Minutes-PC 1992/02/10~~~'
,~ Date: February 10, 1992
~~
°~Y.' The regulaz meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at
10:00a.m., Monday, February 10, 1992 by the Chairman in the Council Chamber, a
`r+,~ ,
~r`a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's
~y ~K
.,.,t .. agenda.
s;;
~" ' RECESS: 11:SSa.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30p.m.
wF ,
:: Y ',.-
4
i
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hellyer, Henninger, Bouas,
Bristol, Messe, Peraza, Zemel
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT:
Joel Fick
Selma Mann
Malcolm Slaughter
Melanie Adams
Alfred Yalda
Greg Hastings
Jonathan Borrego
Janet L. Jensen
Planning Director
Deputy City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Associate Civil Engineer
Associate Traffic Engineer
Zoning Division Manager
Senior Planner
Senior Secretary
~~ENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was
posted at 3:15p.m., February 6, 1992, inside the display case located in the foyer of the
Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin -January 31, 1992
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Hellyer explained 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.
t ,
Y, ~
. "' '~ -, -
r'~` I`T'EM NO. 1 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODL•
. ~~;,
. ;:, $EOUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3465
~~,:
~~~~`. 'PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TIMOTHY J. AND CATHLEEN A. O'NEII.L,
r;
S'' °- 3100 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621. LOCATION: 1420 N. Lemon Street. Property is
~~ approximately 3.13 acre located at the northeast comer of Lemon Street and the
~` r Riverside (91) Freeway.
Request: To permit an automobile repair center with waivers of minimum structural
k setback and minimum structural setback abutting freeway rights of way.
Continued from the October 21, December 16, 1991, and January 27, 1992 Planning
sb~<_; Commission meetings.
~,:~,; ,
Tim O'Neill, came forward to ask for an additional two week extension of time. He
explained they are still in the process of getting their traffic report together to submit to
the City.
Chairman Hellyer asked if they are still in the process of getting a focused EIR together
and Mr. O'Neill explained that the City gave them four or five different items and they
all dealt with the traffic.
Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, asked if they could just deal with those areas of
traffic and if the City still felt there needed to be additional information that could be
obtained from a focused EIR, then they would go in that direction.
Commissioner Messe asked if two weeks would be sufficient and Mr. O'Neil indicated
trat it would.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated if that information is not going to be available
until next week, they would recommend a 4 week continuance, otherwise they would not
have adequate time to properly analyse that information.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they would need a few days to review that
also.
Chairman Hellyer asked how this ;vould affect their timing?
Mr. McCafferty explained their formal response to the applicant is that it would be a
focused Environmental Impact Report, however, they have not as yet received the
information. He stated he did not see a problem with continuing it from a CEQA
standpoint because they have one-year from the date .ne application was deemed
complete in order to act and make the CEQA finding,. He added in his letter and
response to the applicant, they have rot backed aw~.y from the focused EIR.
~~.~.~
C y
L~ +dx ~i~.lty.
t ~' ~ ~
~ ;:
-t,.
7~~1TQO: AATwLTL'711d !'~iTV DT AT~TATiAT/3 /V111/711dTCCTl1T-T L`CQDTTAI?V 1!1 '1007
- - a` ~: -
~4'w.. -:
d. -Chairman Hellyer asked if the applicant understood that +hey wanted a focused EIIt
r}~ ~ ', an.? not just the traffic report he was working on?
• ~ _~ -Commissioner Messe asked what other subject matters were open?
,~.
~~ Mr. O'Neill stated perhaps he did not understand if that was the case. He stated he
~:;~, ~ had a meeting with Greg McCafferty, but it appeared to them that all those items could
~ be addressed through a traffic study and if those items were not sufficiently addressed in
~{~, the traffic study, they would do whatever it takes.
-~;
` ~ ' He asked if they could use the traffic study first and see if it answered all of the
questions that needed to b~° answered?
~..,.
)1
:.:~~: , Commissioner Hellyer asked Mr. McCafferty if that was his understanding of this
situation?
Mr. McCafferty reiterated that their formal response is that it should be a focused EIR.
Chairman Hellyer asked what other things other than traffic would he be looking for
and Mr. McCafferty said that would be it.
Mr. McCafferty stated that they need to review the traffic study and also make a
environmental determination or recommendation to the Planning Commission 21 days
before the Commission acts on it and that would take at least four weeks.
Chairman Hellyer asked if they expected to have the information to staff within an
week and Mr. O'Neill stated yes.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Henninger and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter
be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of March 9, 1992, in order to submit
revised plans.
Mr. O'Neill referenced page 4, item no. 20, the second sentence down and stated, it
says the Traffic Engineering Division and the California Department of Transportation
have reviewed the proposal for traffic circulation and access problems and both reviews
suggest that Caltrans has said a number of times that they have no opinion and that this
isg
strictly the City's determination that it should be denied; Caltrans has never said that it
should be denied.
Mr. Yalda stated they have a letter in their file dated December 3, 1991, from Caltrans
stating that there is not enough visibility and there is a lack of corner site distance. He
added he would be more than happy to provide the applicant with a copy of this letter.
`Tn'h1
V
~~~
i
~, .w.+~r... c.
r.
~~~ T
::
i
~~ ` as ITEM N0.2 - CEOA1!TEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE
f~
~~~~:~::. REOUIRE1yiENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3484
~~ .
~r ~ PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: FRAI`1K H. GREINKE, P.O. Box 4159, Orange, CA
~-~~ ` ' 92513. AGENT: SOUTHERN COUNZZES OIL CO., P.O. Box 4159, Orange, CA
92613. LOCATION: 1431 North Raymond Avenue. Property is approximately 0.61
acre located at the southwest comer of Orangefair Lane and Raymond Avenue.
``,;,'
n
-;,~ ,.
f
Request: To permit an automobile service station with waiver of minimum structural
setback.
