Portion 1 to establish revised boundaries and acreages for
Hillside Low and Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential,
school, park and open space land use designations, delete the
Hillside Estate Density Residential land use designation, add
the Medium Density Residential designation, increase residential
densities to allow for a maximum of 1,550 dwelling units,
decrease General Commercial acreage from 10 to 8 acres, delete
the Commercial P.ecreation designation, modify the location of
the fire station site and establish a site for an electrical
sub-station and for Portion 2 to delete the Hillside Estate
Density Residential, school and park designations and
redesignate said areas for open space uses; amend the existing
Circulation t•fap for Portion 1 to establish revised alignments
and road classifications for Coal Canyon Road, Oak Canyon Drive
and Santa Ana Canyon Road and add new collector roadways, and
for Portion 2 to delete the Coal Canyon Road designation; and,
amend the existing Environmental Resource and Management Map fcr
Portion 1 to establish revised locations and boundaries for the
neighborhood park, open space, and bikeway riding and hiking
trails and for Portion 2 to delete a neighborhood park
designation and establish revised boundaries for open space and
locations for trails.
The proposed Cypress Canyon Specific Plan No. SP90-3 (including
Zoning and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan)
would provide for the development of up to 1,550 residential
dwelling units, 8 acres of commercial uses, one elementary
school, open space, and governmental uses and public
improvements including, but not limited to, streets, sewers,
public utilities, a fire station site, an electrical sub-station
site and one neighborhood park.
'~.. J
1/27/92
Page 3
Related actions will include the Local Agency Formation
Commission's (LAFCO) consideration of an application to annex
`~ the project area to the City of Anaheim, requests to the County
of Orange for consideration of amending the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways component of thr• County of Orange's General
Plan Transportation Element, requ~,st for a Development Agreement
between the City of Anaheim and Coal Canyon Company (the project
applicant), infrastructure financing programs, subdivision
plans, grading permits, and other actions related to the
proposed development of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan
community.
Continued from the December 9, 1991 and January 21, 1992
rlanning Commission meeting.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC92-06
SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC92-07
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDF.RDS RESOLUTION N0. PC92-OB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: Approximately 10 people present (Numerous letters
received).
OPPOSITION CONCERNS:
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
STAFF COMMENTS:
ACTION: Re-approved recommendation that City Council certify EIR,
with Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring
Program, as amended. (Attachment a to staff report)
Recommended approval of General Plan Amendment
Recommended approval of Specific Plan
with Public Facilities Plan and Zoning and Development Standards
as amended and discussed in memo of January 27, 1992.
VOTE: 6 yes votes
(Commissioner Henninger absent)
`/ 1/27/92
Page 4
2a. CEbA NEGi1TIVE DECLARATION Withdrawn
2b. (bNDP!'IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3947
OWNER: LEDERER-ANAHEIM, LIMITED, 1990 Westwood Boulevard,
Los Angelcs, CA 90025
AGIIVT: EDWARD KIM, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is
approximately 14.7 acres located north and east of
the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim
Boulevard.
To permit on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine
within a commercial retail center (indoor swap meet).
Continued from the September 11, October 7, and November 4, 1991
Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. -- v //~'~"
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CO"ISIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
ACTION: Withdrawn at the request of petitioner.
'ter 1/27/92
Page 5
3a. CAA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. VARIANCE NO. 4136 (WITHDRA[-VN)
3c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14929
3d. SPECIMEN TREE REhK1VAL PERMIT NO. 91-07
CWNERS: ED STERN, LINDA STERN, MANFRED A GLASTETTER, CHRISTA
GLASTETTER, GARY F. LYONS, DONNA LEE LYONS, RAYMOND
W. PEARSON, PAMELA J. PEARSON, CURTIS B. PEARSON,
REITA BETH PEARSON, FRED GLASTETTER AP's LORI
GLAS"..ETTER
AGENT: FRED GLASTETTER, 25012 Via Del Rio, E1 Toro, CA
92630
LxATION: Pro~xty is approximately 8.4 acres located on tine
west side of Henning Way aporoximately 350 feet south
of the centerline of Ouintana Drive.
