Minutes-PC 1991/11/04', ">,~.
,~:,
~~~
r
}NY„4~~
n. ? t4'
1 ~ YV
t` ~ .
y'1-
{
wL ~y
i F'~,k'.
- +r3. .r1-~.
- _~ -, L,T
7<
~~'.
c
~u
K_...:
~`
ACPION AGENDA
RA~JLAR MEETING OF THE ANAL! CITY PLANNING GC~AffSSIQN
FK.IDIDAY, NdVFI~II2 4, 1991 AT 10:00 A.M.
PR~•TMT~ARY PLAN REDIBV H1BIdC BEARING
(PUBLIC 1'ESTIlM7NY)
10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m.
CX;4lISSIONF~RS PRESFN!': Bouas, Bristol, Xellyer, Hennuiger, ::resse, Zemel
C~lISSIONFdZS ABSIIV4': Ppxaza
PR7CEDU&E ~ E1G?IDITE PLANN.IIVG Gt~IlKISSION PUBLIC F~'ARIIVGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five
minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon
request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will
produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given
ten minutes to present his case unless additional time is requested and the
complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not
determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what
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 will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its
opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents are presented to the Planning Commission for review in
connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable
visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by
the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public
inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed
to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Commission, and or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a
maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
PC911.104
:/ I'
~ ~ ~
U'~i (~ f l~ l ~ '~
J
~~
./04/91
age 1
~i.,4'
r.r~
Y 1
~~, i
ri ? ~~y'~~ iy~
r ~~~~
M~1~3"t
n 1~t{~~ ,...i`t~'_ ~'.
n ~{{3~'',,,n
ti~
W. ~}~
~._. «
_~~~ ?
`~~a t
.u
~S
`, '~`~
~` .
*.,~
Y~.:*.
-4 .
la. C.dJA N~4VE DECLARATION Continued to ~, `;
~ lb. VARIANCE NO. 4136 (WITfIDRAFVN) 11-18-91 ~ ; ~ ,
+ ~ lc. TFaVTATIVE 17?AL'1' llfAP NO. 14429 ~ ~f t ~:
o ld. SPEC`IM~i TREE RF3~KlVAL PERMIT 1V0. 9'1-07 , ~rr'~ F,
~~
Ct'VLVERS: ED STERN, LINDA STERN, MANFRED A GLASTETTER, CHRISTA C~r
GLASTETTER, GARY F. LYONS, DONNA LEE LYONS, RAYMOND ,ry Yei
W. PEARSON, PAMELA J. PEARSON, CURTIS E. PEARSON,
REITA BETH PEARSON, FRED GLASTETTER AND LORZ r,,~~~
;~'+:f~
GLASTETTER .».~~{;r~
~" 9Wk
r"~
~~.%
f~
C
A!' P: FRED GLASTETTER, 25012 V18 Del Rio, E1 Toro, CA ~ r"~'~t`.
.
92630 . ~h.
~+
~
~~,
'
r+
y,
LOCATION: Property is approximately 8.4 acres located on the .
~
west side of Hennira Way ax~}y~350 feet south ~
'
`
of the centerline of ouintana Drive. '`~ ~'~ r
'r
$ '
< ~,~~.
Waiver of minimum lot width to establish a 7-lot (plus a common
lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family subdivision. f ~~~~~.
.
:., ~~'
To ramous fifty-eight (58) specimen trees. ~ ''-. ~;,
v~~~~
Continued from the August 26, October 7 and October 21, 1991 ;
~~
Planning Commission meetings. ~
"~e~;~
~ thc;
;+,'~;
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. ,,; ~.
~~
;~~~;
f ~
J':
~~ 1
~::
. ~
*
y
~
f l~:'.
~ni~.:
til'
~
.
tea
~1 ~
~~~ .
q
;.
4-
_. siiY.
1)
11/04/91
Page 2 `a~<w
x
!
F
r
~t;
r ~
:N~3~.
,
i. '~ uy.
~('d
~+#.CIS"T"~.:iRfP...^"'°°.~l'~^.i'w3:<,r,..' ~.k-1Y. ..l~Y :4 /.~ v.~:4S t~-~51~1~~ ~4rj~4(~fYj ~1 fi~S~9~~ti~~_ . .. ,
~F1i
.
~
+
iP~ •.
,h
3 ;.
~ a ,?;
~
t
~
~
fi
~
,
~
~
~;
*
r
uaa,
f ~~ a
;{.Z~
r
t ~yF1 r ~~'' '.
rb
1 t ,
.
~
.
~~~
•
fir.
y1
a~,
2a. CDJA MITIGATID NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVE[227SID)
2b. VARIANCE NO. 4155
~..y 2c. TENTATIVE TRALT MAP NO. 14185. F~7ISION 1V0. 2 (READVERI7SID)
2d. SPE,CIF~I ~'E RII~XJVAL PERMIT NQS. 91-10 AND 91-11 (REAGVEE22'ISID)
CI~VNER: ROBERT D. and HAROLDENE WIENS, 7536 Vista Del Sol,
Anaheim, CA 92808
ILX.ATION: Propert~is approximately 11.4 acres located on the
east side of Country Hill I3aad and appraxim3tely 830
feet east of the .inteLSection of Oountty Hill lmad
and Vista Del Sol.
Waiver of required street improvements on Country Hill Road, to
cotabliah a 16-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family residential
subdivision.
To remove one-hundred eight (106) specimen trees (including 57
dead trees).
Continued from the September 23, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
.~ OPPOSITION: 7 people spoke in opposition
'u 1 person spoke in favor or the proposal.
OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Mr. Brennen, representing the property owner to
the south on Country Hill Road and which Vista del Sol takes access
from, stated regarding the access road feasibility, that hie
discussion had related to a haul road across that property for
removal of access earth during grading; that the proposed project
will be placing portions of fill on adjacent properties; at this time
' the Harpers feel an access road would prevent them from developing
their property the way they would like; Harpers have a parcel map
which has been reviewed and approved by Subdivisions showing their
main access from Country Hills Road and that ie an easement provided
by subject property owner; Harnera own 4.8 acres and it has been
subdivided into 4 parcels and the export of fill will benefit them;
would have to provide access across the southerly property line for
! construction of a sewer line and it would make their connstruction
easier; development of subject property does not change: their plane;
if waiver of street improvements is granted, Harpers would have to
I put in improvements to meet City standards for private road.
~~'
r
~~
fi
b. ~
f, ~
Continued to
12-12-91
~,
~'
t./
Expressed concern about petitioner's previous action by putting in a
block wall without valid permit and they checked Building Division
records and the retaining wall along Mr. Martinez'e property iioee not
have a permit; and that the crib wall was never landscaped.
Trees that are removed will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1, but other
types of landscaping not mentioned. Property owners along Vista del
Sol would have to remove landscaping and reroute irrigation systems
because of street widening.
No mention of retaining wall along McMillan'e property which is much
larger, about 60 feet long, and 4 feet high which would become a
permanent fixture on their property and they would be liable for
increased taxes. (Pointed out 5 or 6 new homes were allowed on
Timken Lane and the et_.,et was not widened.)
Petitioner should have an agreement for trees to be removed and for
retaining walls to be build on the property.
Petitioner has failed to negotiate with the private property owners.
Concerned about the cul de sac and whether or not two or three more
homes could be build coming into that cul de sac.
Concerned whether or not replacement trees that die would be
replaced. Suggested moving the road over and saving the trees.
the road to handle the traffic; would affect their way of life and
rural atmosphere of the area and there would be a loss of their
property.
Would like trees saved by the Martinez'e property, noting they own
the trees on both sides of the road.
Explained the homeowners have decided to repave the road and everyone
is willing to pay their fair share, and it is nct true and that Mr.
Weins hoe had to take care of the road himself, and that he is
actually destroying it by heavy equipment used in building hie home.
f
I
..~,. v~ikl4i,-,'Silt`y,~"F~f ~~..wr;s~ ~k`~ ~z:,-,
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Project for 16 lots has been redesigned;
previous testimony from neighbors on vista del Sol indicated they
were concerned about export of earth due to grading and heavy
equipment and construction traffic; also, required improvements for
widening of Vista del Sol; proposing compromise by widening portions
of street without affecting existing street or structures; directed
to tiaiden street to 20 feet; prior plan proposed 18-ft. high retaining
wall along a segment of Country Hill Road and Commission suggested
not widening County Hill and reflecting that costa savings in reduced
density.
Petitioner stated a second access ie not feasible and would require
development on a property which they do not own and the owners of
that property are not interested; neighbors on Vista del Sol were
concerned about the length of time it would take to construct this
project and the owner is proposing to build custom homes himself and
is prepared to build the project as the market conditions allow and
that all the grading will be done up front and most of the heavy
equipment work would be done up front. Agreed to provide sewer
lateral, and thought they nave come to an understanding with Mr.
Fitzpatrick.
Repres_ntative from title ccmpany indicated he had gone through all
the County records and they will be willing to issue a subdivision
guarantee insuring access to the property. Documents were submitted
.n; hP f It gives Mr. Weins access rights to the property.
r., Petitioner stated they will have a balanced soil situation by
~' exporting soil to adjacent properties which the owners have agreed to
and there will be no truck traffic.
20-foot wide private road is planned= trey removal reduced from 17 to
7; 2 to 3 foot high retaining wall along Martinez'e property, an
extension to the existing wall] and have considered a option of
shifting the road to the east which would result in removal of 3
additional trees; Vista del Sol would be maintained by petitioner
throughout the construction phase, and that he would also plant
extensively along Vista de Sol. Upon completion of grading all the
slopes would be immediately hydroseeded and all trees would be
replanted; that they have reduced from the western portion of the
project and those lots directly above Country Hill and the from the
lot with the best view which reduces the potential of future
developers building down to the steep elopes; have proposed a 30-foot
structural setback in compliance with the fuel modification zone,
j have extended electrical lines and will build at an accelerated rate.
i
': Had community meetings with Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, and
they expressed concerns about the development, but liked this plan
much better.
If the 6 lots which have been approved were constructed, Vista del
Sol improvements would be necessary, and the widening of the rows is
not an increased density issue.
~.
~;
Asked if staff has come up with anything required which the
petitioner has net done. (Hellyer - suggested a condition that a
City Building Inspector be required to do an inspection.)
Stated they would like to retain the character of the neighborhood.
Petitioner would be financially responsible for replacing irrigation
system, pilasters, or whatever is impacted on private property;
however, there would be a tax increase, but the owners would be
obtaining a benefit from the increased value of the property as a
result of the improvements.
If they did not have the legal rights to make these improvements, and
could not satisfy the conditions, they could not record the map; and
that the petitioner's agreement with the McMillane included removal
of trees, etc.; any replacement trees or eh rubs that die would be
replanted by the petitioner, and thought the requirement was for cne
year.
E3onds must be posted and there would be a grading permit hearing and
the public would be invited and the petitioner must insure that what
is proposed is built.
Regarding the fence, they would be willing to accept a condition to
work out an acceptable agreement with the neighbor, but thought they
have the right to do it with the existing agreement.
U Commissioner was absent and there is a possibility of a tie vote.
(Chairman Hellyer explained the Commission has the option of
continuing the matter with a tie vote or sending it on to the City
j Council.
Explained there is an agreement for one lot to access off Vista del
Sol so the total potential is for 17 lots, rather than 16 ae proposed
I now.
Project is consistent with 1/2 acre zoning.
Pointed out retaining wall which varies to 4 feet high along the
McMillan's property and explained that was to save the trees on the
other side of the street, and noted it is about 200 feet long.
Option of shifting the road has been eliminated.
i
~ Widening of the street would take about 6 feet of the McMillan's
i property, by about 110 feet long.