Continued from the January 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
$r~'fI' ON: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 24, 1992, in order to submit
revised plans.
ITEM NO.3 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 12669 AND SITE PLAN
1z~99
PUliirfC HEARING. OWNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 19
Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92550. LOCATION: Proper consists of
proximately 12.40 acres generall~ounded by the Summit of Anaheim Hill
Development Area 101 to the northeast The Highlands at Anaheim Hill Development
Area 8 to the northwest. The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 12 to the
south and The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 10 to the west and
further described as Development Area 11 of The Hiehland~at_Anaheim Hills Snecinc
Plan (SP87-1~,
Request: To establish a 28-lat (including 3 le!tered lots), 152-unit, air space
condominium subdivision and request for site plan review and approval.
Continued from the January 27, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
There was no one in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was riot
read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Steven Riggs, Presley Company. He stated this is as item they continued two weeks ago
so they could work with staff to verify some of the conditions. He explained their main
reason for doing that is because even though Presley Company is listed as the applicant,
this is a parcel that they sold and have closed escrow.
~t x;,
,~~~~
_ - _ __ ra~ua~ Al\ 1 1 1 L
~ He stated they wanted to verify that some of the conditions that pertain to the overall
Highlands were not being added to this developer and that this developer had to do
;4~ ~ s~nmething with those conditions. He stated in general, what they determined with staff
~~~ _ was that the conditions needed to remain and that there needed to be an agreement
~,r worked out between Presley and the new owner of the property to make sure that the
'(' things Presley is responsible for is taken care of and the are in the r
that. Y p ocess of doing
He stated there are a couple of things that he has comments on in reference to the 3
conditions that were added to the existing conditions to the Specific Plan. He stated
they do not really have a problem, except that condition no. 3 makes a comment about
staff recommending that the proposed crib wall not exceed 10 foot height limitations.
He stated prior to that there is a statement that the staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission review a detailed fence plan under Reports and
Recommendations.
He stated they are in favor of this and they do not have a problem with that and they
are still working on the final engineering to come up with what the detailed fence plans
are going to look like.
He stated the engineer believes that there are a couple of cases where the crib wall or
retaining walls may need to exceed 10 feet in height by a foot or two; they did not know
it they could work that out and what they would hate to do in this meeting, prior to
being able to prepare that detailed fence plan, would be to give up the right to ask for a
wall more than 10 feet in height.
He stated he would like to recommend on these conditions that they accept the
conditions, but that there be a reservation of judgment on the 10-foot wall height until
they could get a detailed plan to show them.
Chairman Hellyer asked staff if that would be agreeable to them?
Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, stated they would be in agreement with
that, however, the main reason for putting thN condition in was esthetics, therefore, she
will defer to the Planning Department.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated that is correct. He explained his concern was
along Serrano Avenue and the high visibility that the wall may have adjacent to the
street.
k y
f(S~i., ~.,,
{
~ ~ ~ ::) y r
r
~,:
~,,:,.
-,ky>..
't ~~'.:
=t:;,.
,,~~^~.
1' .\~
i
i
~i
;:7
;5 `,Chairman Hellyer asked if this could wme back to them in a Reports and
~f; ~: • Recommendation item and Mr. Borrego indicated that was correct, prior to final map
~~~~: approval.
Mr. Riggs stated the Reports and Recommendations are fine with them, however, the
only concern they had was that it be limited today to 10 feet.
Chairman Hellyer stated his remarks are noted and he thought they could live with that.
Mr. Borrego stated as he understands it, that 10-foot limitation is actually in Title 17,
therefore, it would certainly be open to discussion.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Mr. Riggs referenced page 10 of the staff report, conditions 33 and 34 out of the
Specific Plan and stated it refers to posting "NO PARKING" street sweeping signs and
recording a covenant for street sweeping. He explained this was a private street and he
was not sure if those applied.
Alfred Yalda, Trafi"ic Engineering, stated he is referring to private streets, so therefore,
these conditions do not apply.
Commissioner Henninger asked if this project has no frontage in any location on a
public street and Mr. Riggs explained that it does front on Serrano Avenue, however,
they are not talking about anything that would have anything to do with Serrano
Avenue.
He explained this is a condition out of the Specific Plan which refereed to all of the
tracts that Presley was conswcting.
Chairman Hellyer explained it is boiler plate for the whole plan.
Mr. Riggs explained all of these conditions refer to the overall plan.
Chairman Hellyer asked Mr. Yalda if conditions 33 and 34 could be deleted and
Mr. Yalda indicated there would be no problem with that.
Mr. Riggs referrenced page 13, condition no. 65. He stated it refers to advanced funds
for construction of the master plan drainage facility. He stated that is something
Presley is already involved in and he thought this particular tract would not have
anything to do with that, however, they do not have an argument with leaving it in
because they know Presley is going to do that.
~~~~;
r . •
`: ° ,~,a~
;.' 4
r'c r~~i .: ~.
°,~ He. referenced condition no. 73, page 14 and read the condition relating to fire hydrants
;:being spaced 150 feet apart. He stated they talked to staff about this one and wanted to
''~~ - snake it part of the record. He indicated he thought this was a misprint and that it was
~r .'recorded into the Specific Plan that way; he did not think there was a fire hydrant
F~~ " . "within 150 feet on the wall and it was way over what is being constructed any place else
~;'"'` in the City.
a
He stated it was his understanding that the Planning Commission could not do anything
about it because it was part of the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Messe commented that if they ever come in with an amendment to the
Specific Plan that it ought to be straightened out.
.. :.i~fi'.~-::
'.c.'.
~;~ - ; Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he was a little confused about this
1 because the Fire Department has asked that this condition apply to other projects
currently and he was nog personally aware of any changes that have been made.
