Minutes-PC 1991/10/21r~.. r, .-.xz~*tt'GA~islRa;tSyyy.
~:~ \:~.
ACl'ION AGETIDA
REGULAR MEETING OF TfiE ANAF~! CITY PLANNIlVG Lt7h4lISSIOIJ
MtONDAY, OCl1~BER 21, 1991 AT 10:00 A.M.
Morning Session
1. SOURCE REDUCPIGN AND REL'1'CLIIVG EGD~4'3V'1' and
HOUSEHOLD NAZARA7US WASTE EGEi~NN!'
PRELIMINARY PLAN REJIBV FU9ISC HEARING
(PUBLIC TF5TIb10NY)
10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m.
COA4~fISSIONER'S PRESFNI': BRIS1nL, HELLYF.R, PERAZA, ZF1~~'L
~ISSIONER'S A85FTVP: BOUAS, HENIVIlVGER, b~SSE
PIdOCIDURE ?n F~IDITE PLANNIlVG MISSION PUBLIC HEARIN^~
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five
~- minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon
.....__ __.._ ..__ ..requeat..if, in.the opinion of .the.COmmisaion, such additional time kill _._ _ ..._
produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given
ten minutes to present his case unless additional time is requested and the
complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's conaidorationa are not
determined by the length of time a participant sneaks, but rather by what
is said.
3. Staff Reports are. part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in
each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission wi:.l withhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to 3eviate from the foregoing if, in its
opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. "~,
6. All documents are f~reaented to the Planning Commission for review in
connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable
visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by
the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public
inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed ,
to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the '~
~'~ Planning Commission, and or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a ~
~ maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
CA11190E
10/21/91
Page 1
~~_
_f>"~r
~'.i:.;~ ~ St
y4~' ;
h
~' f
r~x `:
~f~f~t~R....
la. CEnA NFX,ATIVE DECLARATION
l ' Uj, Q~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3460
CtV1~R: Mr. John Hsu, K.O.K. Investments, 2654 W. La Palma
Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806
AGESV'P: Lu Architects and Associates, 8862 Garden Grove
Blvd., CA 92644
IQCA7'ION: 2658 West 7~ Palma Ave. Property ie approximately
1.9 acres located on the south aide of La Palma
Avenue and approximately 420 feet west of the
centerline of Magnolia Avenue.
To permit a 4-unit, 3,200 square-foot., expansion to an existing
commercial retail center.
Continued from the October 7, 1991, Planning Commission
meeting.
CONDITIONAL USS PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. --
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO SE
CONSIDERED OFF.LCZAL MINUTES.
~~ ACTION: Continued to November 4, 1991, in order for the petitioner
to study the possibility of closing the existing easterly driveway.
((~~~
\~
;~t~ .
~ti..
~/ 1
x -
i.
~
~t~•i
fl
i °L'.r
~:' .
,
fi
r.
1~
~N!6
W*.~:;, t
-~
~`~~'t
x
~i
~i ~T,
~
~~.434
Continued
to 11/04/91
-~,~
';-~ },'
:,~+
:~~ ~'
~_
'a
"ail.
I
-:+
'~{a
'"s't
;r,
a,,~c
~~:"
~:
`9,
r - S"
(:' ~y!
,j~:..{
^o-:
~~,
~:~~~~
r ~{h d~
• ~~"~t
~y
5~
a ~~
~~t ~
ui f:,^
t '~ h i,
l 3p
',~ ~ 1=
:W~~ .,z
r
~~„' .. ..
f~
2a. CEDA NF~TI'IVE DECLARATION
2b. VARIANCE NO. 4136 (WIR71DRl~VNJ
2C. TENTATIVE TRALT MAcy NO. 14429
2d. SPECIhIDV TREE REbK1VAL PERMP!` NO. 91-07
~NERS: ED STERN, LIPIDA STERN, MANFRED A GLASTETTER, CHRISTA
GLASTETTER, GARY F. LYONS, DONNA LEE LYONS, RAYMOND
W. PEARSON, PAMELA J. PEARSON, CURTIS R. PEARSON,
REITA BRTH PEARSON, FRED GLASTETTER AND LORI
GLASTETTER
AGIITP: FRED GLASTETTER, 25012 Via Del Rio, E1 Toro, CA
92630
I,CX.ATION:
Waiver of minimum lot width tc establish a 7-lot (plus a common
lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family subdivision.
To remove fifty-eight (58) specimen trees.
Continued from the August 26 and October 7, 1991 Planning
Commission meetings.
~~.~~~-.._ ~~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO~~~ _ ~~~~. ~-~~
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO SE
j CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
i
i'
ACTION: Continued to Novamber 4, 1991, in order to allow petitioner
', additional time to complete geotechnical and specimen tree removal
studies.
,i(3~ ~,
~.ib
;~Y~y
,,,
a
/^.
v
j 1
.4,~
?3
„~
f.
~~,.,
r
~~~
~y~t
a
i~, :,
~ti
~~r
iy
/91
3
~~~
hn
~~~~~~
.M
~~ . ~k
~,~K?.
a`,2~ .
~i ~* .
;<
khy? ~~~.
~-
_ „^ ~,
~. r .r
f~_
;M1? _
~ ..: =?
A~ f~.%
`_~
~~
,: .
• 3a. CDJA NEGATIVE DECZARATION
3b. WAIVER OF CgDE RETNJIRII4a1l
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INO. 3450
GINNER: PIONEER CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS OF SOUTHEP.N CALIFORNIA,
641 S. Western Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: RILEY F. MARQUIS, JR., 1413 E. 18th Street, Sant<
Ana, CA 92701
ILX.ATION: 641 South Western Ave. Property is approximately
4.8 acres located on the west aide of Western Avi
approximately 340 feet south of the center'_ine o:
Orange Avenue.
To permit a church, two modular classrooms, a pre-school,
private elementary and high school with employee/faculty any
church member housing within two existing 8-unit each
dormitories and two detached single-family homes with waive
marimum structural height, minimum side yard setback and
minimum number and type of parking spaces.
Continued from the September 11, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting.
~~ NDITI~ONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION_N0.__PC91-164 - `~_
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TC
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
' ; OPPOSITION• 1
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Petitioner referenced conditions 30 and ]
and indicated it limited the makeup of the students, i.e., instea
a certain no. of preschoolers and elementary students, etc., that
Planning Commission consider maintaining the total no. of student
but allow them the flexibility regarding the makeup of those nos.
rather than limit the no. of preschool students.
He stated the buildings that they were proposing to move onto the
site have been built to the Uniform Building Code; there was somf
discussion whether they would be temporary or permanent; they arf
full agreement with the Fire Department that it ie practical to
sprinkler them; since they are going to set them on permanent
concrete foundations, they would like the Commission to consider
those buildings as a permanent addition to the property without
limitation as to the length of time for their use.
/'^~
~.J
10/21/91
Page 4
•.F
r,ti
~' i.
":c
r1- .
,,~71~~
'}`
Y:
~.
S r
~:e~1
~i
~;~ ~` '
%_~~.,,
:'r
;~~~~[~
He stated they are still requesting a waiver; they have moved the
building to 20 feet; he understanc.y, because of the height of the
building, they are suppose to be twice the height of the building
from the property line. He explained there is a parape± type wall on
top of the building, so the height is roughly 11 feet; they are
asking them to consider the waiver at 20 feet rather than 22 feet and
give them that 2 feet. He stated his reas•~n is that the util!.ty
lines including the sewer, water, etc., that are serving the
property, straddles a portion of those utilities and if they me ve it
over any further, they will be sitting on the main water s~~pl~~ and
sewer lines. He was not sure if it was a violation to build over
them, but they were concerned about the possibility of reloca'_ing
them to gain than 24 or 25 inches. He asked that the Commission
consider that waiver to allow them to set them at 20 feet rather than
22 feet to avoid relocation of i:he utilities.