Waiver of minimum lot width to establish a 7-lot (plus a common
lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family subdivision.
To remove fifty-eight (68) specimen trees.
Continued from the August 26, October 7, October 21, and
November 4, 1991 Planning Commission meetings.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWINC IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COtAMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 5
Not opposed to the project, but opposes the trail; would be a costly
trail for a 7-lot subdivision. Requested that when the landscape
plans are approved for the subdivision that the buffer is looked at
to be certain that there is a privacy factor; hiking trail could
increase the liability for the new association and for the City;
concern ::hat people will have access to the rear of those homes.
Continued
to 2/24/92
~~
~\:.~..
Quintana was suppose to be improved and who is responsible for
improving it? There are 3 abandoned homes and the increase in
traffic is considerable; problems with fire trucks getting through;
in August they asked for a hydrology and gemology report; there is a
preliminary soils report in the file stating they did 7 or 8 borings;
the borings were done on the site rid and no borings were done on the
east slope; concern expressed regarding homes on caissons due to the
slope instability and the City did not require a geology report.
They mention a 128 grade, however, lot no. 7 has a 166 glade; there
were 9 test pits and the maximum was 14 feet; when he had his
engineering dons, they went down 32 feet.
1/27/92
Page 6
Concern expressed regarding a bobcat in the area. He sat on the
Commission 6 years ago and that time it was his understanding that
they were going to revise the trail systems because the General Plan
~^ was not addressing it adequately and as long as it was on the General
Plan they would have to put it in.
The map is final; why are we tying this to building permits; we
should be tying it to final maps; these people may have bought
unuseable lots.
Homeowner concerned about two 12" drains that drain her property and
the hills above their property; does not think anything has been
addressed regarding how they are going to take care of the runoff
from this property; when the east drain gets plugged, she has a
ravine on her property and it looks as though it would go where the
first 5 homes are going to be.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Concurs with recommendations and conditions
with 2 exceptions. 1). Width of road from Timken Way to the
property; staff report recommends 24 feet; they are trying to save a
48" pepper tree that is in the right-of-way. The existing roadway
width is approximately 12 to 14 feet and they would increase it to 20
feet. Fire Department sent a memo to Planning stating existing
Henningway will be acceptable as is. 2). One of the conditions
r^quires that they dedicate a trail along their boundary; they do not
think it is necessary because it is not required for. a connection of
the trail system.
Hydrology reports have been done; agreed to connect their storm drain
to the storm drain within Canyon Acres; agreed to plant a heavy hedge
row along the common boundary between Canyon Acres and the tract in
order to help with the visual intrusion; the developer could not
agree to single story homes because it would be too much of a
restriction on the property.
Messe - There was a request to plant plantings mid slope and asked if
that was agreeable with them?
Applicant - Mid slope is fine or whatever is best concerning visual
intrusion. Do not want to plant trees too high up and block the view
of the homes. Prefer to plant trees near the boundary and stagger
them so when they do reach a height of 30 feet the homeowners will be
able to look over them, but not look at the school.
Concern was expressed regarding the rear setback; homes will be no
closer than 100 feet from the common property line and in most cases,
further than that. Further discussion took place regarding the
setbacks between the Commission and applicant.
Will intercept any drainage eff-site into their drainage system; the
developer would agree to building a new chain link fence if the old
one :s in disrepair along the common boundary of Canyon Acres and
that could be made a condition.
~~
1/27/92
Page 7
It would be up to the homeowner's association to maintain the streets
and whatever access streets to the property that are not public.
Engineering Department asked for a variable slope (he referenced the
plans). They were asking for a contoured slope and they are opposed
because when you go steeper than a 2 to 1, then you extend the street
further back and push the homes back. The Code says anything over
200 feet in length must be contoured. His argument is that no one
sees the slope except the homeowners themselves. Hope to go back to
soils engineer and ask him to vary the slope between one and a half
to one and two to one which would accomplish the requirement without
pushing the street further into the pads.