AC'T'ION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Henninger and MOTION CARRlEI3 that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to establish a 28-lot (including 3 lettered lots), 162-unit, air space
condominium subdivision and requests site plan review and approval. Subject property
consists of approximately 12.40 acres generally bounded by The Summit of Anaheim
Hills Development Area 101 to the northeast, the Highlands at Anaheim Hills
Development Area 8 to the northwest, The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development
Area 12 to the south anti The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 10 to the
west and further described as Development Area 11 of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills
Specific Plan (;iP87-1); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
that it ha, considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and
any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find
that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent
with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5;
and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12699 fora 28-lot (including 3
lettered lots), 162-uzut, air space condominium subdivision and request for site plan
review and approval subject to the following conditions:
-:
s::;~t~'~,ti:,;a
lA _ N.,.
~'
'~
l`:
~y : ~,
1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for implementation of
' '~`' "~ all applicable stipulations in the approved Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan;
'~~": and, that all future grading and development of The Highlands project shall display the
~,~ quality standards represented by the applicant in conjunction with the Specific Plan
,~,;r`;,,- process and in the Specific Plan document for any zoning and development standards
~'`~~? other than the minimum standazds as defined in the Zoning Code (Title 18).
t~
4. That except as otherwise provided for in the Anaheim Highlands Specific
fh "S C 'dr
~,4
~~ .~
l;q;',•
-. ~:
~rfi .
~.
Plan, all development shall comply with the requttements o t e ceme orn o
Overlay Zone", as outlined in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
8. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim
Flanning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information
concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred
(300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract.
9. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012 and
18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted.
WATER
l~f. That prior to the submittal of each final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shall make provisions for design features that conserve water such as
controlled initiation systems which employ drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and
automatic systems that minimize runoff and evaporation, and use of mulch on top of
soil to improve water holding capacity of public landscaped areas; and, use of xeriscape
and drought-tolerant species for landscaping. Plans indicating such conservation
measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department.
17. That all water supply planning for the project shat! beclosely coordinated
with, and be subject to review and final approval by, the City of Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
18. That the water supply system for The Highlands development shall be
designed in accordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan for Special Facilities
District No. 1.
19. That the mains and storage reservoirs shall be designed as part of the City's
Master Water System ultimately serving azeawide development.
1..
,: ;>
^'~~`'~n..m.~ T.vnr~,r nrrv yr ertt~tTt~tr; rnMMiSSION. ]FEBRUA1tY 10. 1992 9
~fi
~~ , 20. That the owner/developer shall dedicate the land required foz
~k.,.:. implementation of the water system to th? City in conjunction with streets, and through
_,~,: 'easements. at the time of find tract or pazcel map recordation. The reservoir sites shall
be dedicated with the final maps, or when required by the City.
,~„y,,.
r ~,
~`~ ? 21. That bonding for construction of the required water system impro~~fu~;:t..
~ ~~ ~; } shall be furnished in conjunction with each final map.
~ ~~
~ ~~ 22. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in accordance
~~ ~Hith the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations as provided below:
(a) The; developer shall install the secondary system improvements.
ak~~ ;-_.
(b) Funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs shall be
advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities fees
~Y~~p ,.
as provided for in Rule 15-B.
(c) Primazy mains shall be installed by the City with funds provided by the
Developer in the form. of primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule
15-A.
(d) The necessary 5nancial arrangements for construction of the special
facilities and required primary main fees shall be made prior to final
tract or parcel map approval.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
23. That all building construction shall comply with the California Energy
Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under Title 24 of the
California Administrative Code.
24. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for the project
shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for maximizing solar exposure,
shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes}, and solar hot water heating either
directly with system installation or indirectly with provisions for accommodating future
retrofitting.
25. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner/developer
shall confer with the Southern California Gas Company and the City of Anaheim
Building Division during the building design phases for the purposes of including further
methods of energy conservation to the extent feasible.
,1J 1 ~'' ~.; ~
(~ • l
d°p, 5 _
( ~~
~~~
=a;.
`:,-~t !;
._. ~,~ -_
` 28. That prior to final tract or parcel map approval, plans shall be submitted to
~~
the Police and Fire Departments for review and approval for defensible space concepts
~;
y,;- . and safety features (i.e. access, visibility, surveillance, etc.).
~Q]N WASTE
29. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance with City
codes for the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for trash pickup.
,STREET MAINTENANCE
35. That prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupan~.y for a residential unit, whichever comes tlrst, of any final map
that incorporates a private street, a financial mechanism, acceptable to and approved by
the City, for maintenance of private streets shall be established at the expense of the
owner/developer.
SANITARY SEWER
37. That prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer
systems within the tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City
Engineer. The sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and
maintained in accordance with the requiretents of the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department.
40. The owner/developer of The Highlands shall be financially responsible for
the following sanitary sewer-related items:
(a) The acquisition of any required permits and environmentaassessments.
(b) The design and construction of all local sewer line extensions and related
facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map, as
approved by the City Engineer.
AIR UALITY
41. That the owner/developer shall implement regular ground watering and other
forms of construction dust control in accordance with City standards.
~;~
>:`rE; , ,
v + ~~
r _~~~ ~
{
• S~k`,
zbt ~ 49. That a certified paleontologist shall be retained during grading operations to
~~~~, '.
,~ piovide a, monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If sufficient concentrations
~~ y;~~ v~ ; of significant fossils are encountered during monitoring, salvage operations shall be
~` initiated and coordinated with the developer and grading contractor as determined
F
appropriate by the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose
x subsurface archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist has been contacted and appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken.
~~ r ~ ~;
tlil
i AI~TDSCAPING
52. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a Homeowner's
Association, which association has been found to be acceptable to the City of Anaheim,
the owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant obligating the
Homeowners Association to (1) maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any
arterial street parkways adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common
areas, and all median islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision except those
located within arterial streets; (2) indemnify and hold tre City of Anaheim harmless for
damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said parkways and
median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The four. of said covenant
shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be retarded prior to the sale
of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a
residential unit, whichever comes first. The developer of each tract or parcel shall
improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways and median islands,
including providing the above specified insurance, until such time as the Homeowners
Association becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. The
developer shall post a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim
to guarantee performance of the developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first
Certificate Qf ~.ccupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first.