OPPOSITION: Mrs. Huff - Ooes not like the idea of temporary units
being put there permanently, especially that close to her property;
„oncern expressed that staff report indicates that the existing
housing on the property is to be used only by teachers or people in
the existing church organization that are teaching; understands that
there is a commitment for one year to let students use that; they
also have offices leased out to the prior owners and this is
contingent on the sale of this property; nct interested in having 200
students next door to her and does not want any variances.
•~ ~ .....~.........-~ REBUTTAL: urc see proper y ~
in back was designed for their students and staff; their students
and staff are still occupying the housing and their staff still has
offices in their building and that agreement will continua till
6/92. At that time they will relocate to new quarters. They will
then place members of their staff and congregation into that
housing. This was a condition of their contract.
For the record, Commissioners Peraza, Bristol and Zemel indicated
they all listened to the tapes prior to the meeting.
Hellyer - There is a marked improvement on the property; does have a
concern regarding the variance and recognizes they do have close
proximity to the water line. He asked why they would not move the ',;
water line so they could move the unite?
Lewis - It is a matter of financial cost. '``
Hellyer - Has some real concerns about Mrs. Huff's rights; economics
~ are not a reason to not do the right thing; should look at moving the
:cater line and moving the unite away from Mrs. Huff's property line; ~
her future use should not be impacted by their current use.
Lewis - Wants to cooperate with the process and Mrs. Huff's concerns.
U
10/21/91
Page 5
r~ ~":
~~.
Peraza - Understands that because of the low fence that they can
still see the area; could landscaping plans be renewr_d to put trees
closer to their fence?
Lewis - That was the suggested location by the individual •.~ho
prepared that plan. They would be willing to ac9just to whatever
location seems best to scree r, the view of that I~uildi.ng.
Peraza - The plans show that the shrubs were ole+anders ind the; are
poisonous; :.re there any other types they could usE?
Mr. Marquis - Prepared new landscape plans. He explained the
elevations of the outside walkways are between 3 ft. and 4 ft. hi:;i:~r
than the backyard elevations of the neighbors to the west, so it •. hey
plant close to the lower fence it will take longEr for the shrubs to
y=t high enough to do much good. He explained if they put the i
plantiny at the ~~p of this gradual slope, rather than adjacent to
the fence, it woulc. achieve its purpose :~~ore effectively and also
•,:ithin a shorter span of time. ~,
Ne stated one of the owners does have a pool and has complained that
-.ne of the trees messes up their pool anu it is a considerable
distance away.
The oleander is one oY the possible o,~tions and he has ro proh'.c•m
.. .. ...... yy.
' plant.
Zemel - There is also a concern about the neighbors being physically
viewed from over the top of that fence from the walkway below; there
ie about a 4-foot difference between their backyard and your rear
property line. He indicated that he did not think that oleander
shrubs would be sufficient and that trees would be a better choice.
Lewis - looking to grow something as quickly ae possible so neighbor
does not have to look at their property and vice versa.
Zemel - Need an 8-foot growth to start with.
Lewis - There are shrubs that are fast growers and can reach the
dimensions discussed within a 2 to 3 yr. period starting with a
15-gallon plant.
j Hellyer - Wanted petitioner to stipulate to not planting oleanders.
i
Lewis - Will eliminate from plan.
Hellyer - Homeowner's complaint was that, that area was left to grow
wild and that will not be eliminated if they plant trees along the
upper end of the property. Asked them to consider the possibility of
a hedge of some kind against the block wall that exiate because that
could grow to whatever height that would be reasonable on both aides.
.'-•,
v
.r
y~;4.
i
i
i
10/21/91
Page 6
S~d~.
.. rt~T.,
-~:1_a
r~`.
~
• :LYE
c %J: ~' ~.
A >i;:.
~~
^-f• t
•, a ~;.:.
• 1, '
3ristol -The people on the west ~.:ould like to have their iva:
Lewis - If they had a nice hedge growing up along rile bloc}:•.:~~::, .:n
to E or 8 feet, eventually they could eliminate that k'OUd fE•Il Cti ':.h lCf:
is a maintenance problem and the, shrubbery •.aculd pros; de tf:e
screening for both sides. He assur~ad them the/ would ac :.l:a~.
Hellyer -Referenced condit:;;n ne. 1: regarding t!:c -i.e of ntu.ir:'. t.s•
A~:ked to change the word "children" to "students.
9orrego -That fiyure ended up i.n tt:e staff report because t;tep had
some correspondence from the apa;icant regarding an estimate:; r.c:r,bor
of students; they would be in agreement to raise that numoec.
7,eme1 -Did this haee anything to do with th:e paz•king, i.e., r r. as
•n•,:ch parking is needed because of the preschool.
Borrego - If the}• are in compiiar,ce with condition no. 5, tl:or.
narking will not be u problem.
Yalda -The maximum number of people driving w•i11 be of i:iah sc';uo1
age which will be approximately lA or 15 students, [herefe:•e•, ~i.~}•
are not concerned.
Hell•;er -Can we eliminate condition no. 11'
........`...._. -
YW
~111~
~` ~w~r
Borrego -Would still want some type of limitation; no problem with
`•~: condition no. 11 at all; the question is, they are limited to 4': ~
preschoolers; they would like to eliminate condition no. 10 and make ''''~f;:
the total no. of students in the school as indicated in condition no. ~:"
11, to 245. He explained that limits them to 245 students, but -<
~
allows them to raise or drop the number of preschoolers. ~+
Peraza -Are you reatrict:ad by State Code regarding the square s~.
footage for each child, i.e., 35 aq. ft. inside and 50 sq. ft. on the
outaide7
i
Lewis -That is correct--they currently have only licensed enough
floor space for 45 students; the cap of 245 students is fine; they
would like the flexibility to be able to make i.t 55 preschoolers and
lower the number of available spaces in the elementary school and be
~
able to mix them into whatever area is needed. '`
~~~~~
10/21/?1
Page 7
,~ ;
44.• s
( s
-
{~ ~- ~ '~ k"R'~ lR#.$`.:°Sl^aT.`, ,. A^.-.-t.~-..,~-.~1~~-... .,.~. -...,... ,...:.. ::.~ ~ .:^. ~n ..'--~. mrs.-., ,v+rne*+^-__._..._._ ATtF~j~
_. ...,
... .. .... : ~'T^,
i
~w~i `V'ii
1.
tt~~~
-,~vr:
cw~ge
~~
r
~~ ~•
. of
~;
11
r~'t
..
C t~ h:
~ A:
iJ"`i.
rV,y 4
_ f*~ 5,
,
,t
y n~
.
~~
RY
~ ~
f tl C. X,
t" C ~ ~ ~ f}'i i'J
~. [
il5 tf y
~
... .
S.,tik~.. ... .. .
~+~-:_I.Q! CF.QA t]e~attce Crclarat.cc'r. - Approved
Waiver of Co:e Bcrq;:irr.,:ent - Approved .,. Par.
1. Denied waiver
-. Waive!' "E;" a~as •..~~th.r.ra•,~n
3. Anprova~' ;;giver "C" on`p.
Conditional L'se Puri^.it t... 3g5U - Gran[eci
]. Eli:ni~ate credit: .. ,..,, ,0
2. t7a o'.eander to he l:anted
3. Modtfy condition r.o. L' to read nc more than .. .5
schr,ol students.