~ ,.
~: `
r
i.
~~~
k
i
r
'~
'°uG
~~~ _
'i
'kit:
J~
~~
{L~ 4
,,.~-'~~ t J ,
i
Property owner, '.veins, indicated he has lived there for 23 ;_..rs
and will remair, ~:re and that he has maintained Vista del Sol for 22
years and feels everyone should share in that burden. Stated hie
staff as instructed to work out an agreement .tith Mr. Martinez and ~
they have met a couple of times and thouyht it could be done and
added he just wants to live in peace and thought they could. Stated
he needs to know if Vista del Sol is going to be 20 feet wide and
added he would pu`. a retaining wall along the Martinez and McMt.llan's
properr.ies.
Developer stated Mr. Weins gave neighbors permission to make the
improvements and they knew they were taking a risk and he is not
isking for a new right of way an that it is a matter to be
determined at a future date by another body. Stated they want eo
.video the road and maintain the community character and feel, and
that tl:cre is no alternate ,:uy to develop a road and he felt the
people ~,.'ould not use it an}'way and would continue to use vista del
Sol.
CO:::fISSi0C7 COt:MGt7TD:
F;enninger - Peti*_iwner will be required to get property owner's
permission to remove trees on private property. Asked why '.here is ~
bad blood between tl.~ petitioner and his neighbors.
Fe 1t ma}•be the nexghbors have prescriptive rights because they own
the easement and Mr. Weins saw them putting in the improvements. In
order for this development to ao forward, there .has to be some
6 lots would still require a 20-foot wide road. Would like to review
detailed plans because improvements do mean moving some trees and
pilasters and irrigation eyetemsj and that retaining walla should be
pretty and not just a riverrock face and he would like to see a
landscape plan for the whole street and review building plane before
~ any building goes on.
Would like a ^ondition requiring them to bring a consent from the
owners of property over which the easement crosses or some other
court evidence.
Hellyer - asked if any improvements have been made illegally without
permits. Suggested the petitioner should have met with the neighbors
before coming to this hearing to resolve their concern about the
impacts this project will have to their property. Explained his
suggestion to save the improvements of Country Hills Road was not to
just lower the density by one lot, and with six lots, they possibly
could live the road the way it is now. Would like to see another
access, other than Vista del Sol. Did not think any development
should have an impact on existing homeowners and they could have met
with the other property owners and gotten their approval. Suggested
amending time the tentative treat map is effective. (State
Subdivision Map Act seta timeframe.)
Zemel - Agreed this ie not a density issue but if the density was
v lowered, it would be a trade-off and the other homeowners would
probably agree to other improvements.
;.
:,i
1
.. - .eft voting for this urc7ect would be saying that ttte
• .ry o•.:aor'~ eights ire *.he area would have to be proven in court
~. .,.,;ld cbii.gate them to litigate to defend their, property rights
.. .. :id put. t!:e lc•operr.y o>:ners at a diaadvar,tage. (Ceveloper feat.
...... ::o,;ld give the property e.~ners the power of veto over the
• ';c~_ ~ (:7eiyi:bors fait a :iecision would affer.t t'rteir negotiati%~,.s
....!: t;;n petitioner). Felt road should be idened to 20 feet and
r:•oi 6 month contincance in order for a detailed plan to be
... ._._ted showing U:e road, staining walls, etc.
.._.....n'7er - Wanted cr,ntinuance to December lo, 1591 and for the
.'.'~ve!~per to bring bac4; a plat; for a 2U-foot wide road showing wl;ere
~.,e pi.lasters are which would have to be moved, detailed landscaping ~
plan ?nd -also they would need a consensus frort~ the ma.ghbore. I
Bristol - As4;ed if the neighbors would be happier with moving the j
r:: ad and savino the trees and their fc•ontage.
3ouas - Dectsio't about the w:dr.h of the road is •what they really ~~
4:a r.t. ~
STAFF CUA1~:Et7TS: Eaair.aeri:n) - Vista del ::ol should be widened to 2U
feet to give Fire Dehartrtent access and 2U feet is the minimum for
::a•:: ~!evelop;ner.t.. 1•'ira Department needs 20 feet paved. F.xisr.inq
.::orocements vary ..ao:een iU o.:d 15 feet.
r\ paved the col de sac and clear the brush back to provide a clear
tJ turnaround area, but did not pave it, and that was for a 5-lot
development.
~ Read corrections to Condition Nos. 19, 24 and 25 into the records
1+). (hold harmless agreement also include drainage permits on
adjacent properties.)
~' 24. (provide a 15-foot newer easement on Lot ,#5)
25. (provisions to accept drainage from Corto Road).
t
Condition No. 22A revised to require approval of the Planning
Commission before final tract map or final grading plan.
Attorney - Referred to a condition requiring that the developer
provide documentation showing they have authority to remove the trees
not on their property and did not feel the evaluation of the
situation is proper for the City Attorney's Office.
ACTION: CONTINUED TO AECEMBER 16, 1991 IN ORDER FOR DEVELOPER TO
SUBMIT REVISED PLANS SHOWING A 20-FOOT WIDE ROAD, LOCATION OF
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, RETAINING WALLS, DETAILED LANDSCAPED PLAN,
ETC. AND A CONSENSUS OF THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THE ROAD.
~J
f~'.
C~
~C
Y;
~{
.
V :.,
say, . .
F
a H
~.'~
r,.
.«
~`~
J .~1
~y
..J(~'1
~~
1 O '.
~T ~~~
t~~~~ X44 •.
7 ~~ f. .
~b~y~Y
°: z
(,bs.3 F
,~~ t
..~
`~, ~~;~
~ j
.~f
s
f~~?
:' r G
~;
~~
:~
~,~a
~~
~"~
fi,~,
,. ,.
.w?
y~,~ 4~f~
yF
?::Y
3a.
3b.