Wrote a letter a month ago requesting a waiver and nev=r did receive
a reply, so they did not have enough time for a meet'~g to resolve
the issue. They have a limited area and if they fl-.ten the slope
they will push the slope out and decrease the depth of the pads. The
esthetic value of these pads is a rear yard and by pushing the street
over they would not have a rear yard.
Dick Hayer, Parks and Recreation. Several things need to be
addressed. This trail is one of the master planned riding and hiking
trails in the City's trail system; they own trail easements to the
north and to the south; they were in the process of working with
Canyon Acres to get them to complete a condition of approval that was
a requirement for them to develop a riding and hiking trail
right-of-way along the westerly sides of their property.
The original idea was to provide a riding and hiking trail, however,
there is virtually no horses in this area anymore and the type of
topography is related back to hiking uses and, therefore, have
determined that it should be hiking rather than riding and hiking
trails.
Trail could be constructed along the property line without
endangering any trees; they are talking about a 5-foot easement with
a 3-foot wide tread. In talking it over with the applicant, they
indicated there were 2 trees that were in the way and Parks was sure
they could work around that. The biggest concern is that they
basically do not want to put in the riding and hiking trail; the
neighbors expressed their concern about putting in the riding and
hiking trail; it is an existing trail requirement in a lot of areas
and trails seem to be a lot like jails, i.e., people are not
interested in seeing them implemented. They have been told by lots
of people that they like the trails because it helps maintain the
rural atmosphere and to get rid of it would be real shame.
The department would not support a General Plan Amendment to take
that trail off; it is a feeder trail that connects to a regional
riding and hiking system. He referenced the plans and added they are
trying to connect a series of loops. They feel that the trail is
needed and would like to see it implemented.
~~i
1/27/92
Page 8
There was further discussion of a~ternatives for the trail while
referencing the plans.
' Zemel - Do not want to spot zone on trails; would need the City's
input.
Slaughter - Map would have to be consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, if you wanted to go ahead without this trail, it would
take an ~~endment to the General Plan which would require a public
hearing.
Bouas - Can hikers use streets rather than hiking behind the homes?
Mayer - Trying to establish a system that has a minimal conflict with
vehicles.
Bouas - Need to see the whole system; cannot just change one thing
without seeing the whole system and have in mind exactly where the
trail system is going.
Zemel - Not ready today.
Hellyer - Would not be able to make the CEQA findings in a favorable
way and adequate reason has not been given to waive the Council
Policy on grading; may need a focused EIR on this; very concerned
about the neighbors concerns that were expressed here today.
Applicant - They did everything that the Commission asked for at the
last meeting.
Melanie Adams - Public Works-Engineering. The information submitted
was adequate; the developer submitted a foundation soils report and
an engineering geology report; the Engineering Department is
satisfied with the scope of the study and adequate measures have been
incorporated into the project.
The applicant has redesigned the drainage so L•hat it will connect
directly into the Canyon Acres property. A bench drain is added on
any slope above 30 feet and is added or the entire slope.
t•fesse - What about the save harmless agreement on page 16 no. 11.
Ms. Adams - The representative from Canyon Acres requests that the
developer bear the full cost; they feel it is at least reasonable
that they share the cost.
Hellyer - Would it not be fair for McQuaid to seek some sort of a
fair share reimbursement for its original construction?
~~ I 1/27/92
Page 9
Ms. Adams - They felt that a shared maintenance would be in order or
whatever the Commission may determine would be a fair arrangement.
" Bristol - Asked Ms. Adams if she was aware of the request from the
applicant asking about the condition relative to Henningway going
from 24 to 20 feet?
Ms. Adams - The applicant did submit an exhibit that showed a
proposal for 17 feet in width; in his testimony, the reason given for
not going to 24 feet was a one (1) 48" pepper tree. If that is the
only reason for not going to 24 feet, perhaps they could replant the
trees at a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio and go ahead and get an adequate
street in there.
Applicant - One reason for not widening the road further is becauRe
they would be going onto private property.
Bouas - What about the Fire Department?