4. Str;:ctvres to be •^o•:ed over 7. (est.
3. Structures to ko e•o:aidered pe~nanent.
6. .,truetures t.,~ be. fire sprinklered.
7. Landec~~pin.~ tc, L~ .,,.:feed to the ~:est.erir p:•<;rc,;~•.,. ...,.
:'tiT r0
{~ 4+1
s
~P
i
^,
R
i
~ A~.
i,~~t['
;~~"'
<.~.
10/21/91 ~~
Page 8 ~~
',y~°
ui y
;,..
`~~
~fF•u.;~v i .'.
<~~~'~'~
~~~,
+ ~~
`~ seep. ~ .
FF '4
J T 1.
y
7 K~ f~1
C~ ~r t •.
k~f k~~~
~~~,"~•
_ `~~• ~~ ;
c .;',.. .
a:,. r_I•n_~1 v~x;nrlve r>•x~;vti~>T_ror~
•U'. R7i:/ITI!aNf+L Cl:i' F?F.r!~1_"P ~Y7. ',' ; ~ (fi'~:k'?.'tt~?I7F;::1?j
!,^. T^'J'IA^""E_TI~YT .M.~P .'~~'. I•tgrv, Ir~:.f~X'r:K!'I:;r:i7J
.:n zl,~o •
I~X:'A'i'Ir.r~: ]575 ;•,',~~t Xat (~; is Avenue. .. 'tie:
appr':,ximntely ~.... acres.c:cs!'.e;; ... ..... ........ ..~
c'•C Y,atcila Avenue a;;d appr;:,xi:r.u(.c:p 3'. ., ~ ~.
the (•r~:,.. rrl.,'.e ut Cat•r.eri..~.. .,... __.
?r~{ut+:,ts ~.r~•nrl:rrv.t .. nd:tions of C:.c:iir.!o:,al ... .. ..
.:.. ~v 1,,~:'r.ai:.i::-1 r: :~,,...~.lrr. irn ~C a '.ir::. C;C:':e trac.. ~, :: •'
_ [~:: ~.:aoce ~~: a ..,.ir{: :'J i't~:.. ... (.'~..., reu,:e ,! ais,'
1. ",Ilt .fl'.: ~- t", .. .. :7 (' t~i ~...,. ~ ..i..... :1;
~ ... 1 .
CONDITIONAL USE PF.ItM IT RESOLUTION NC. Pr41-165
,~:~~:}
.... ..r ... ., n ... ... ..~):
-- - -~.... ....r...rrr~....~..G.Jim:i'aiiWil.1L'~ilciA:W_~:'i~.= -..nwu...,..~rrrr..rrn._...._ ....ru~ru~.r
- - ~~
OPPOSITION: None
r^'~
._...r.
;, ,
;:r
}
;ti
;;:ti"~'
~4
' PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Requests recordation Of the tract map prior
to occupancy permit.
Peraza -Would like to hear from Deputy City Attorney on this.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney -Stated they have meant with the
applicant and in addition she has spoken with him a number of times
on the telephone and has spoken at eomo length with hie attorney in
trying to seek some kind of solution to this matter; since the City
does not accept the issuance of a building permit prior to the
recording of the parcel map, she did explore with his attorney, the
possibility of working with the lender to have some sort of a
simultaneous transaction where everything could be done at one time
and the City could be satisfied that everyone that needed to was
signing the map and then they could proceed directly to obtaining the
permit, but that was never followed up on by the attorney.
Zemel -How long ago was that?
Mann - At tk•. beginning of the applications on thin matter when it
was still being discussed as a CC&R's condition change.
Li
10/21/91
Page 9 i
} 1
(.
~'
_. _._ ~
~.
"".ws_sYlyRn rsi'l..dl'W^T1 ,..•r'M~.,, , c'S•. '1. .`.`.'Y ~ .7?59v:.,...r^asn.^-~ ~.~.s,.F14V1•~?
~
' ~~_
f ~ ].
r ~ ~:: '.
~ -0,4 _
. l
t~Y~'
~~' ..
' ~~'
r t
' ytr'(:
'S
S
~
. R
? §
~
F)
~F~,~ ~
wr e~y
- s '~ yN
~ y ~' •~ I~~j a
~~ ~ _
A/
~. y~' Y2'.. S V
. ~~..
,i},
~~
i
.,~ 2i
7 '
Y /~~,;
~~pz.
~~~
~,~ ~N~
Y~~ s
~~~~
~r~
. _... ..._., .. - ... ..,.~i-....,.r«o-r.~.x+.z.m.rmmw:ea~.+A_r[Cltro S (~W?
I ,
,;~
4~,~3
f1~k~~T
`C ~r~~~
'~~
V -.
i
`J
Hellyer - Asked Maseoud why this would not work for him? r:,'R,
Maseoud - What the City Attorney ie proposing they did not propose; ;'a
they are telling him t~ go solve hie problem and come back to tell -
them hs has solved his problem. He read a letter from the First ;;;;
Credit Bank. He read they havq approved a construction loan for
Phase I of the project in the. amount of 1.9 Million dollars; their
loan ie subject to the building permit being issued by the City of
Anaheim. The bank is looking for the building permit to issue the
construction loan. if he does not have the loan, his tract map will
not be recorded.
He will provide a harmless letter to the City and record the covenant
before obtaining the occupancy permit--he will not sell, lease or
negotiate any kind of financing with anyone and this should satisfy
the City.
Hellyer - He cited Section 66499.30, of the Subdivision Map Act and
stated for the record, it ie a State law. He stated what it says is
that they do not have the jurisdiction to waive this.
Maseoud - Said he will not sell, rent or lease it until he has hie
tract map recorded. This has been requested many times by many
people and this has been done before.
Hellyer - You have received relief from this before?
Maseoud - Yes, by Mr. Jack White.
Hellyez - Who voted on this, i. e., the Planning Commission or the
City Council?
Maseoud - The City Council.
Hellyer - In the course of them approving this waiver, did they give
you any other admonishment, i.e., did they suggest to you that this
would never happen again?
Massoud - No, he did not think there was anything written that says
that says this is the only one time and never again.
Mann ~- Seems if applicant has the letter from the bank, then there
really ought to be some type of an arrangement that they could come
thrcagh with some type of an escrow where they could escrow a
building permit as long as the monies were going to be coming in to
pay off all of the existing liens eo that their map could be properly
recorded and just have everything occur concurrently which is exactly
what they suggested quite a while back.
Maseoud - If they allow him to go ahead and start on this, it takes
about a minimum of 5 to 6 weeks to bring a tract map and finish it;
the City Attorney's suggestion ie really not workable.
`sF
~a`•
.`}
< ,;'
j
~y
i;
10/21/91
Page 10
`y.~,
i
_ ('f3Yk'^7d:'l=,`~".. S"~`~. -. .~ Y ... ... _ .' i.. lr .h..t,"'rfl~9.?`P.?`.nRX'Mrv4rrs. y ~..
f
~ f.
Jk s"'~ ,
1 ! tl Y
- 1U ~~~~
;xi
r ~,
~:~3,
N:
r k~
~~:.
~~a.~~
A `\+ ~'
~, Y^~,~I
~ S pp••
SY~t'
! ~{~~
~%
~~t ~'
~ig~:
~ e~,
+n'~
i
t
is
i
Masaoud - The bank is going to start to draw the loan document only
if he provides the building permit and there ie no waiting time.