ENVI1~~Nh1FT4'1'AL IMPACT RE~RP NO. 280 (P1'LV. CEI't.) Approved
AMETVDMIE'N4' NO. 2 ?n PACIFICIIVTER ANAHEIM Approved, in ; `~~
SPD';IFIC PLAN LSP88 3~ part. Uae6 '
i
Approved, Pole
CWNElZS: CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 1065 Pacificenter Dr., sign and fast `
#200, Anaheim, CA 92806 food restaurant
signs denied.
A(' P: PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE (The PRS GROUP) 27132-H Paseo
Eapada, #1222, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
IACATION: PACIFICEN!'E[t ANAHEIM. Property is approximately
26 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma
Avenue and Tustin Avenue.
Petitioner requests amendment to Pacificenter Anaheim Specific
Plan (SP88-3) to permit additional service-related commercial
and office uses in the Specific Plan Area and to amend the
Master Sign Program.
Continued from the October 21, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting.
RESOLUTION N0. PC91-171 (uses)
RESOLUTION N0. PC91-172 (Hole siaa -denied)
RESOLUTION N0. PC91-173 (fast food Sias-denied)
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITIONS 0
PETITIONER'S COMMENTSi Carla Jr. representative felt sign is
~ necessary for successful business
Agent stated this is second largest intersection; uses are needed and
{ desired by the community sad these are sot impulse buying situations;
would probably eliminate a lot of driving to various areas; is the
near future, Commission will ba raviewiag a specific plea uendseat
which may include a train station and clearly these uses era those
which would be included; that they have parking and know the market
exists.
Responded to Chaia~aa Hellper that the pole sign is sot more than
aaythiag that exists in other areas now. Pole sign is for
identification of the center, and the .they is for the major user.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Meese - felt soma of the requested uses do not
service the industrial area. Referred to the study by the
Redevelopment Department with regard to the signs and felt that would
resolve soma of the issues.
Rellyer - Liked the uses, but sot the signs.
~
+
n:'
..
~~3Y~'fF~+.:
w~~[~ ~~~
~
i ~a~. h-
~
~~~
f
l~ ~~~
~a
~1
ltsi
• ,
`, ~~ ~~
t
'.: 9 4WD-;~~
h
my~
S 41
..
~
~
.~.
u ;
r ~' z
~ h'. ii
^-Y
ACTIONS Approved Negative Declaration `~•w
Resolution offered to approve the llssendmeat to the Specific ~ ~~
Plea, and deny the pole sign and the fast food restaurant
~ ~
~•~~.r~
1"
`
f sign. (FAILED TO CARRY DUE TO TI8 VOTB). (Neese & Semel *
'
`
°
voting no) F~
s
,-
`
Meese voted no because he did not like including some of the uses '
proposed in the industrial aren, even though this is a Specific Plnn
~`
area and would reconsider when the train station is proposed. ~:'
~ ~
~
8eme1 voted no but did not see a problem xith the pole sign and ^i
thought this is an exceptional project and xaated to nee it '~" `
laadmarked and did not want to impact leasing of the units.
Resolution offered to approve the amendment, as requested, '
with the pole sign to bs approved, but denying the fast food
restaurant sign. (FAILED TO CARRY WITH SELL VOTING YES,
AND HELLYER, MBSSS AND BRISTOL VOTING NO).
i
i Resolution offered to Gzant the portion of Amendment request
pertaining to additional service-related commercial and
office uses. RESOLUTION CARRIED BY THS FOLLOWING VtyPSs
Ayess Bristol, Hellyer, 8emel
Noess Meese
Absents Peraza
(Conflict of Interest) Bouas, Henninger
Resolution offered to deny pole sign and fast food
restaurant sign. (FAILED TO CARRY DUE TO TIE VOTE)
Resolution offered to deny pole sign. (CARRIED BY FOLLOWING
VOTES)
~ Ayess Bristol, Hellyer, Masse
Noess Zemel
Absents Peraza
(COaflict of Interest) Bouas, Henninger
Resolution offered to deny fast food restaurant sign (Carle
Jr.) (CARRIED BY THS FOLLOWING VOTES)
Ayess Bristol, Hellyer, Messs, 8sma1
Noess None ?;±`~~j.
Absents Peraza
(COaflict of Interest) Bouss, Henninger
~'y ~,
~?
~ Instructed City Attorney's Office to prepare Ordinsnce to Amend
Specific Plan No. 88-3
! (Deleted banks on pnge 7 of staff report)
~ •,
i
~ q,:
~.
,c~
~:r;.
_•~ri';;
.11~.
.fY~~•
':,~ l;
~Yi ,,
..
~y
St~~~
l ~p
~`~ni
~lsr"" ~.
- i~kW
~f~~'~
` ~
r
s~~
~
-
.
~
z
,r
.
o
~
f ; ~
~
~ ~ ~
ti~,
~
S
~' S ~.
:: :Y r
~
- J
,yxi ttt.
G
~1`' '
.
~ 4
1
~
~ f
r
.~'
N
C !~7
.
am
'
4a. CEnA CATEt~RICAL EXFa4s'PION~GASS 11
I y
'
~~ ~.
4b. VARIANCE NO. 4734 Denied Ii
~~
1065 Pacificenter Drive
;200
CiaNER: CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT 1 ~
~
f ,
,
,
i ,
v
~'
'
~ Anaheim, CA 92806 ~
~~ . ~
"
~
atel
ci
fiCenter
t
i
i
S
t
FL P
P
IACATION ti,
p
~~
y
.
roper
y
s approx
m
an
a
a
.
:
26 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma $( ,,
~r.~ '
"
' `~
and Tustin Avenue. ~
~
`
~rU ~
Waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs and minimum •~,
distance between freestanding signs to construct a 91-square ti;
`
foot monument sign. vrx
,~
~
^
~e
,
Continued from the June 3, July 1, August 12 and
October 21, 1991 Planning Commission meetings. ,',-':
~
~
t. ~
~
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC91-174 ~;i Vii,
':, ~:
j °°°°°°°°°°°°------°°°°---------°-------------------- _ :~5~5
I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
!, CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~~''
OPPOSITION: 0 ~ .