Ms. Adams - The Fire Department analyzes any situation for adequate
response time to get a fire truck to a site; their primary concern is
for life safety. In addition they want to make accommodations for
everyday traffic and, therefore, are requesting 24 feet.
Bouas - The Fire Department did say that 20 feet would be adequate to
get there in the required response time.
Zemel - Would applicant be opposed to sitting down with Mr. McQuaid
in order to help alleviate some of his concerns and perhaps reach
some agreement?
Applicant - Addressed everyone of Mr. McQuaid'v concerns, however,
will meet with him.
Applicant - Referenced page 9 regarding homeowner association's
responsibility for maintaining a trail. Asked about the liability.
Slaughter - Normally the association's insurance is sufficient to
cover those sorts of liabilities.
Mayer - This is a standard condition that is applied to all homeowner
associations that have trails running across them.
Messe - Re condition no. 11. Who in the City of Anaheim will review
slope landscaping and irrigation?
Ma. Adams - That would be the Planning Departr~ient and currently the
Planning Department coordinates with an outside consultant for the
review of the slope landscaping plans.
Messe - Change the condition to the Planning Department of the City
of Anaheim.
Messe - Perhaps they would like a continuance.
~"~ 1/27/92
Page 10
Slaughter - May be approaching the end of the time in which they have
to act under the permit streamlining act. Any agreement to continue
.-~ should be by stipulation of the applicant with the full understanding
that they may be extending any time period that they would have for
this project to be deemed automatically approved under the law.
If they are unwilling to do that, then they may want to consider
denial of the project as an alternative.
Borrego - If this is going to have a potential to result in some
changes to the plan, then they would request a minimum of 4 weeks.
Hellyer - Has a real concern about running the trail system behind
the existing homes for homeowner security reasons; would look to find
an alternative and perhaps run it along the road system which they
have done in the past.
Meese - Has a real concern about running a trail juxtaposed to the
residential properties.
Bouas - Would like to see the trail system not go through there; none
of the residents want the trail.
ACTION: Continued to 2/24/92. Item will not be readvertised,
therefore, there will be no further notices to the public; it was
noted that this was to be the last continuance.
1/27/92
Page 11
4a. CEt~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued
~ 4b. WAIVER OF C10DE REOUIREMETr!' to 2/10/92
4c. GL~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3965 ;,)/~
Q+1NER: TIMOTHY J. AND CATHLEEN A. O'NEILL, 3100 E. Birch,
Brea, CA 92621
If~CATION: 1420 N. Lemon Strreet. Property is approximately
1.13 acre located at the northeast corner of Lemon
Street and the Riverside (91) Freeway.
To permit an automobile repair center with waiver of minimum
structural setback.
Continued from the October 21, and December 16, 1991, Planning
Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERDIIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
ACTION: Request from petitioner for a continuance to
February 10, 1992.
1/27/92
Page 12
r
5a. CE17A N~'GIf4'IVE DECLARATION
^ 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 324
5c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-10
Sd. WAIVER OF G27DE REOUIRII+III~'I'
5e. GnNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3482
QaNER: ELSIE MENUEY, 27681 Via Turina, Mission Viejo, CA
92692
LOCATION: 2260 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately
0.9 acre located on the south side of Orange Avenue
and approximately 715 feet wart of the centerline of
Brookhurst Street.
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignating subject property from the existing Low Density
Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential
designation.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000
(Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone.
To permit a 16-unit condominium complex with waiver of maximum
structural height.
Continued from the December 16, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting
GENERAL PLAN Abf£NDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-09
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N~ PC92-10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLU:.:ON N0. PC92-11
FOLLOWING IS A SUtdMARY OF THE PLANNING COt4MISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 32
4 in favor
OPPOS?TION CONCERNS: House appraised at 20k less then what it was
appraised for last year and this is due to the height of a 3-story
apartment that is off to the side; does not know benefit of
decreasing no. of units and then makiny them larger; traffic on
Thistle is a problem; in a condo situation, not everyone utilizes
their garages for cars, they tend to store things thus causing cars
to park on the street and create more of a safety hazard for their
children; convinced people will be cutting through Thistle; have been
in the area for 35 years and want the Commission's protection;
nothing mentioned about the handicapped.