They are not goir:; to wait 5 to 6 weeks until he gate the building
permit. The bank will give him 4 to 5 weeks maximum.
Zemel - The idea sounds pretty good--why couldn't the escrow period
be 5 weeks, i.e., if you were going to escrow the building permits,
and you are going to escrow the loan from the bank, then why couldn't
the oscrow be 5 weeks?
Bristol - You are asking them to go along with you and the lender,
but the lender would not look at an escrow and some type of
arrangement between you and the Commission? Perhaps on Phase i they
could advance and show the City that they are going to take out the
one house and the commercial building. He added it was a good idea
to work this way and thought the bank would go along with it.
Masaoud - This is not a new suggestion; he has been in the business
more than 17 years and knows hie homework and this is not a workable
solution. Mr. White called him and told him they would try to reach
some middle ground; then Selma Mann showed up and there was no middle
ground on this. If the City ie going to let him build, :hen the bank
will let him have the money and if the City dose not let him build,
the bank will not provide the money. He added there moat be some
middle ground and a workable solution.
Zemel - A great deal of time, energy and care and concern went into
~' this morning's meeting as to how they could accomplish this for him;
the idea of the escrow could w^rk because he is not asking the bank
to draw down on the loan; he ie asking them to coincide the exchange
of the removal of the lien from Topa, which would be conditioned upon
the money from the bank--the bank would give him the money
conditioned upon the building permit and the 3-way exchange of those
items would take place. If you are telling him hie loan commitment
would not last 5 weeks{ as a mortgage broker, he would be concerned
about that. He adder it seems like that would be the answer.
Hellyer - Did try to find a middle ground for Massoud, but the fact
remains that he ie asking the Planning Commission to give him relief
of a State Law; he did not feel that this body had the prerogative to
do that; they are appointed and responsible to the letter of the law
ae they perceive it.
Masaoud - Thia State law is a matter of interpretation; there is no
middle ground with Selma Mann.
Hellyer - Selma Mann is not the issue. The fastest course you can
take is to find some middle ground with the City Attorney; tF•e next
is to take your shot with City Council.
~~
~'
}' }~',
~:•~[
~~
~5 ~~ ~ t
-
,_ri ~~
~ ~
f}y g
,
~? ~ ~
J y
G L wJ
'
~
AL
k f ~~~
µ ~ ~.
1'
~
1
b
3
- .}.~ d
~-N 3
~
'S
p
k,L
`~~ K~~
~ ~i
~: ~~ !
Yf~ '
3
~
~
~ f
t'.
~~
^~
Maesoud - They are afraid that he will come later and say this is not j
~ ~
"
~
a condominium, but is an apartment and wanted to know if this was or '
~
was not true? ~;~'.:
F~,
#"~`
Hellyer - No, the reasoning ie that they are looking at the StatE ~
law. "
Bristol - Stated he asked Maesoud last week who his lender was and he `;.f~
did not tell him; he found out today it was Topa and for the record ;:5„
he ie Vice President of Topa. He expressed hie concern regarding the ~:~~'
lender's security. '
,r
He indicated everycne is for him, but he has not communicated with
the City Attorney's office and everyone here ie trying to help him;
the letter he read should have been done weeks ago; everyone should
~;
have been exposed to the situation so ha could have been concurrently ~ ~.~
doing the map by getting the permit; everyone knows money ie tight
and ie hard to get, but the City ie concerned and he is concerned ' ? ~`
about what is going to happen to those two sites.
_ Y_Y .
Hellyer - You can ask for a vote or withdraw this action and try to
work it out with the City Attorney or you can continue it and wait
far the balance of the Planning Commission to return.
Maesoud - have tried and believes that the City Attorney is not going -
to help.
~--,
.~__.___.______~_._._.._._.... _:...... .He~l~yer --Your-taking-shots at~•hhe City Attorney is not going to get ~F
you where you want to go. ;,~~,
Maesoud - His attorney told him that the avenue he ie taking, they do '~';
~
not want it. ~
i r:;
.,
Hellyer - The ball is in your court--you can ask for a vote or a
continuance.
,
,
Maesoud - Would like a vote. ?
.
Hellyer - Suggests he try to work this out with the City Attorney and ~ '
i
felt an escrow account ie probably the most expeditious way. ~ '~ ~:
Maesoud - An escrow account is not going to work; if there is any
kind of suggestion from the Commission or City Attorney's office,
then he will request a continuation.
V
" ~i ,
~ F
~
~
.~
Cr ~'~<N•
,a
`~ ~~a1i# rs
~
.
`
~
.
,,
;
4
4
ti
y.
2kj
i
'
~
'
,
~1~k
'
AY
~r
}.
~
~Y
~.
~
i
r
n^^9Wrt!,1eiM~^!fR
r
Mv
~~
' `~
,
?
.
;
... ......... ..._.,..~q....~.~...~~...,..•.•.mew-^nr
... ~~
~ 1
L
4~ z;~a
i g~"~4
.
~ x ~„$S •
Uzi
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - No action taken t ~++
'
+~ Note: Per Selma Mann -What is before you is a change and
~E ~ Po~~+
~, '~~r~9C
~
f ~
if you choose to deny that request, the CUP an3 Tentative
`
~
! Tract remains se they were. '
`
.~7~~A~
Conditional Use Permit No. 3299 (Read.) -Denied Iib ~~ <
~l.~g~~;.~°.
(For clarification -the vote is to deny the added request) s ~'t~`4
~ ' , a"rrp %
Tentative tract Map No. 14406 (Regd.) - No action taken ~~M
.r~+
.~z~ ~.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bouae, Henninger and Mesee absent)
~ ~'"'•"
~s~
~
;
;
~' ~•
.
+~,~-.; ,
~,.
~~~ •;
L 1~
~
T S
Y 1
~ ~~,~
,
r
~
~
~
uh
3~ N:
~~pnr/ .
f4~ 1';
jy ` ~'
~%
~ ~~~:
}L
,..
t
4
{n4
'~,t~
~l !w`,
k
~~~~
'
r'y'~~
t
(
~
~as,~ '
~%T~
{
yYf
{~a
r
r ::
.~,~;-
I
r4';:
I:~r ~,
• ~ ~~:
.. ~ s ~.'
r
G i
}
~
:I ~
;.
10./21/'1 -
~.
.
Page 13 , _<c
~,r
r "
1'(~}}L ~ h
[~~..,
`q1 ~ `~;1
f ~~ ........R-.~,.. v-rw -••mnmf'a:,,~x,.,.n•mav..r..~~^r^+'m'cY/F7AY,!P4SNw~Etl~'0.Ma17~'° ~~ .....--~•'°"'~wa79711ipp~` ~~5~
~
42,~ ~ - ~~
~
f T -
~l i 4 7
' ~~i - ~~
r
_
~ ~
r`1'~3}~~ ..
Y~~,~ na ai~:Jt y~r ~~~~
~ ~ , .~,~r -a,fy.
a; is
~
i„
i ~ , , ~
;ti x
iu
~
nt
~F'~ l,
., f
1 ~~ k, fy t9'
L
~s~t n, r
K 4 r~S
by '~,~; ;.
~~~,.
~ ~
~a~
,
~ ~
•
~.
a ~ T.~r~y
- t~~~ .
~ f
t
rv;+
~~
}
~~
~ f
'
.shy
~
!~~R
.._. __ .,
.
.. .. .__. ~ t ,
ti
r ~4
~
P 9
.