^~,'
ACTIONS Denied ,
}~'.
~ VOTE: AYES: Hellyer, Meese, Zemel ':.
aG ;
`
~..J NOES: None .
<'~~~,,
ABSTAIN: Bristol '> 2.
ABSENTS PERA2A
! CONFLICT OF INTERESTS Bouse, Henninger ~~:;-;
{
l ~ J ~.
;",~~:
it
i `.
~ f'
s
`t1::~s,
i
i
I
i
.
~'
~'
~
~ '\y .
1 ;
/-" '
U
a~y..
~,
5~=.
~~ ~
' ~S
~~.
r
f .
~ `.
'
r
"~~
~ ~
;
l~...
M
y~' r
a~ ~
tl` ~`!'~
~~~ r-
5
~~1,
>.
- " ~
r
1 r»-f
~.
'- ~ ~~
,~ > {=~
~,,
,rY r
... 1 ~ e
~~
i ~+
µ x
..
~~ ~
^~
.
F~r~'w
_Lt ~#•
Y~~np,
~ -~.
%~
~
.
S
,. ~. ~~ ky
,~,_w,
~. i,~i~~t~1~, c~ .
'
y>,
~~~;
a
Tc
~
r ~ h:Lr,~):7~
~„ tH~~l
5a. CAA NEC,ATIVB' DEC'T~ARATION Continued to *'~'I`
5b. CbNDITIONAL USE PEAMIR' N0. 3447 1-27-92 ~~ "*~
:
,
't i,~7''
~~
CxVNER: LEDERER-ANAHEIM, LIMITED, 1990 Westwood Boulevard, ~~,~
'
Los Angeles, CA 90025 ~ ~~+{
I` [~~
AGIIVP: EDWARD KIM, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, ,f,,~
CR 92805
~~
ZLL^ATION: 1440 South Anaheim BOUIeVaztl. Property is ~.~
approximately 14.7 acres located north and east of c
the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim ~;
Boulevard. `~~i~,'
.
,~
~
~
To permit on-premise sale and consumption of bo•,: and wine 'a
`~
within a commercial retail center (indoor swat meet). ~t
~f
~
~
Continued from the September 11 and October 7, 1991 Planning ~
Commission meetings. _
~yr~`
~-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. -__ .
',' ~~,'
~. I
~ °~T77:T..'.iGn-„~w~g•flr p~ .Ni.^•~
~ ~ n.. ~
r .~ -- Ra 4:~k.;'
t, ;'~~
yt:..,.
fit
~ ,
1~ ,
gxg
P'
yr ,
~~~~:, ..
.y
Cy L ~, 4,,
FfiM ~ Y_~ -
~~~ ..
~.:,r,
}~;~
v„~,
~;
},~~~
;`r ~,
~ ~}
1~', T'~3•'~'.
^~ •7~
~l
L,=
s~
.~'Li ~'
n:~`i.
F'1Y
_ ~,~F,'.
'~~':.
i
f21~c ,~,
"7;F.
.:Jj.
'i.,. ~
6a. CEbA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. GL~NDITIONAL USE PERAlIT N0. 3460
~:
Ali'
U
Tenants are very concerned, but could not close their businesses to
attend this meeting and it is their opinion this will definitely
affect adjoining land uses.
not really work and people will park rirht under the sign. Have
common opening and have allowed customers to go from one property to
the other, but there was only one owner in the past. Did not feel
they could tolerate allowing that access if another building is
added. Questioned if access ie width enough for truck access, and
concerned that people will park in the fire lane. Felt people would
not drive down a narrow alley to the back and park and then walk
between 200 and 400 feet.
Suggested existing vacancies be filled before building another
building and determine if there is sufficient parking and adequate
circulation.
yam''
~ ~
r;Y,'(
~ Yy ~~
'~a~~..
~~k7
~
x~~
f
F '
~ ~
{
:
~ ~
~
~7
rY
~
1y
W
s,;rr ti ':
n ~~~ .
,S
~
w
,
;
~
'~
~=
~`
Approved ~$:
Granted I
I ~ °~' ~x.
Mr. John Heu, K.O.K. Investments, 2654 W. La Palma
Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806
Lu Architects and Associates, 8862 Garden Grove
Blvd., CA 92644
LCXZAR'ION: 2658 West La Palma Ave. Property is approximately
1.9 acres located on the south side 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 and October 21, 1991, Planning
Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-175 _
l
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1 person present
OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Owner of property to the east felt parking is a
problem because there are only 41 spaces in the front and people will
not park in the rear and will park on their property. 3 unite are
vacant and if they were occupied there would not be enough parking in
the front and the lot would become very congested. Lenacrafter
patrons usually stay about 1 hour, and the small retail customers all
want to park in front of their stores and will not walk 200 to 400
feet. Has experienced that even "no parking" and "tow away signs" do
>I
r.;,.;,
~<s
:.
;Ri!~
t5::
x ;.
" ;~
i5
~~~
-
•-
,~
.
s. ,
.
~,
-zi ~
~l~
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Stated a fence would create ar, area where
people could congregate and make it difficult for the Police to
^ patrol easily, as they do now. Property has been developed for a
(( l,, long time and closing the driveway as required in Condition No. 2
would be a hardship. Explained 126 parking spaces are provided and
~ some are in the rear behind the building; that circulation between
the properties is a major concern and their traffic consultant, Mr.
Farmer, also had concerns with traffic interaction between the t~ao
driveways but the closure and relocation of the driveway does address
the safety concerns. Fire truck access has been addressed and there
was an adjustmsnt suggested by staff to allow acceae; that there are
four 800-square foot units. Explained City Traffic Engineer is
concerned about safety on the street. Indicated they would be
willing to landscape to keep people from accessing between the two
sites, but that address how to get people to park behind the
building.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Meese asked if they are willing to relocate the
easterly driveway. (Applicant responded they are willing to relocate
it approximately 80 feet west of where it is now and that would leave
two driveways.