ELECTRICAL
53. That the developer shall have the financial responsibility for the installation
of underground conduit, substructures, retaining walls and for street lighting installations
on all streets, public and private, at no cost to the City in accordance with the City of
Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations.
.1adiSb J ......
JtT ~. •. A
F V' h
~.'7
A'• ,
~~3~ '~ ' S4. That the developer shall provide and construct for the City all necessary
'~ trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults, handholes and pull boxes. The scheduling
- and. funding for the backbone system utility costs will be determined during the
;;}- preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals. The developer shall also
advance this fee to the City to complete the backbone system upon billing by the City.
:;~;
~''~' S5. That the developer shall advance prior to final tract map approval a
~~,~?~ ~, non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department. The
~.,~,~, „ developer shall also provide and construct all necessary trench, backfill, conduit and
~,;}', manholes, vaults, handholes and boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and
` Regulations.
^;;.~,
~ a~, ~ 56. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be installed as
,,zaTr, .,', development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical facilities shall be provided in
` "~' ~ '' accordance with City codes.
~ ~t 57. That all facilities shall be located within public rights-of--way and easements
dedicated with the recordation of final maps. The conduit system with associated
concrete manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or
capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above ground on concrete pads.
58. That prior to approval of each final parcel or tract map, the property
i owner/developer shall provide grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street
improvement plans for review and approval by the Public Utilities Department so that
Utilities' facilities plans are designed and coordinated with site development.
NOISE
59. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime hours in
accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction equipment shall
be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce the project's short-term
construction noise effects.
60. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector That the proposed project is in
conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential
Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative
Code, Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the
Specific Plan.
'~
= 4
7~.
~~~:
,.
•
_
_-
__ ___ ~~~-.~-. r.r.wr~rt~T.a)gA SAM
J
:~.
13
:~,:--_
62. That the design and installation of project drainage facilities shall be in
~ `accordance with the flow criteria, design standards and construction requirements of the
rf ~.~ ~~ City of Anaheim Engineering Department.
;.;
~ ~ ., r .
'~ 63. That erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final grading
#~ ~~~i -_ plans for the project to minim;7P potential increases in short-term erosion and sediment
`L s transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures will be provided in accordance
r ~ ` with City requirements, including timely seeding of graded slopes and the use of
temporary control devices, e.g. sediment traps, desilting basins, berms and perimeter
sandbagging.
~a
~~r
~,~~
ilb ~
1
i
65. That the owner/developer of The Highlands shall be financially responsible
for the following items:
(a) Advance funds for and construct the Master Plan drainage facilities.
(b) The construction of in-tract and local storm drain system improvements.
(c) Any permits and any subsequent environmental assessment deemed
necessary.
66. That bonding for the Master Plan Facilities shall be provided in conjunction
with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding for in-tract improvements will
occur with various tract approvals.
67. That the phasing of in-tract improvements shall occur as final tract maps are
approved for all development areas.
68. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the improvements for
each tract.
FIRE
71. That prior to the issuance of each building permit, the owner/developer shall
submit detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant
location and other construction features to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Prior to the placement of building materials on the building site, an all weather driving
surface must be provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site.
Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The width
and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section 10.207(a) of the
Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
~ {
~~~ - w ,s.
R:iT[7e AT~TeTJRT11d!`iTVpT eNNiNlSMM1UTCQT(1N FRRRiT6RY1(1 1Qtn 1d
"s,; ''
,~.~~y . 72. That the water supply system for The Highlands shall be designed to provide
"'~~ ; ` suflicient fireflow pressure and storage in accordance with Fire Department
'~.r„~
,z,,_ :.
~.~1%. - cequ~irements as identified in the Specific Pl;,a.
~~
•° 73. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each pazcel or lot,
}, r ~ accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and chazged within one hundred fifty (150) feet
7~l ~:
x~ Nt of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of each building, in conformance
- y + ` -- `, with City standazds. Specific information on the design and implementation of the
~, , . required hydrant system network for The Highlands may be obtained from the Fire
Department.
:.~~.,:,
~~;~~--
r ~'"'~ •
Ry :,
_~^y;
4l.
~~~,
G' A':' ~'
75. That buildings shall be constructed in conformance with the fire safety
provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire resistant roofing
and construction materials as required by the City of Anaheim for Fire Zone 4 (Fire
Administrative Order No. 76-01). Such further requirements include, but are not
limited to: chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor openings, Class C
or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces
when located within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent brushland. Built-in fire
protection such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable in
accordance with City standards for commercial anti/or residential buildings.
76. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department, and that the fuel modification program shall be implemented
as outlined in the Specific Plan document (Exhibit A) and as illustrated on Exhibit 28 of
the Specific Plan document.
77. That native slopes adjacent to newly conswcted residences shall be
landscaped with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and
weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100) feet of separation
between flammable vegetation and any structure.
78. That all lockable pedestrian and vehicular access gates shall be equipped with
a "knox box" device to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police and the City Fire Marshal.
GRADING /SOILS/LANDSCAPING
80. That prior to approval of each final parcel or tract map, the property
owner/developer shall submit a final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on
recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to
completion of detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area.
Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible recommendations for
mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization, liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and
appropriate drains and subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the
City Engineer and shall be subject to a grading permit.
,~ F .~ ~~~
J
~~` v ~ •
f`
Mi
~::. '
E'~' ` a. Grading plans shall include an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to
"~ be approved by the City Engineer. The plan shall include provisions for
,;"` measures such as immediate planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes,
r';- temporary sedimentation basins and sandbagging, if necessary, and a
~ ~f ""` watering and compaction program. The plan shall ensure that discharge of
surface runoff from the project during construction activities shall not
bra s~, '' .~ result in increased erosion of siltation downstream.