~~~:~.
t
c',~y+'(
~ } , ~v
1 ~ 5g. IIWIlVTAL .IMPACT RER~R7' N0. 280 (Prey. G~r't.)
' Continued
91
04 ;x'M~+,,
ci
~
ER ANAHEIM
V, ° 5b. Ah43VDt41V'1' N0. 2 '!t~ PACIFICFNI to 11/
/ ~
SP~'IC PLAN (SP88 3) ~r -
~-
>i
QaI~RS: CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 1065 Pacificenter Dr., ~y~
#200, Anaheim, CA 92806
~:
AGF21P: PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE (The PRS GROUP) 27132-B ~'~~
Paeeo Eapada, X1222, San Juan Capistrano, CA _
~#~~
92675 ,`, 5
~'ur:
L'JCA'L'ION: PACIFIC~lF.l2 ANAHEIM. Property is approximately ~.
26 acres located at the southwest corner of La Paima ~'•
Avenue and Tustin Avenue. .,'+j?
"r'.~.~:
Petitioner requests amendment to Pacificenter Anaheim Specific
i Plan (SP88-3) to permit additional service-related commercial ~~
and office uses in the Specific Plan Area and to amend the >'~'
i Master Sign Program. I •
--
RESOLUTION NO ~~~,., /
~' ~ ~ ', ;~
. /
l/
i,~.:
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE ''~ls~°
/1 CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ':'c~~~=
i~>;
ACTION: Continued to November 4, 1991, in order to allow staff to ~c%
~y
work further with the applicant in establishing an appropriate list ...~~ ,.
of permitted uses. ': ~~~
a ~,
{'i}~~:
I
' Msk;
r } f
~, L .
i `TV
!,
Fi;
-
- ~ :,
~
" r.,,)
~
~
' 10/21/91 '
y, Page 14
{ e
:~
~ ~{
r
{~`
?~ ~ ,~t:
~4;
~~
~'
f
r 1~
~~
ry. `[,~ f -.. *, ., ... ,.. .. ;°`t!M t~P+.^eti`yzY nY,'Txvwt+d~tYRNB~WNw.".. -'___ ~
A ~
fM1l'a ~
C
~~ ~
N•
~
'~r~~3
~4e ~~k'.
~5~'y ~ ~ - iii
V
,~ .
i
~ 1~;'nF
h
,~ ~yta •
ti~
~
or,
y~
e r f
y ~~ LJ
5 ,.. }. ,,
'
xv.~ ~
1
y
~}IZk
s~i
` 4 s ~;~~
~
""'•In~s'.
xx~~??
,r
.
~SJ~r ~
~ ,
. _ _ ,~
.. 9
~~~~~.
.t
~~
L1
/~
s
•
f6`
}j~
A
j~
•
~~ ~*~~
r5
~t~~~rf
...... ...... _......~._... ..........~~t-.m~+r~...!n.wwr•+-.rrwo+~
._._
t.~-~~w.n. T
fµ
f ~.~~'1~'Y
j ~
(
~
~~
y~, '~
~ ,~ r '
i ~ 6a. CEDA CATE~RICAL FJID~ffyl'ION-CLASS 11
Continued r~'~
.~
! •~+ 6b. VARIANCE N0. 4134 to 11/04/91
CWNIIiJ CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT, 1065 Pacificenter Drive, #200, o
`Yy,
Anaheim, CA 92806
ZOCAR'ION: Santa Fe FdCifiCentei'. Property is approximately ~~,
~
26 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma '
"~"
~
and Tustin Avenue. 'r
,h
Waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs and minimum } ~
distance between freestanding signs to construct a 91-square Y"~~"
~
foot monument sign. `"
Y$~h'
r~
~
Continued from the June 3, and July 1, and August 12, 1991 `~1^
4.
Planning Commission meetings.
i
~~
i
j VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. -- Q.,
~~j~,
- ~~~.
i
.' K.'.
,
---------~--~~-----~--~--~---------~----~------- ~_
I -:- :~~:
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. `' '~'
.~
CA TION: Continued to November 4, 1991. Petitioner indicates he ie .
,; 4n~
' ..~`
waiting for the outcome of the Specific Plan Amendment. f~~
~'
,i~
s.
5: A
A ~
t.
f
'
i ~
,
~ ~. ,,~,~rEEE
~ i' ~-
1:
~1~~~
t
~~~
' i
_~'~11}}
1
I h~:
~ 4,:
ij'9
~',
I
10/21/91 ?rai
~~ Page 15 ~,up•:
~ ~R
,
i
~r ..
~.
i
}
~~ `
~ ~~~ ~ '
'
I _. _,-~.~` l
' ~~v
."r1111~
-^°B:IKI~:TY4 'If. ... ,:.i.....~..!'1k9~~.fN' :'WT!~W,W~^,B,ST.~
.-.
"
7•
~
M~
4
n1
~ 4Q
t
'
i ~
~-'~,~'
i
_
~~ ~ t {{~d
I
f~ +4~.
1 ~ ~~~~
~
~
2J!
H~
.
' ~2f~a
Y
~
~~
+f a{ n
.~ i
~ ~~ r
+'c~-,yF , v~~w~+s
~q ~S
r E 1 ~,.r,~ ~~
y"
"'
~~~ :
~ n
•
,
~ ~ +fSpC
7a. CEt7A NEGA2'IVE DDCLARATION
7b. WAIVER OF DUDE RD;YJIRII~J1'
7C. (Xk1DI'1.'IUNAL USE PERMIT NO. 3465
,:
1 °_.
i
Y
V~~.
iY
ICJ +t
}~ ,.~
~~~~
x
~~~ .
x 45r
a tr,, {~`
s~.;
. TtF~m,
~J.
,"~, +?!
:ei ~a- is
~t~
r i '._ -.;.-..-..~.»n~w.y..~au~nurm*:Awi"~-'I'F53xd ~~ . S ! L~
k.
"~Yh?
t:J.Yti:.
~4ir
~',
Continued ''~t.
ti,;
to 12/16/91 Y~jt
~- ~F^;V
TIMOTHY J. AND CATHLEEN A. O'NEIL, 3100 E. Birch,
Brea, CA 92621 ?~~.
IpCATION: 1420 N. Lemon Street. Property ie ap?roximately
1.13 acre located at the northeast corner of Lemon
Street and the Riverside Freeway (91).
To permit an automobile repair center with waiver of minimum ~/~ _ I
structural setback. ~(~(,V
CONDITIONAL USE PEetMIT RESOLUTION N0. -
FOLLOWING ZS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~
'I
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Mr. O'Neil - They entered into escrow on this
piece of property in 1979; they found out when they got into escrow,
that a condition was placed that if they generate anymore than 50
entries or exits per day, then they would have to pay for the coat of
a traffic signal at the intersection of the 91 Freeway and Lemon
Street; what they planned to build would generate about 100 entries
and exits. At a later date, that was changed from 50 entries/exits
per day to 200 per day ..::,: based on that new figure, they went ahead
and bought the property. Because of business conditions, they never
built the project that they had anticipated.
In 1987 a traffic signal was built at the intersection in question.
Since that was the only issue, they felt entry/exit was no longer a
problem and put it up for sale; they entered into escrow and this
person was told by the City Engineer's Department that entry/exit
onto the property was dangerous and would recommend denial on the CUP
unless there was a traffic modification and an additional signal
placed near the driveway, but the people that could approve that was
Caltrana. They went to Caltrana and they said they would not allow
an additional signal there for a number of reasons--it impedes
traffic flow, etc. Based on that information their buyer dropped out
~ of escrow.
r~,
~.~.+~
Because the City of Anaheim Traffic Engineers are saying that entry
and exit onto the piece of property is unsafe, there is no way they
can sell it. There are 4 aides to the piece of property and 3 of I
them are Caltrana; cannot access it from Caltrana and the only way
they can access it ie off of Lemon. He asked why the City of '~
Anaheim, 9 years ago, said it was o.k. and today there has been a 180 I
degree turn in their evaluation.