Approved
Granted
Granted
(Modified to
RS-5000)
WCR - Denied
CUP - Denied
L
1/27/92
Page 13
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Was to contact neighbors, redesign and modify
the project; have decreased no. of units to 16 and lowered height of
~ building another 5 feet; in order to do this he had to provide more
setback from Orange Ave.; first 2 units facing orange Avenue are
single units; there is approximately 90 to 100 feet before the
2-stories start; the size of the condos are larger; it is a nicer
project with more recreation area.
REBUTTAL:
Momeny - His home has also gone down in it's appraised value and he
does not have any 3-story apartments behind his home; it is the
market today; does not have any intention to argue the previous
approvals regarding Orange Avenue; the traffic on Orange is due to
the fact that drivers want to avoid Lincoln and Ball Road; his
16-units would not impact the traffic; he increased the size of the
units because one of the opposition earlier said they should be
larger.
Other concerns expressed were crime, height of the project; trash
containers, sanitary system, drainage problems; young children going
to school. Drainage, power and sanitary issues have been reviewed by
the staff; trash turn-around has been provided.
He stated it is not that condos are bad, but people tend to think
anything other than single-family homes would cause the value of
- their homes to go down.
Peraza - Asked about the Magnolia school District.
McCafferty - Received an updated letter dated December 10, 1991, from
the tagnolia School District communicating that the development would
generate approximately 10 to 25 students; the capacity of Disney
School is 632 students and they currently have 618.
Peraza - Has the applicant mitigated any alternatives that will help
with funds to build extra rooms?
Momeny - He did not get into that discussion; was not sure if he
should announce ;ris readiness to build an extension to the school and
would it he feasible for a small project like this one?
Messe - They indicated they were currently not to capacity.
Bristol - Concern regarding setback of the pool area; they require a
20-foot wide landscaped area and it was mentioned that it would be
moved; concern regarding noise.
Momeny - After his first proposal that was taken care of and it was
provided that there will be clearance; the neighbors behind the
project agreed; can push the pool further back into the property to
eliminate the noise; would be willing to get rid of the pool; it was
suggested that he have an 8-foot wall rather than a 6-foot wall.
~ ~
1/27/92
Page 14
Bouas - what about recreation areas on top of the units?
Momeny - No longer an issue; has eliminated that as a result of
`~ reducing the no. of units.
Muse - Looking for a 20-foot fully landscaped area on that south
portion which could be accomplished if you move or eliminate the
pool; did not think he would have a good development without some
recreational area such as a pool or spa; project is too dense.
Would be willing to approve a General Plan Amendment, but he is
looking at RS-5000 far this lot; must consider people over in the
County to the west that will be developed as single-family whenever
they develop the cul-de-sac.
Momeny - The setback situation could be easily corrected.
Hellyer - Concern regarding the domino theory; would be in support of
Single-Family RS-5000.
Messe - Does not look forward to the added traffic that the
development will bring or the 2-story condos; have not given enough
recreation area; he is 3-stories up against the single-family; lot is
not lan~~caped the way they would like to see it.
Peraza - Feels the same way as Commissioner Messe and would support
RS-5000.
temel - He asked the petitioner if he got the zoning he requested,
would he consider lowering the ne. of units to 12?
Momeny - Considering the existing comparables, he would barely be
able to survive with 12-units.
CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved
General Plan Amendment No. 324 - Granted
Reclassification No. 91-92-10 - Granted
(Modified to RS-5000 - More in keeping with the neighborhood).
Grey Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated because this was
initiated by the Planning Commission, the Commission may wish to
elimina~e the conditions of approval so that when it gets to the
City Council they can have the first and second reading of the
Ordinance without conditions having been complied with.