;s~~~
81. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the general
,.,, . ~ recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, City Council Policy 211 (HIllside
Grading) and the Anaheim Grading Code. Said recommendations shall include
s; ,, ; specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and fill, slope
h , stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage, and recommendations
for further study.
~~<;-:
82. That in connection with the submittal of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall provide information showing that the overall shape, height and
grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in accordance with City Council Policy
211.
83. That prior to approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer
shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval, a landscape and
irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect to integrate and phase the
installation of landscaping with the proposed grading and construction schedule. Prior
to occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the City of
Anaheim Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed for the individual
development area in accordance with the prepared plan. The plan shall include heavy
emphasis on drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with
City requirements and standards.
84. That prior to the approval of each grading plan, the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to review an oak
tree/riparian preservation and management program which incorporates development
criteria necessary to maximize the protection and preservation of on-site woodland
resources within ungraded areas containing oaks.
TRAFFI
89. That the developer shall provide traffic signals in lieu of the payment of
traffic signal assessment fees at the following locations:
a. Serrano/Canyon Rim
b. Serrano/Sunset Ridge Road
/F~ ~
k.- ~ ~~
rA
'~`.
:•. , r ~
c. Fairmont/Canyon Rim (if deemed necessary prior to the construction of
the 401st dwelling unit by future studies or circumstances)
`~; d. Santa Ana Canyon Road/proposed access road (provide median opening
~,~ ~ on Santa Ana Canyon Road at this point)
~~ r
F=~~~` The precise location and phasing of these signals shall be subject to review and approval
~~ by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits or as deemed
_ necessary by the City Traffic Engineer. All signals shall be interconnected with the City
system.
92. That the developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare Fee for the Eastern
Transportation Corridor in compliance with City Council Resolution No. 85-R-423.
93. That no residential front-ons along roadways identified as Roads A, B, C, and
Serrano Avenue in The Highlands Specific Plan shall be included within The Highlands.
100. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance wilh the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation of street
name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall
be submitted to the Building Division for approval and included with the building plans
prior to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which ~~rli',tide
primary access and/or circulation within the project.)
101. That all public residential streets shall be designed in accordance with City
standards and reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to each
tentative tract or parcel map approval.
102. That the private street system design shall include provisions for
accommodating the collection of refuse in accordance with City requirements.
103. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the
City Planning Department.
104. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy if
permanent street name signs have not been installed.
105. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 10% except by prior
approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering Division.
fps ~,n:~.
ro k a .r H.+ ! :~
` '~ r
F , a~r 4p ~ ~ ~ ^y~~
t :!1 i-:~
...... : ~~ .:.,-,.r f i.r•r~r nr w tr~m-Tr nlli~in-AiQCil1N FRRRi 1ARY 10. 1992 17
~hj~•,
106. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a
J~3-`'manner~;which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street(s).
,~~~ ~, Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 402 and their
~U ': `location shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to
,. ,
~~~~" the approval of each tentative tract or parcel map.
FYs~l
x uy~ 107. That any on- or off-site roads shall be constructed in accordance with all
``'`` `~ applicable Circulation Element and Engineering standards.
SF ~ 108. That the owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the public street
system for public use with the recordation of each final tract map for each individual
`, residential area.
~, ~,,~~ 110. That for on-site roadways and traffic signals, bonding shall be furnished as
~ part of in-tract improvements. Bonding for any off-site road extension, shall be
6unished prior to approval of the first final tract. or parcel map.
111. That the owner/developer shall be financially responsible for the following:
(a) Design and construction of the public and private road system.
(b) Design and construction associated with landscaping of the parkways
adjacent to public and private roads.
(c) Acquiring any permits for any on- and off-site roadways and any
subsequent environmental assessments deemed necessary.
(d) Maintenance of the private street system and all public and private street
parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism approved by
the City.
MISCELLANEOUS
ll4. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial mechanisms
referenced in previous conditions and necessary to implement provisions of the Specific
Plan shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer.
115. That all development and construction shall be in conformance with the
Specific Plan approved for The Highlands project.
116. That the owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to the City of
Anaheim all cable facilities necessary to implement the City's cable television network
system.
,~,
~5
:~;;~, ~ .
.. ~~. -..
1 ..
1
_... - _--__ ~~- ~ ~ww~w~T T~".TT1TT •T1l
~,:.
121, Any. decision or action required of the Planning Commission by any of the
above :conditions shall be' subject to appeal to or review by the City Council within 22
days following the date of such decision or action.
122. Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the final tract or parcel map,
the owner/developer shall record against the entire tract or parcel map a covenant, in a
form approved by the City Attorney, imposing against each and every lot in the tract or
parcel map the obligation to maintain all slopes, open space, private streets, and private
utilities and comply with each of the additional obligations contained in each of those
certain conditions identified on Exhibit A hereof. The slopes and areas to be
maintained under this covenant shall be those determined by the City Engineer as
required by the Municipal Code. The obligations of the covenant shall survive unless
and until the aforementioned CC&R's are recorded, or the City forms a maintenance
district which assumes all duties required under the covenant.
THE rOi'i,0`yvii~v C^vi.DITiOI:rS u~n,~~ u~Fiy crruNtT'i'1'Rt~ RY VARIOUS CITY
~EPARTMEIVTS:
1.' "That prior to final tract map approval, special facilities fees shall be paid to the
Water Engineering Division in accordance with Rule 15B of the Water Utility
Rates, Rules and Regulations. A portion of the viewshed open space must be
incorporated into tract acreage for purposes of payment of special facilities fees.
2. That the legal property owner/developer shall bond for, and pay a per lot service
connection fee for the installation of the in-tract underground electrical systems in
accordance with the City of Anaheim Rates, Rules, and Regulations, and Electrical
Engineering Construction Standards.