10/21/91
Page 16
~~~~,
~ ,I '.'If S..
~.
{,
y
1 y~
,Nyl F
~ : r.&~ ~`
,,~.i
~ 7 , <;
. 1 ylC ,. n~AYri
x~` 1 ~
- ,f~~;`
Y
~fSy~
~,; ~ 1.
~~~
*.~ ~
t
"+ 15,
Mike Merk - Represents Mr. O'Neil. The site plan has evolved by
i /~ trying to come up with a project that is marketable that the owner
4 ! will get some financial benefit from being able to sell the property;
they do have a developer in the wings that ie ready to build this
~ project and the only stumbling block has been the issue as to how to
mitigate potential collisions.
y'i
ati
~ -
They have had meetings with Caltrana and they indicated that they do
not have the right to give them an opinion and affect public policy
on this property and they are taking no official position. They have
had written correspondence to the contrary and there have been
positions and that is why they have gone through the steps they have.
They are not able to resolve this traffic issue unless the Commiae?.on
has some recommendations.
John Dee, Attorney - Representing Mr. O'Neil in connection with this
matter. This originally was a piece of state excess land and
Caltrana sold it; obviously, it had access or else Caltrana would not
have been permitted under the State or City law to sell it; it was an
independent, saleable, developable site with access to the street in
front.
Every possible alternative has been exhausted and the only access
that can be developed is off of the front of the property on Lemon.
one of the provisions in the recommendations is that there be no
left-turn movements into the island and that the middle of the street
be extended to prevent any left-turn movements into the property.
There is a signal right at the corner of the property line and the
State line for the ramp going onto the freeway.
one of the proposals was that a second signal be installed at the
driveway and have a trip line so that everytime a car comes out of
the property that signal will trigger. Caltrana would never agree to
have two signals right next to each other because that would create
an insurmountable problem.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manag=r; expressed concern
that the proposed use would pose a severe traffic hazard ae a result
of the visibility and accessibility constraints imposed by the
Riverside (91) Freeway on/off ramps to the north.
ACTION: Continued to December 16, 1991, in order for applicant to
investigate alternate uses agreeable to the Traffic Engineering
Department in an attempt to mitigate unresolved traffic and
ingress/egress issues.
cl
5~5~~~~.
',.~"~~
,- ~v:
Y F ~'
;,.,>:
~`< .
^l;`n~:.
°+~
i
' 10/21/91
Page 17
7
,. ,
emmc~ecuvx~~mwnwrran..,...-..-...,..,~ . .,..r .... ,....• ..:, ,..,:_~,:.: i:~, "ei,lm}'!'°l`'',.;~....+.-.^- ,
.. .: h-
__ ..
T ;t;;.
°a1 + ~,
h„ ~~
r ~. v'
~~
:, ~, ~:~
~~~~~' '
` `k , ~,
Mt+~
S~ }fir,,
A
r ~~~~
,~~~
t~ ~~.
e~~L ~~tF~ia
- t~ "; e •.
4~,~x },
iy
~ S ~ ~~~~
- I `Y~f~k~ ;.
~}~~
~~ a ~
~~t~,
^ 8a. IIQVI%~NMQV!'AL IMPACT REfnR!' N0. 273 (Pi2v. Ckx't.) Continued r ~ f~~
} ~r ~ 8b. 11'l 2t~ THE HICaff~ANt~S AT ANAHEIM HILLS to 11/04/91 ~-~;
t SPDC.if'IC ,ALAN (87-11 :~ti~
5 n
CZVNII2: THE BRESLEY COMPANIES, Attn: Steven K. Rzggs, 19 ~:
Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 r
^~
LG~'ION: ~v~prenC Area 11 of The Hia}llands at Anaheim
Hi11s S~-~ fic PIa~1 1SP87-19 .
Petitioner requests an amendment to ordinance No. 4860 in order ~s
to amend Development Area 11 Zoning and Development Standards
to permit the development of a 162 unit condominium complex.
AMEND. SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION N0. -- ~~~
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
i ~ ivy.
! CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. 'A
!.
C~TIONs Continued to November 4, 1991, at the request of the
petitioner. '-'
~ti
''W
ti ~,
~7
,f2
I
F~1
~ ~R
CI ~ _~ ~!7
~\.// 10/21/91 I ';s
~,~.; Page 18 ~
y ~;
~+ ~ ~`
t ..:":T n ~,.s~;{ *•y',a~S.A?}.m1,'~•.rI:J~'~v,.1?',i,,.,.., y y1
'..G.c ~ ~ ~ ~ man+.r.~rscr-,<Y~ _y ~. ~ -. .., ~;:y i .~ ~- _..._. __ SF's'"
t r
~ J~~
n4 5}/~
,r$3., `~
Y, ~rz 1.~~~ ~
V
-`stiT.ti ~.~ '~.
r
4 e
3x
~;; .
4
S~~
',
4
~~.
~i
..7,
10~21~91 :^ {,~
Page 19 :;~
Y
. '
;<~. .
.;~f
i~ r
i~f t~
4f
n~}.' Y F
m&` h.
~ ~ ~ i
IfK~ f' L
,!i~ z ~` r
11// A
P ~'~ •L.
. S S 4'rf t4' pt
5v~'~'l~w"}U f
7 n~, ~~~.
rt » ~
'?tid~~.'!~ sts
. - dAJ y:y~~~~ r
y ,4
~~
}~,~f>
~ iii ~~'`~ ~
~ ~
9a. CEgA NEGATIVE D~LARA4'ION
9b. WAIVER OF WDE RECXJIRF33IIVT
9C. Gt~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3464
Y
~~~
~
~~~~~
~~
~
- :~41 H{~~7 ~1
~~
... _..h~ ~J'~~'~
,~ ~
ti,
y .
a'~J
+~
;-, '
'
I2
'~t,;r
..,.. ...~.
.
'Y.Tx~
I
''y'~
C
c,.~,
^-„
~rf'~J ~~
~
:`~3'.
Y
r.
Approved
d tc,+
''
,~'~r ~
Approve ,
Granted
u
CWNER: ANAHEIM HILLS ENTERPRISES, 5100 E. La Palma Avenue, `~^
Ste. #202, Anaheim, CA 92807 °~
AGE371': LIVING ROCK CHURCH, 5100 E. La Palma Ave., Ste. ?
X112, Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 ~~
,i°~.e
• ~~
IOC1Y!'ION: 5 0~ Ia Palma Ave. Property ie approximately
6.3 acres located on the south aide of La Palma
Avenue and approximately 3,560 feet east of the
centerline of Lakeview Avenue.
To permit a church in an existing induatrial building with ~~
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
I
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-166 ~/~ ~
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. `r
~- OPPOSITION: None
i~`e
w tti
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved , ,:.err
waiver of Code Requirement -Approved rts
Conditional Uae Permit No. 3464 -Granted - 3 yrs. t
(With time extensions permitted)
VOTE: 4-0 (Commisaionere Houae, Henninger and Mesee absent) ,i
- ~.
LS°~~ , 2
1 ~.
ty
Yq~~~-t f
i
54~+~`
~ h'~~.
t
tt
''^..
n
'
i_
CIS ; Y'~
°
rt~
1 y.