Waiver of Code Requirc•~nent - Denied
(No justification for the waivers)
Conditional Use Perm Lt No. 3482 - Denied
VOTE: 6-0 (Henninger absent)
\`-= 1/27/92
Page 15 ;'
6a. CEt~A NFX~i,TIVE DECLARATION Approved
~~ 6b. VARIANCE NO. 9160 Denied
GINNER: DAVJD AND SALLY J. STEENBERGEN, 5360 CUMBERLAND
DRIVE, CYPRESS, CA 90630
IUCATION: 901 AND 903 N. Lemon Stt,?et. Property is
approximately 0.13 acres located at the northwest
corner of La Verne Street and Lemon Street.
Waiver of minimum structural setback, minimum yard requirement.
permitted encroachments into required yard, and minimum
recreational/leisure area to construct a 1,101 square foot
addition to an existing duplex.
Continued from the December 16, 1991 Plar.,ring Commission Meeting
'
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. ~
~ 9.~-/~.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINU:''S.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Explained he had just bought the property
and it was run down when he purchased it; that he examined
eliminating the waivers, but it could not be done; that he wanted to
make the units two bedrooms. Would try to coordinate the changes
when the property is ~'pgraded, and that improvements would be made
whether this request is approved or not; and that same tenants would
stay and they excited about enlarging the units.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Felt it would intensify the use; concerned
about security of washers and dryers on the carports (applicant
explained they would be in storage cabinets which would be locked;
Bristol did not to grant waivers with outstanding code violations on
the property; felt it was too much for that area.
ACTION: Denied
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent)
~, 1/27/92 j
Page 16
7a. CECJA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
~~ 7b. WAIVER OF G19DE REC~GIREMEN'f
7c. Gt~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3488
CWNER: TONY and CONNIE ALVAREZ FAMILY TRUST, 360 S. Glassell
Street, Orange, CA 92666
AGENT: YASER HABIBEH, 1189 N. Kraemer Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92607
LOCATION: 1189 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is
approximately 1.5 acres located at the southwest
corner of Coronado Street and Kraemer Blvd.
To retain an auto stereo and alarm installation facility with
inciPental retail sales with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. PC92-13
FOLLO{9ING IS A SUMMARY OF TF 'CANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTE
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Stipulated to no signs advertising other
businesses in the windows and to remove the sign on top which is
broken within 30 days.
ACTION: Granted with stipulation to no signs advertising other
businesses in the windows and to remove the sign on top within 30
days.
STAFF COMMENTS: Industrial area and no special event permits would
be granted. (Applicant agreed to eliminate special events).
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent)
0..,:
Approved
Anproved
Granted
'~
1/27/92
Page 17 ~
8a. CAA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued
~- Sb. TETITATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12699 AND SITE PLAN to 2/10/92
CFVNER: PRESLEY of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 19 Corporate Plaza, O/~~
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LGY'ATION: Property consists of approximately 12 40 acres
generally bounded by The Summit of Anaheim Hills
Develofarrent Area 101 to the northeast, The Highlands
at Anaheim Hills ~velo x~nent Area 8 to the northwest,
The Highlands at Anaheim Hills L~velo~anent Area 12 to
' the south and The Highlands at Anaheim Hills
~velopment Area 10 to the west and further described
as I~velo~sr>ent Area 11 of The Highlands at Anaheim
Hills S ific Plan (SP87-1).
To establish a 28-Lot (including 3 lettered lots), 162-unit, air
space condominium subdivision and request for site plan review
and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUt4tdARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
- CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
ACTION: Continued to meeting of of 2-10-92 at applicanr,~s request.
VOTE: 6 yes votes
(Henninger absent)
1/27/92
Page 18
`~
9a. CFk~A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
F 9b. WAIVER OF ODE RECXIIREIIFT]'1'
9c. OOND.PI'IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3987
OWNER: HABITAT I, 1875 Century Park East, Euite 1880, L.A.,
CA 90067
AGENT: FARANO AND KIEVET, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. #340,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1925 West Lincoln Ave. Property is approximatel~+
5.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and bluller Street.