3. That the legal owner of subject property shall provide Public Utility easements for
on-site existing or proposed City of Anaheim electric facilities on the final tract
map. Other Public Utility easements shall be submitted on a separate document
prior to energizing the new facilities.
4.' That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location
acceptable to the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance
with approved plans on file with said division. Such information shall be
speciTically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a solid waste management plan with
recycling capabilities shall be approved by the Street Maintenance and Sanitation
Division. Upon occupancy of the project, said plan shall commence and shall
remain in full effect as required by said Division.
'~ ~. Qy
:G.-'- ..
'~ 6:: That -all other conditions relative to Specific Plan SP87-1 shall apply.
4 ~. 7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
~'`'' `` and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
Fa
~'~ plans aze on file ~ rith the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7.
r'P ~-,_
~r'„ ` .
8. That prior to the approval of a final grading plan or prior to final map approval,
whichever occurs first, the petitioner shall submit a detailed fencing pian to the
Zoning Division for Planning Commission review and approval as a Report and
Recommendation item. Said plan shall demonstrate the height and materials of
the proposed retaining and crib wall and shall also include landscaping materials
incorporated into subject walls in order to minimize the visual effects upon
adjacent streets and residences.
~ i~~
~' ~ ;art 9. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 7
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
10. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition No(s). 1, 2 and 3,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
11.' That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and
any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not
include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Conditions
marked with an asterisk (') are required by established laws, codes, regulations
and agreements and are, therefore, not subject to negotiation.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning
Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO.4 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 1463
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: DHANSUKHAL M. RATANJEE, 1235 Rosewood
Drive, San Bernardino, CA 92408. LOCATION: 2865 West Lincoln Avenue.
Property is approximately 0.6 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and
approximately 220 feet east of the centerline of Bel Air Street.
Request: To establish a 1-lot, 10-unit air-space, RM-2400 condominium subdivision.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
,,,
~~~~ .
1
sr" s~S - 4
} t
'
$:
~~:
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Henninger asked if there was a condition that staff wanted to add
regarding an easemen.7
Mr. Borrego indicated that was correct and that condition would read as follows: "That
the final map shall include a 20-foot wide open space easement adjacent to the single-~
family residences to the north to be utilized as recreational leisure area:'
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is
consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 14636 for a
1-lot, 10-unit, air-space, RM-2400 condominium subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1. That prior to final tract map approval, Reclassification 91-92-OS shall be approved
and adopted by the City Council.
2. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu
fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as established by City
Council Resolution.
3. That prior to final tract map approval, the appropriate sewer assessment fee shall
be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as established by City Council
Resolution.
4. That prior to final tract map approval, sewer improvement plans shall be
submitted to the subdivision Section and improvement security shall be posted to
construct an 8-inch sewer in Dale Avenue, from Yale Avenue to approximately
560 feet north of Lincoln Avenue, to provide relief capacity on the sewer serving
subject property.
5. That prior to final tract map approval, a maintenance covenant, shall be
submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's Office.
The covenant shall include pro~risions for maintenance of private facilities and a
maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final
map.
6. That all condominium units shall be addressed from Lincoln Avenue.
is
~+ ? f
- ~ - '.i
'.RI
'7 That the final map shall include a 20-foot wide open space. easement adjacent to
the single-family residences to the north, to be utilized as recreational leisure
area.
n , 1,
-8. That the final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 above-
y,~; .'
:~;::~ ~ mentioned, shall be complied with.
1r b';
9.' That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and
any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not
include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance regulation or requirement. Conditions
marked with an asterisk (s) are required by established laws, codes, regulations
and agreements and ar, therefore, not subject to negotiation.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning
Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council.
I"i'EM NO. 5 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION NO.
91-92-12 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.348Q
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ATTN: MRS. WINDA (WEN-NING) KUO, 1-
HSIUNG KUO-AND-SHU-CHII-I LIAO/KUO, 25683 Nellie Gail, Laguna Hilis, CA
92653; AGENT: ATTN: YVONNE YAO, JARRETT AND SUHARNOKOK, 5514
Wilshire Blvd., #900 Los AngelE~,, CA 90036. LOCATION: 155 West Katella Avenue.
Property is approximately 0.83 acres located on the south side of Katella Avenue and
approximately 650 feet west of the centerline of Ninth Street.
RS-A-43,000 to CL.
Request: To permit a commercial retail center consisting of 8,493 square feet of office
use, 481 square feet of retail use and 424 square feet of restaurant use.
There were 2 persons indicatin ~. their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Christopher Jarrett, 5514 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90036. He stated he was
acting on behalf of the owners for the property located at 1556 W. Kate11_a Avenue. He
stated the property is currently zoned residential and they are asking for a
reclassification to Commercial Limited.
He stated essentially they are proposing approximately 8,500 square felt of professional
office space and approximately 900 square feet of retail.
~ ~., '
ry.~r' ~ S
TriT,[~~,.11TATTf7T1! /17.}R1.T1T •1T~7T1T/7 I
`~'
' ',i
~~y.: ,_
~c, ~He stated currently there is a house that is a turn of the centwy wood frame house and
.. 2 separate garage structures that are in a dilapidat~~~d state of repair. He stated
g~,' transients roam through the property and it is just not protected. He added that the
.. _ landscaping has grown wild.
~~ ~ ,
,'P' He stated about 4 years ago the owners tried to propose a motel on this site which was
~sr -
" ~~ denied by the Planning Commission, so they have been hired to proceed in designing a
~~ -' commercial development on this property.
~;::
-- He stated the site is unique in terms of having quite a quality group of trees. He
explained there are 3 or 4 eucalyptus trees that are pushing 30 or 40 feet into the air.
He added that is probably the best Bart of what is remaining on that property.