_ ~ Y~~y'~V .~
-
.
~ ~~t .,g
~
t -,+,
C ~~.~i
~
A
'
:a~°~'
_.
:.
ry
,
~•.
_ n
~
~'
~
~. •j:A~
10a. ChbA NFX~('IVE DECLARATION
lOb. [~I.ERAL PLAN Ah4~iDME1VT NO. 322 Continued
to 11/18/91 ~, ::
~.
lOc. RIX:hASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-06 `~ ;-
10d. WAIVER OF QOI)E REt7CT2RII~'NT
•' 10e. OONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3461 ~
Q.,
(~'
IOf. TENTATIVE TRAGR' MAP NO. 14575 ~ ~ ;
CLVNER: LUNDAR AND ELIZABETH YUH, 4400 MacArthur Bivd. #900, /
Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGIIJ'P: NEWPORT PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT, 4400 MacArthur Blvd.
f900, Newport Beach, CA 92660 •
hOCA'!'ION: 3253 West Ball Fd~ad. Property is approximately ~'
0.48 acres located on the north aide of Ball Road
and approximately 350 feet east of the centerline of ~
oakhaven Drive. ~
i
Petitioner requests an amendment to the Land Use Element of the
I
General Plan redeaignating the property from the existing Lbw I
Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density
Residential designation.
• •• ••••••--~•• ----••• -' -To• reclassify subjeci property from the RS-A-43,000
l
(Residential-Agriculture) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, v:
r
Multiple-Family) or a leas intense zone. `i^
To establish a 1-lot, 9-unit, "affordable", RM-2400 condominium
'`
`
subdivision with waiver of minimum site area per dwelling unit, '
maximum structural height and minimum front yard setback.
~
~ •
~
-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO.
I
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. --
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. --
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
i,
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 3 w~
i
?ETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Al Marshall -Have mitigated basic issues
concerning the site area coverage because they are only 60 s.f. per }
~ unit short with no variance and they are offering the 9th unit ae an I
I
affordable unit.
Requesting a waiver pertaining to maximum height; they are within the
maximum height, however, it is a matter of stories and they have done ,.
everything they can to mitigate any possible views that a 3rd story
r-1 could offar to their neighbors.
v
10/21/91 '~
Page 20
~ +.
~
~~ ~~ ~`
~;, ,~i
~
~~
-..+. .. - gym-.. ~-•...:.:. '. ,,'r, •
'..aweVC~+sO~n'R~.~t00.5c'+f!~'..',FiP. f:v.. rhrmyn_. ~+~.<nxa.. ~~-cam. .. - 5 .. .... ... 1 ~. 7!'!~t\~,~~;~i `^_.
.•
~~.
~L
,~,S l,,
e .. V
~xx.~~1~a:
~
~L .
'
~
- ,
~
4
N S
7~.
~
i F
-~7
:
~
.. ;t
~
'
~,~,'w-
Requesting that they be allowed to put in a 6-foot fence into the
~~ front setback along Ball Rozd which ie to provide the residential
unite privacy from a busy street.
OPPOSITION•
Mr. Bachy - Not opposed to the development; they have a power line
that services 4 homes in the back; it ie something that should be put
underground; he proposed this to Mr. Marshall and he thought it was a '
good idea; asked that trash bins be relocated out towards the street;
wants the block wall fence to be uniform; .uggesta that they tear out
his block wall fence and make an adjoining fence; there are a couple
of halm frees that he would like removed.
Mre. Okuba - Backyard will face the new project; oppoaea 3rd story
and firmly oppoaea windows facing her property; suggests that the
windows face east and west; major concern ie to preserve hsr pr'_vacy;
requests a 12-foot block wall between her and the project; does not
want to hear any noise from the recreation area; would also like them
to remove her old fence because it is wooden and would not match.
Mr. Brott - Read a letter from a person who was ill and unable to
attend. He stated everytime these people come before the Commission,
they want waivers; they cannot se..m to design anything within the
Codes that are specified and they have an alternate plan waiting in
he r hin pockQt____ _ •y
_ ~~_
~
_. He stated a good solution for this project would be 4 condominiums] ''?.rc
the size of the rooms are too small; it upsets him to Bee what is "~"
happening to the neighborhood. Recommended denial. ;~„
u'~"<
' '
e property and
Mra. McGiffan - Owna property that touches Mr. Brott
' ~
s
has owned property for 34 years. She concurs with Mr. Brott "
'
' statements. ~
^~
~
F.
Peraza - Concern about the 1-story building where the bedrooms are
next to the garage.
Laura, Community Development - They would like to work with the
petitioner in redesigning the interior layouts eo that there would be i -
~
direct access from the garage into the unit; this should not be a .
problem and if the project moves forward, they would like it read ~
!uto the record as a condition. ?a. ;.
Marshall •• Have already wurked on plans to do that.
' Laura - Under the State density bonus law, the developer is allowed }
to request a 25B density bonus and this developer her, requested a 139 ,,
density bonus which amounts to 1-unit; they agreed with the developer
'
to take one unit as affordable. I
~'
;.:: ~jG:
.:;.t.
.. \/
10/21/91
Page 21
~
~,
~. ~k.
x
7~i+y '
t •,.;~. rv-.,<.:~-c!^.~nn~e^~r..:~.r~:~~r.^i.:-+ys°b!e+rry
.
,.,.r ^. ~ ..;,.,. ~.;'
N
"'san*
;: -~
<
alY
/JiWt'0
1
~
'
?
"
c
y4
~ .
. .~
y
.
:,
~. ,
r...-....
~
3
t.,
:~;
~
~;
.a%r' ~
.~
Y
" ~.
~~.
r
~' z
r
~,' `t
., ,...
;
;, r
,~
j ..qtr"~-
x
~,
F
s~
ryP j~~
q 1~'; i• J
~.' ti:
.f
~J
Jh'~ 4~ ~ Sr~
. ~ .
'
t }YN-7-
~,
~~
Peraza -concern expressed regarding the block wall by Ball Road due
to the graffiti problem and would like to see some trees, etc. for
articulation.
Marshall -Planning on planting vines along the front in an effort to
eliminate graffiti opportunities.
Zemel - Has a more serious concern with the wallt concerned about
asking for a variance on the height at the street level behind the
6-foot wall which is right on the sidewalk.
Hellyer -Any experience with walls being placed within the setback?
Borrego -There have been other instances where block walla have
intruded within the front yard setback. It also mAeta sound
attenuation requirements.
Zemel -Could same goal be accomplished by having the street,
sidewalk, landscaping, the wall and then the unit?
Borrego -That problem could probably be resolved if they were
required to do a sound study.
Ma~ahall -Redesigning the wall with articulation should not affect
the sound study in any significant way.
Zemel -Does not want to see a corridor of condominiums behind a
wall;. would like a landscaped buffer.
Marshall -There ie a 20-foot setback behind the wall; they do have
an internal sidewalk that they moat provide For circulation by the
Fire Department; otherwise they can set the wall back a couple of
feet and articulate it as well and put landscaping in the front;
wrought iron may also be helpful.
If Engineering would allow them access from the main sidewalk they
could eliminate the internal sidewalk, install gates for their access
and set the wall back.
Further discussion between the developer and the Commission took
place.
Melanie Adams, Engineering -She indicated she has not been out to
that area for some time and before she can comment she would have to
consult with the Deputy-City Engineer because it dose affect the
design of the whole street and the intent of the whole block.
Wall is on the property line; there is a 10-foot City owned parkway,
i.e., 5 feet of landscaping and 5 feet of sidewalk; need to look at
continuity up and down the street.