Felt parking in the rear would not be used, except by employees.
Hellyer - suggested next door property owner could make use of the
vacant land if he owned it, and suggested the two something out
together that would benefit both.
'"1
'~ STAFF COMMENTS: Suggested an access agreement between the two
properties, and felt that would benefit both properties, and have
employees park in the rear, and only have one driveway with a second
driveway for adjacent property. If acceae agreement cannot be worked
out, suggested the proposed driveway be at least 55 feet away.
Planning - architect had agreed to provide one additional apace on
the plans, so that they conform to Code, and that was down; however,
subsequently, he has indicated they would not be able to provide that
space and they will have to provide the apace and reduce the size of
the building in order to get the plane approved for building permits,
or a waiver would have to be advertised.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted CUP
Subject to landscaping planter being extended to the street
right of way; and a hedge, similar to the existing one, being
planted; and relocation of the easterly driveway, westerly 55 feet.
VOTE: 6 YES VOTES
PERAZA ABSENT
k
/~1
t ,~'.
{ I~,
W 1l f
1~~~P u~?
ne~Zily] 1.
.,.
Y ~
~a
S ;.F'?
tu
111
}
ChY~~
.
{~
'
~
,
~~,
L.
Y ~y(,µ,
... ~. .. ~. M; L iV~~'
'iy4`W MSS' t~ ~~}
C~.~itrf
''~v
tt
, ~V ~.~`N ~ . ~`~F~
~
t°
{~ ~,~
t ~.', Y~~
~~
t ti ~~
}
~~~
,pp~
7a. CEnA N~'IVE DFl^L ON
Approved ~ ~~ ~ ` ~'~~~
,, h`~
7b. VARIANCE NO. 4147 Granted i ~
,.~ .
Cta[~R: RONALD AND DOROTHY FIELD, P.O. Hox 8, Anaheim, CA
92805
r
AGQV'P: HOWARD PARSELL CO., Attn: Julia Carroll, 4854 Main
Street, Yorba Linda, CA 92686
LOCATION: 125 East E115warYh Avewe. Property is _
approximately 0.13 acre located at the northwest
corner of Ellsworth Avenue and Claudina Street.
Waiver of maximum structural height, minimum structural
setback, minimum yard requirement, minimum dimension of garage
~
`
parking spaces and minimum recreational/leisure area to
construct a second dwelling unit in conjunction with an
existing single-family residence.
Continued from the September 23, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC91-176
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 0
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Variance, In Part
Waivers (a), (c), (d) and (e) deleted
VOTE: 6 yea votes
(Peraza absent)
t dx
~4t
t
'~~;;.
~~rr:
:; ,'
;' ~,;
11/04/91 ;,??
Page 15
',1 ~'3
a a~,
~~~.~'}i ~r:
<< 5 ~~
~~
^ ~~
~~:.~f,.
~-
,~
~~
n
~~`
,~w
~~
~:
~~s, ,~.
::
~. ~~ ~'
~~
F~ ..
• ~;it ~~ti
C T~ ~~
1 ~,~;;
t.
~~
C
8a.
8b.
_. ~4~~
~
,
„h
''h F.~ ,.
'
}a A ~
'
~ ~
rtlH ~'
~i 64~}a .
b r{
.„
t.
i ~~
~ ~~~
:7~
~p~N
~
~Y-.
~~ ~
t~
s„'r
~,
~N
r,1~r
T
~~
apia ~ ~~ ~
~ SSA
.
y,~.
i ~~a
CmA ~~, qql~~ ,7,1 Continued to 1
f~
VARIANCE N0. 4144 12-i6-91
"
a~ti3
~
CLVIVER: MCW INVESTCO INC., Attns Margo Cagle, ~~
ta
27132-8 Paseo Eepada, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 w.
~
r
xs ,
e
'
LOCATION: 1725 South 8tnokhtust Street. Property is ;~;
approximately 0.42 acre located on the west side of
Brookhurst Street approximately 580 feet north of
~
the centerline of Katella Avenue. ~'
~+~
_ x'~~
Waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs, permitted
location of freestanding signs, minimum distance between x+
~'
freestanding signs, minimum eight distance requirements for ~':
~i
~
freestanding signs, unpermitted canopy "colwnn" signs, and ~ ;~,
unpermitted garden wall eignage to retain 3 freestanding signs, ~'
2 canopy "column" signs and garden wall eignage. r
~,'
Continued from the September 11, and October 7, 1991 Planning i ~::
Commission meetings. ~~'~j.
,~:.
~'r'c ;
VARIANCa RESOLUTION H0. ' ~~~"~~'•
-c'~a
~~.
~~
i
.i? ~/
`.
j
dr
`4'
fc
i
t:J4t'P.9
i~ '
3
;Yn~~'
ter`
t1~
&~ ~
f.'
IY J. ~
~~ ~4
d
t~ ~f ~
x~
.: ~
1 ~~`"c -
.~~~
~~
i
11/04/91
Page 16
iS J
k~
<~,
c
~
e
fi
~~~
'
~
.
J
~~~ ~~
f j•~~i
~S
+'~"~'
~
~i
Ylr~..
i I' {~t^
a
Y
' `
1r
T
;,
,,rr ~-
"iT~',
' t , ~r~;
~'"
~ L^ ~.
r'
r>~:
_ ~ ~u.2
~ri~.
~.~f~,
!`
ty~ p.Q
~s
~~:~
~t
:~ F
Xa ~.
S Nr
9a.
9b.
CFX)A NE3ATIVE DEf:LARATION APProved _
AF~VDMEN'P ~ THE HIQ~ANAS AT ANAHEIM HILLS ~'
SPECIFIC PLAN (87-11 I '~'
~: THE PRESLEY COMPANIES, Attn: Steven R. Riggs, 19
Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: L~veloanent Area 11 of The Highlands at Anaheim
Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1)..