He stated based on a previous proposal that was submitted and some conversations that
he had with some neighboring property owners, there are a series of concerns that they
wish to address.
He stated there i~ the Stoddard El°•mentary school nearby and they are taking into
consideration the children that might walk by in front of this property by introducing a
stop sign on the inside of the property when people are exiting the property and a speed
bump.
He stated in terms of the scale of the project, the maximum buildable area is
somewhere around 35,000 square feet based on their proposal. He added they are
proposing less than one-third of what could be built. He stated rather than constructing
one large building, there will be multiple buildings, i.e., one larger building, 8,50
square feet, 2-story, then 2 one-story buildings that are actually closer to the residential
side of the property.
He stated they have designed what they refer to as a "green edge" to the perimeter of
the property along the sides of the residential neighbors as a way to screening off
possible views from this property to adjacent neighboring properties. He stated the
hour:: of use would be Monday through Frida;~, 9:OOa.m. to 6:OOp.m, for the professional
offices and the two retail pieces would be somt~thing like 8:OOa.m to 8:OOp.m.
He stated to describe that retail for the moment, essenially the owners have been
thinking about a specific kind ~~f. retail, i.e., one is something similar to a cafe where
there would be a waiter, however, there would not be a full kitchen. He added they
would be serving coffee and pastries essentially.
He stated the other retail business would be a flower shop. He stated the kind of
intensity of these retail businesses is rather low.
~S ~ R
1` ~~ t
~~ S t
r^
} ~
~} •
,
~~ T
~,~~He.~stated the parking requirement has been adhered to providing 40 spaces per the
~~ ', ~ requirement set forth by the City.
~~,: _
~~.,
h ~ He stated lastly, they understand the community would like to do something with this
piece of property as it is in a state of decay. He :,tated the children seem to turn it into
a*~` a fort for themselves and this is a problem that the owners would like to resolve.
~:~;
°. .
He stated they did take the initiative to send out a newsletter to the community
explaining what their project was and they also spent one day out there speaking to
some neighbors on a one to one basis.
~~ -
~, ;
r
/1~~Y~
i1'~+
~l
I
A~.s
Chairman Hellyer asked if he has read the staff report and did he agree with all of the
conditions and Iv1r, Jarrett indicated he did.
OPPOSITION:
Doris Schoon, 1826 South Eileen Drive, Anaheim, CA. She stated the north edge of
her property would be adjacent to their entire south boundary of the lot. She stated she
would not like to have the parking lot within 10 feet of her back yard. She explained
she has two dogs and when the transients walk along the fence then her dogs get very
excited; transients often walk along f ~.e flood control and unfortunately a dead man
was found.
She stated these areas are poorly watched and she does like to have dogs. She clarified
they were really not guard dogs, but the one time a man did come into the yard she was
able to call the police and the man was apprehended.
She stated she did not like having just a 6-foot fence between her property and a
secluded parking arEa. She stated she presumes this will be an unlocked area and
people can drive back there and not be observed from the street and anything can
happen. She voiced her concerns that on the weekends children can come back there
and play ball and that a ball could go over a 6-foot fence into their yard. She added if
this happens her dogs will go bananas an6 that would disturb everyone.
She stated she did not want all of that commercial activity within 10 yards of a 6-foot
fence; possibly a 9 or 10-foot fence might shut out the noise. She stated her preference
would be to have it continue to be a residential home. She added they have multiple
small office facilities throughout Orange County that are unoccupied with "For Rent"
signs or, them.
r
H -
i}t
~
~~
~ ~ {aFi
,r~~
~~:~
~"
.~
He stated if you walk out into a yazd and look at a commercial area, you lose property
value. He stated it does not become a nice piece of property.
He stated the azchitects explained to him that trees would be planted up against the
wall and most of the buildings were going to be set back. He stated the wall height was
a major concern to him and indicated it was not a safe feeling for his wife or children
nor him at night. There was concern expressed that anyone could walk in the back and
come onto his property.
Chairman Hellyer asked what he would like to see happen?
Mr. Nash stated he would like to see the wall come up to at least 9 feet for safety
reasons alone and it would block a lot of their view and if the greenery does come up
o~~cr that, then aesthetically it would be more pleasing. He stated no one is arguing that
this piece of property is a nightmare. He stated the police have been out there a
number of times and it has not been a good situation for anyone involved. He added
he would love to see something done with it, but did not know if that was the answer.
He stated he does agree with the potential problem with the parking lot being located
in the back. He explained there is a school that is close and a lot of teenage kids could
drive right in at night and cause a lot of havoc in that back azea if it is unsecured.
He stated he would rnt have a problem with the parking lot being back there if they
could somehow secure it by a gate or have someone come by at night to electronically
close the gate or something that would keep cars and trouble out of that area. He
added it is a problem piece of property.
t_,;,r. ,
~''~ ,She stated if another one is built, they cannot dictate what type of business will come in
~=': `'~ tfiere. She stated it sounds wonderful to have a little book store and a cafe, however,
"~` ~ • hey will pretty much have to rent to whom they can rent to because there is an
'_'~`" abundance of all of these offices. She added she is opposed to adding offices to the
~~ ~''` already overly populated office facilities.
Scott Nash, 1820 Eileen, Anaheim, CA. He stated his property borders the entire east
side of his property. He stated when he first received the newsletter, his main concern
was loss of property value. He stated the azchitects came out and calmed a lot of his
feazs. He stated he purchased the property because he is basically a very private
person; his home is located on the back side of a cul-de-sac and he bought it specifically
to raise his family in.
X44
C
i`~4 ~'
~'- ~ ~Dy`, '
~~ •
1,
7~•~II~,~ ` ~ < REBUTTAL:
Mr. Jarrett stated the hours of use is primarily 9:OOa.m. to 6:(IOp.m. Monday through
Friday. He stated it does not mean that someone will not come into their business on
the weekend; it just means that most of the parking area in the rear will not be used on
weekends or in the evenings when the neighbors are at home.