Hellyer -Need to find a way to soften the wall.
~tit<.
i:'
~.
~';~~~~
;;~ ~ N
~Y,L~`~3'`~{ ..
\ ~ -,75
5 i&~1
~r.~
j.,i
17 `~ f.
4
B ~niw~~,tw .
~ y~~y r
~~L,~ p`
~~
~~z~,:
>;`"w*
~ ~~S.rq;
- i wV , i
~ ~ ~'~:~
'~~~~
a~'
,~,
1 .~
lA ~
~=~
>~
r _:
,uT --
~~:
?. 3,7".
`,,, ~_~
.r~
`;y:
Y::.
' C ,-',
~~S
n,.
x
,,,=i`
~.
;~Y"
;ra;.
~ 'r, t,~k
.,:.r , '~
'-.1
10/21/91
Page 22
... ,iii,
^",~`..
c
'/ ~
}iii:
~~.
Yl
~~.,
~ 1~J
f~~'~
~:t~`~.~.'t .
y
c xxr;;~t~
tt??~
Adams - On an arterial, it is preferable to have the landscaping
~'~. adjacent to the curb and move the pedestrians back off of the street;
1,x,1 in this case it ie preferable to have the sidewalk adjacent to the
right-of-way line.
Borrego - Wall ie significant enough issue that it would be best that
a wall plan be brought back under a reports and recommendation item
due to the fact that the plane are vague as far ae where the wall is
located; also the Commission may benefit from seeing a section of
that wall and the exact articulation that is proposed in conjunction
with that wall.
Zemel - There are a lot of unanswered questions; there must be some
significant return in changing density, especially to increase it; he
expressed hie concern regarding the height waiver regarding the
uncertainty of the placement of the wall. He was reluctant to go
j forward with any action. He added he would like to see some
~ continuity for the better and would like to see some buffers between
the street and the project.
i
Bristol - The matter regarding the 3 stories still has not been
addressed and that is significant enough to cause some concern.
Peraza - Is concerned about the residents and ie also concerned that
a developer can develop their land; housing opportunities rather than
apartments is a high priority with him.
_ Hellyer - Looking at entry level ownership opportunities for first~~
time buyers.
i
i ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1991, to resolve some of the above
issues.
Borrego - suggested to applicant that they show the wall on elevation
no. 1 from the street.
~~
1''+.3+.
i
r'1 I Approved
4 Granted
11a. CEnA NFXzA'1'IVE DECLARATION
11b. QxVDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2728
GINNER: E.I.I. REALTY CORPORATION, Attn: M. Hill, P.O. Hox
2100, Chino, CA
AGQV'T: The Dorel Group, 633 South Hrea Hlvd., P.O. Box 30H,
Brea, CA 92622
IOC.ATION: 5460 East I3 Paltn3 Ave. Property is approximately
8.7 acres located on the south side of La Palma
Avenue and approximately 1,520 feet west of the
centerline of Imperial Highway.
Amendment to conditions of approval adding "Travel Agencies" to
list of permitted uses within an existing industrially-related
office complex.
9/-/67 ,p/,- 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC-167 j
- -.-~`.._-•..• - .~._ ..- ~'bLL1"S~'~U1~fAISY ~"'T~ING Z'ONf~SSION' ACTION:_ A61'ufiG'BE..
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES _ .`-. ~ ...~.--'_ `~ ~: ti -
~''1/~"~"
. ~
.
~7~-.
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved ~ ~;;
Conditional use Permit No. 2728 -Granted
i~
~'
V
TE
4-0
C
i
s
H
i
b
i
d ~
.
;
~tj'
:
O
(
Omm
ae
oners
ouse,
enn
nger an
Mesee a
sent) r
~
~<f „~:
.
~,,
X
4 r..
4
^
-
~.
\`
j
i 4Ht
f
1r
'
2:
I t~:.
.3:.
~ „_, ~.
.
,,,;
10/21/91 .~~ .
~ Page 24 fA~rtr•
Y
# '~
:~r~k
.
' n" ate' ~
R .:
r a .~. .~y!J!:~yy"~i~.~.~._.~' ~~ ~. '~'~~ A.. ~ T X - :. t ", . i.•s.v-r..^Ttixr..l:+.^r. ... s:'Rann.c9 _,
.. .. - is !h'.. 7a. .. "'3....'^i ~ ~ j
[',.~ F ~, ~
~
~}~~
..;
~
.~j
y ~ .
b
~a'i
?~a~3rti: L
`. ~1tfT t ~}.s
~•r
4
`~ r ~~
,,
~ 7~
~~y~a
l ~ ~ ~..3f u.
~
,f n
".1~~
4 - ~~j
l ~~
((( ^
'S'S1~ ~'
'yS;~Y~
.I~si s
-
~ `
lam`'
~
~
~
141~ .. }t (
,,
i
~.
~
~
.t
4
i
12. REIURIS AND REO3MMIIVDATIONS:
~:
+ti:`~
~`
~~ ,
r.~~;-
~:.,,tn'.~. ~.
~~ ~
¢.Y{
~;V~i
a~ s
~Y~$ ;
yT <~ .
e~4.
`"e~
i~.:
~~_:
~._
I
! ,1,
A. REOL~'ST FOR PLANNING COMMISSICMI 1NIR'IATION OF A GENERAL PLAN Approved ' ;.
~Drg~r Ft~R SCU1'fIERI1' R7RTION OF DUAL CANYON.
:'rr
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3207 - RFXXIF~'1'FOR SUBSTANTIAL i Approved
CCkTFORMANCE, F]sT72FIa AND DEIERhfINATION: J. P. Tullius !
requests substantial conformance review and determination in ~~
~ „ l
N^"'
order to permit an autobody shop within a '
previously-approved automotive repair center. Property is '"
located at 2349 W. La Palma Avenue.
C. (DNDITIONAL USE PERblI4' NO 2463 2735 and 2835- RECXJESI' FUR Granted
TERMINATION: Lee Lederer requests termination. Property
th Anaheim Blvd
t 1440 S
d
J
.
ou
ie locate
a
Termination Resolution No. PC91-168 ~~ '~~,
_"
D. QxVDPPIONAL USE PE'RMPI' NO 3095 - RA7CTEST FOR TERh1INATION: Granted
Linda Phillips (Anaheim Hills Property Association),
r-. requests termination. Property ie located at 5475 E. La n
/'
~
Palma Ave. U
L~
n '
Termination Resolution No. PC91-169 J
E. RECXIFS'1' FUR PLANNING 07f~AfISSION INTERPRETATION PERI'AZNING 2U Denied ~c'
OFD SITE QIIDE SIGNS. Dennis Stout requests
interpretation pertaining to off-site guide signs.
Resolution No. PC91-170 `~
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3258 - RECXTESI'FOR PLANNING Motion to
COMMISSION INTERPRETATION PERTAINING RO CONDITIONS OF return to
APP1d7f7AL FOR A PREVICCISLY APPFI7VID VACATION CiVNETtSHIP City Attorney's
! RESURP: Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney requests office
interpretation of conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permit No. 3258. Property is located at 1240 S. Walnut
~ Street (Conestoga Hotel).
~
13. DISCUSSION None
ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 5:12p.m.
:H ~ L'
J' _
~a7~{ .'
~a„as~'P.'IM?:h'h::9~ttl!Y.a , :.t-nr ,,;zh ~, ....^' I ..'-;~ M. .~ -...
$~$1
z;.' M
~sr ('~•
i"