Petitioner requests an amendment to Ordinance No. 4860 in order
to amend Development Area 11 Zoning and Development Standards
to permit the development of a 162-unit condominium complex.
Continued from the October 21, 1991, Planning Commission
meeting.
AMEND. BPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION N0. PC91-177
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 0
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Not willing to qo along with affordable
conditions; senior housing was originally negotiated with
/~, Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Presley purchased it with the idea of
~ . selling that parcel and never intended to develop it. Services
cannot be provided for seniors prcSect. Are changing zoning from
RM1200 to RM3000 and any type of r.Cfordable would not be feasible.
Smaller condominium unite (for sale) would be leas expense, making
them more affordable in Anaheim Hills (price range of $140,000 to ~`
~ $185,000 or $190,000).
i
I COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mesas - Asked they are saying they will not
apply for a density transfer (applicant responded they will not he
building 2,047 unite, but could not give a definite number at this
time. Are reducing the number in Area 11 from 234 to 162, which is a
reduction of 72 units). Meese suggested affordable units in
Development Area 7 instead. (Applicant responded he could not make I
that stipulation. Stated Development Area 7 in protected by the
~
Development Agreement); and it was pointed out this area is as well .
~
and applicant responded there is still a question whether they can `%
amend this without opening the Development Agreement issue.
STAFF COMMENTS: Housing - Loes of 59 low income unite, suggested '
they provide 258 of the for sale unite, which results in 4 unite with I
restricted salsa price; or Provide 40 unite to low to moderate income i
families, sales price of $130,00 for 2-bedroom unit, and $150,000 for
3-bedroom unit.
~~.
-lam 11/04/91
Page 17
~: ~
! ~,/
.
4 ..
l~ i.' •
.. ~,{l
- Z',,J
~l r.
G1 ; 1~1"'fi
eY .~s ~.
l~ 7
"~ ~
+
C
i ~~
S-~^°
- ~
r~'S
~j
t'.
~
.k,
~ ~
.
1a.4'~ .+
S
~
tip,. xt.s
,'4
rt
~`~;i :
1
:~..
f ly
1'
V,
~ ~
'
j'
. ,
~~
~ .
fk~
M•
~
~
~
4t•~ r
~'
~,e'~a -.
2
i 1 ~,
~
t py~
~ ~
'~~
~~
y ~ pt Nn
::~} L
Q
~
~
~~~
~
. ~
. tfylt' ~
,,
yy
,,
~~
yy
{
..~,~~
'
~
, M,
A
~k ..
.
'1
~
'
'
Planning - If the land use designation ie changed, they would not =~' 'f'
necessarily be held to the floor plane submitted. Plane submitted do "~'``
~
'
i ~"y meet the minimum requirements for RM 3000 Zone. ~
~•
ACTION: Approved, subject to a reduction of 72 units to the overall
entitlement.
VOTE: 6 yes votes
Peraza absent
Instructed City Attorney's Office to prepare ordinance amending
Specific Plan No. 87-1, reducing the overall entitlement by 72 units
and to include the following wording into the ordinance:
,.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
i
i
That Development Area li shall be developed for attached
single-family cluster-type housing. All standards of the
RM-3000(SC) Zone shall apply for the development in this area,
except ae provided below:
That Section 18.70.060.060 be amended in its entirety to read:
"Development Area 11. Area to be developed for attached
single family cluster type housing. All standards of the
"RM-3,000(SC)" Zone (Chapter 18.31) shall apply except as
otherwise provided below:"
That Section 18.70.060.060(a) be amended in its entirety to
n
.' read: "Required Lot Frontage. Any lot may front upon either a
.
private or public acceeeway." '•
}t.
That Section 18.70.060.060(b) be amended in its entirety to
~ read: "Minimum Lot Width. Any lot utilized ae a vehicular ,~
~
acceseway shall have a minimum width of not leas than twenty `'''
(20) feet."
in
~
That a new Section 18.70.060.060(c) be added to read: "Minimum
Number of Parking Spaces. At lsaet two and one-half (2.5)
park±.nq spaces shall be provided for each unit having a floor
area of twelve hundred twenty five (1,225) square feet or lees,
' at least two (2) of which shall be covered] and at least three ~ a?-
and one-half (3.5) parking spaces shall be provided for each
unit having a floor area greater than twelve hundred twenty
•.,
five (1,225) square feet, at least two (2) of which shall be ,'~'+
covered.
i ~---:c.~,-
~~;'
's~te~j57~ryp,+~Mr fT.,-,a.. ~~'`~ .r ..i.:,. ..., .._
-r;
,, ;.
ra ~,.
t~
~~{ +~
~. +r~
,,+7rti- .
i
~~ ~~.,~
1;.~
~ s ~ ~.~fr.
10a. CEbA NEGATIVE DEL^LARATION
~ 10b. VARIANCE NO. 4150
lOC. TENTATIVE PAhCEL MAP NO. 90-349 (REVISION N0. 1)
~~
OWNER: WILLIAM N. KINCANNON AND PATRICIA KINCANNONr 2022
i Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706
,, ~~r~".
'.
~5~~~ r
,;r"~~
~.
sib} .~ .
~r 1
1'fX1~`i~L.,.uw~11~1yF/G~~.. ', .h ~'f !
.A,~Jy
?~ ~~ ,
r''~~
continued `~~ '
to 11-18-91 , yu,4 `
~~ ,
~ ~~~ ~:
~T~~z~
~~
~` ;d
~ i
AGENT: ANACAL ENGINEERING CO., ATTN: Dennis Poncid and N. +b~,:
Scott Dewitt, 1900 E. La Palma Ave., Ste. 20, s~;~
Anaheim, CA 92705 ~ 7`r
~~ ,.
ZOCATION: 396 ~'alta Hills Drive. Property is - f=
approximately 1.89 acres located on the west aide of )`~
Peralta Hills Drive and approximately 480 feet south
of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. ~ .