He explained they designed it that way so that the commercial buildings woald not be
~, ,;
::~-
~~
,i•~k~,... .
up against the residential homes. He added they tried to keep the buildings as far away
from residential as possible.
He stated they proposed 3 buildings as opposed to one large building as a way of
addressing the kind of scale of structures which are adjacent to that property.
He stated in the Pre File they had the wall at 8 feet and they were told Code was 6
feet, so they changed it at final filing. He stated they would be more than happy to
accommodate the neighbors in terms of providing the 9-foot wall if that was permissible.
Chairman Hellyer asked staff for clarification if they needed a waiver fur the fence and
Mr. Borrego, Senior Planner, explained that was correct, i.e., if they wanted to exceed
the b-foot height limitation, the request would have to be readvertised to include an
additional waiver.
Chairman Hellyer asked in order to expedite this, would they be in agreement to a
continuance and advertise a waiver fora 9-foot wall?
At ibis point some of the Commissioners indicated an 8-foot wall.
Commissioner Bristol asked if he was on the east or west side of property and Mr. Nash
indicated he meant the west side.
Commissioner Bristol stated if they go fora 9-foot wall, then all of the neighbors should
be in agreement.
Chairman Hellyer stated they are not going to be able to act on this today. He stated if
they are in agreement to give them an 8-foot wall, they are going to have to advertise.
Mr. Borrego explained that the legal advertising for the next meeting had been
prepared and submitted to the newspaper and indicated it would have to be a 4-week
continuance.
Commissioner Bouas asked about the gate to the parking lot?
~:
'dt
1.2J .. :
Mr ,Nash asked which direction the loft on building no. 2 faces and also on the 2-story
~;, buildings i.e., will it be pointed towazds his backyazd? He explained his concern was
°`- . that be had a pool and his wife would like some privacy.
:<~
+~~.;,-
°'` 'Commissioner Messe stated then you would want aline-of--sight drawing and Mr. Nash
~z: indicated that was correct.
fir.:
Mr. Jarrett stated there is no comdor or catwalk on the second story side of the
building which faces his property.
Chairman Hellyer stated his concern was the office with the loft.
Mr. Jarrett stated the views for the loft are to the north or towards ICatella.
t tik. ACTION: Commissioner Hellyer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
;;~;' and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of March 9, 1992, in order for the
applicant to readvertise a waiver for an 8-foot wall.
Commissioner Henninger suggested that either directly, or at a work shop, that staff
consider, with regard to the fence requirement between commercial and residential, that
perhaps they need the ability for the Planning Commission to make a judgement to go
to an 8-foot wall. He explained this has happened a number of times and it just seems
like it would be a lot easier on everyone.
Commissioner Messe stated it also causes delays and extra expense in advertising.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated staff had some discussion regarding
this matter and the only drawback is that they would want to make sure that the
neighbors involved along that side of the wall are notified.
Commissioner Henninger clarified that the Code would remain at 6 feet, but go to 8
feet at the discretion of the Planning Commission in this kind of public hearing format.
He added he would not want to give 8 feet as a matter of right.
~~ ..
~~ f ~~.~ f',~
9
~~
~~
r,,3
-~~,
a ~ 6, REI'~RTS ANDS('-nMMENDATIONS:
~ ; A. StSr'*T,~,,•.~rl,AT A T USE PERMI'T' NO 3414 REOUES'T FOR EXTENSION OF
i~ vi i •vi~rau
~~ 7,~h~ TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
,~~
AG'1`ION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
~<_ ~ ' Henninger and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning
~ Commission does hereby approve the following request for extensions of time in
~~ h order to comply with conditions of approval required under Resolution No. PC 1-
,:; , 136 adopted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3414.
~'
~~ ~~' 1. Condition No. 21 -That the 45-day time limit for recording the
~,' unsubordinated reciprocal access agreement, specified therein, be
'' `~ ~ ' ' retroactively extended to January 31, 1992.
,~~-
2. Condition No. 22 -That the 180-day time ';unit pertaining to responsibility
~. ~ ~ ~.
for street improvements (which expired on January 25, 1992) be
retroactively extended an additional 180-days to expire on July 23, 1992.
_ 3. That Resolution No. PC91-110 in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit
No. 3414 be extended from July 29, 1992 until July 29, 1993.
B. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO ATTACHED OR
SEMI ATTACHED ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS BEING PERMITTED IN_
THE RM 1200 ZONE SUBJECT TO RM-2400 CODE REQUIREMENTS
To consider amending the provisions of the RM-].200 zone to permit, by
conditional use permit, attached or semi-attached one-family dwellings in the RM-
1200 Zone, subject to RM-2400 standards.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare a draft ordinance
incorporating the below stated word, for consideration by the Ciry Council within
twenty-two days of the Commission's action.
(Action continued on the next page).
h,
t r.
{Y~ ~::~~
} ~ n~3 a :s'~{`A in 2ts5" y~ah~ ~" t ~ t .~x. L ,~ 1f
%} ~I f~L _
K~
~ ~ ~yC
z^ ,..,:r~ .. . -- . ~~.-.~. ~ ........, ..~ ....T..,......~ ...T...,.
A11 TP'1TTTT~T~)~A7AnA nn
~.` -
n~ 18 34,(15(1_(145 'IY) READ AS FOLLOWS:
a ~^'_
~}~ ~ '
~ =tit±ached or Semi-attached one-family dwellings which comply with criteria set
. ~~~`'' forth i1 Cha ter 18.32 M-2400 of the code and which are not otherwise
P ~ )
,:.
~~'~`-' ` , permitted uses pursuant to Section 18.34.020.020:'
u Respectfiilly submitted,
~ ~A
~ Y
4~~.., ~
~~,: , - Janet L. Jensen,
Senior Secretary
.~ .....~
CM2158JJ.WP
~F M
~~: ri,
~~~~.
k
~~;~~