To permit a "mixed use" project consisting of a 3 and 4-story,
184-unit, "deck type" apartment complex and 10,000 square feet
of ground floor commercial uses with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces, minimum distance between buildings and required
distance to elevators.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUtdMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
.~ CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 29 people present
OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Concerned) about parking; additional students in
overcrowded schools; mixed use would increase pedestrian traffic;
surrounded by small businesses; wanted to have traffic signal at
Lincoln and Aladdin prior to starting construction; suggested
painting curbs red on Dianne Way on both sides so tenants could not
park there; no place for children to play; height of structure would
block neighbors view of the mountains; concerns about water usage;
increased crime; decrease in property values; noise; school district
representative +.ndicated their concerns about impacts on schools and
requested denial or a continuance in order for them to continue
negotiating with the developer.
PETITIONER'S COt4tdENTS: Have met with school district officials and
they have indicated a fee of S21,000 per unit, and they are not
willing to reduce that figure.
COtitfISSION COt•1MENTS: Concerned that they are pushing the people
:urther back into the guest parking; did not think those spaces ould
be used (applicant explained 16 spaces would be designated for the
businesses and employees could park there). Things have changed
since project was originally approved in 1988, does not meet criteria
of new mixed use ordinance.
\_..~ STAFF COMMENTS: If this request is denied they would still be
entitled under the previously approved CUP.
Contin'..ed
t0 2/24J52
~// ~"_
ACTION: Continued to 2-24-92 in order for developer to work with
school district.
10.REFOh'PS AND RELbhAfII4DATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1250 - REXX7ESl Ft~R
TERMINATION: Aimee Brazeau requests termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1250 on property located at
5550-5650 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road
TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC92-14
B. RE.CXIEST FOR PLANNING OOh1MISSION ~ INITIATE RECLASSIFICATION
PROCEEDINGS: Planning Department Staff requests Planning
Commission initiation of reclassification proceedings for
subject property from the CH Zone to the CL Zone. Property
is located at 2970 West Lincoln Avenue.
C. VARIANCE N0. 2577 - RFXXIEST FOR TERMINATION: OEL NEIL,
has requested termination of Variance No. 2577 on property
located at 1240 South Walnut.
TEREINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC92-15
D. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 12692 - RDaUEST FOR APP%JVAL OF
FINAL SITE PLAN: Steven Riggs for the Presley Company of
Southern California, requests approval of final site plan
for Tentative Tract Map No. 12692. Property located at The
Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 3.
E. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17.688 - REQUEST FOR APPFOVAL OF_
FINAL SITE PLAN: Steven Riggs for the Presley Company of
Southern California, requests approval of final site plan
for Tentative Tract Map No. 12688. Property located at The
Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 2.
F. ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES HIi GIV I:T - KCVULal 'ly uG16 Rr
CONFORIdANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLA~J - Property located at
2100 South Raster Street, Anaheim.
G. ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY - REQUEST TO DETEPMINE
CONFORtJANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN - Property located at
1633 South Jeffrey Drive, Anaheim.
Granted
/~
Approved
Granted
p~~
Approved
~/~'
Approved
/;r:u~
Approved
Approved
1/27/92
Page 20
-,..J
11. DISCUSSION:
None
12. ADJOURNMENT: Fieldtrip and Workshop - Monday, F~i,auaiy 3,
1992, at 9:30 a.m.
CERTIFICATION OF R7STING
I hereby certify that a complete wpy of this agenda was posted at:
_ I,OC7C'A4'ION: O.xINCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE
(TIME) (DATE) AND O~UNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in a w~:itten correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission
or City Cow~cil at, er prior to, the public hearing.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL Fht~M PLANNING G~12SSION ACTION
The action taken by the Planning Commission this date regazrling
Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall be
considered final unless, within ;:2 days after the Planning
Commission and within l0 days regarding Tentative Tract and Parcel
Maps, an appal is filed. This: appeal shall be made i, written form
to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined
by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appal in the Clerk's Office,
shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council
at the earliest possible date You will be notified by the City
Clerk of said hearing.
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNNG COi4h1ISSION
FC920127
:•,T/ 1/27/92
Page 21