Waiver of minimum lot area to establish a 2-lot, RS-HS-43,000
(SC), single family, subdivision.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0.
/~.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIL:RED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 3 people present
OPPOSITION CONCERNS:
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Staff report ie misleading in stating that no ~,
°
lots in the area are less than 1 acre net, because there arc quite a ~
number which are lees than 1 acre net. He presented evidence of
,
several of those Iota and stated the three people who were present '~
and opposed had withdrawn their opposition. Explained there are two ,,;°
separate tax bills for this property and prior to the Map Act, ,~;-
legally the two parcels would have complied; was zoned for two acres
gross and was permitted for a number of years. ti;
Y~',:
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Hellyer - suggested a continuance in order for
staff to research; explaining Commission is worried about setting a
precedent.
STAFF COMMENTS: Planning -explained if any of the lots mentioned
had private streets, the streets are included in the lot area and
Peralta Hills Drive is a pr,,e street.
ACTION: Continued to 11-18-91 L
VOTE: 6 yes votes
Peraza absent
`.i
~},.
l )~.
`
,
~
11/04/91 '
.
'
Page 19
~a,,:,':
r s
~~:
~ .
" ' ,~ Y
e7y~'
~r~;
''-~f'
~
~
• ~.
t
~Y~ 7 w~C.
~~'
~j3~r~~Yw'ls
~'`xt~~1
+~~~
S
~~~
y~x
~ ..
.tr /a~
.
r~-~k ~
Y
,=i
_ .~;~.
~,~ ,
t r
~;C"
.r `.
i
x
-, ;~
~
a
v
'
tT,'
~
~~
~
>:.
a~
.
: .
r
',.~}Xi 4~f 2;- ~~
Y
{~~
{ r'
~
* a a.Y
:~
,'
_ H
~ ~-, l"i
~
. N, t
'9
~
.~r
. .
:
11a. CEt~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 'y~'r'
"
'%
llb. VARIANs:E NO. 4152
Granted r"
.
.
,~
i ~f
~ GWNER: ANDREW HOMES, 4400 MacArthur Blvd., f900, Newport ,'a;
Beach, CA 92660
~~_
IpCA4'ION: 3238 West Ba11~~t Property ie approximately
0.9 acres located on the south aide of Hall Road and
approximately 530 feet east of the centerline of
Oakhaven Drive.
Waiver of setback adjacent to single-family residential zone ~
andj or design of tandem parking spaces +.o construct a carport.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC91-178
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1 person present
'
OPPOSITION CONCERNS: 9roperty owner directly east explained both he ~~
and his neighbor are concerned about the block wall; that it is 6
feet high on their aide, but the subject property has been fills:.! and
is 1-1/2' to 2' higher, invasion of privacy and reduces value of
~ ~ their property. _Requeated that the developer put.two blocks and a _
~ _ __
- ~~ ....... .__ _ ;'
. ~,
cap on top of that wall. Explained if developer pate wall where he
proposes, it would atop in the r.~,s:ter of hie back yard and ha would
still be looking at a higher wall, and suggested the wall go to the
end of property so it will look decent. Explained hie neighbor has
the same problem. ` '`
PETITIONER`S COMMENTSs Grade ie lower about 2 foott indicated he has ~'
told Mr. Neal he would be glad to have a Building Inspector present
and measure the wall and that he would maintain a 6-foot high wall on
the east and south property lines. Willing to have the neighbor get
a bid and they will pay him directly. Explained the wall could not
be more than 6 feet high according to the conditions of approval.
Agreed to meet with the neighbor and Building Inspector and conform
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Henninger -asked staff to make sure the
Building Inar!?ctor knows where the wall should be measured from. 'Rr
STAFF COMMENTS: Planning -explained code is very specific
determining where that 6 feet should be measured from. Code Section
18.31.Obd requires 6-foot screening device between condominiums and
~
single-family. Code does stated the height of any such wall should
be measured from the highest building pad.
ACTION: Granted, subject to meeting with adjacent property owner and
a Building Inspector to determine the height of the existing wall and
'~ ~"~ agreed to add to wall in conformance with Code.
`J
VOTE: 6 yes votes
Peraza absent
11/04/91
j Page 20
~1~_
.
b~!
;~~
"S m
~ 4~
s
fg
~.}:~ l;;
.~
~~
. tp:
., ~:,
•~,..
o , ;r
~
_~~~y~,
:yy v`.:
. ,YPiieK,
~ , ~
~"',
~ ~~.,
, _
d^i
x y
1
.~
~3~ ~ ~ ~.iv
kt '~,/~' r
2
r
~~
c
s., .
~j{
~~
a-. 4 }
~~+
{ `•
i~
12a. CEDA NFGA'!'IVE DECLARATION
12b. GL~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT ND. 3466
..y ____
x~~ ,
~.
T
ti L'~C ~
>1 ~ ~
fit.' `1 "~~ ~ .
r „'
~,•:t~ ~
Y~~'
} t-s+,..
r~ ~ f
Si h
f
T Y6 r`
L '+..~u
sf z4'~.YF~~l!~,
,~..KT;~`'_.
' ~.
Approved %~ ~.'
Granted I " `~~`
.~`
1' K
MAX WILLS, 3838 San Pablo Drive, Fullerton, CA
92635
of 8" water line"; to be constructed prior to final building
inspection."
Traffic - if revised plans are submitted, wanted applicant to meet
the minimum 5-foot setback and noted the design does not meet all the
parking atat:dards and wanted those incorporated.
I~OCAR'ION: 1204 West Center Stlroet Property ie approximately s?
0.38 acres located at the southwest corner of Center 'rig-
Street and Walnut Street.
To permit a 2-story, 13-unit, senior citizen's apartment '
complex. ~+'~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-179
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO HE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 0
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Architect pointed out they have worked with
staff and the trees prof'-:~; would be deetroyod when the wall ie
installed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Wanted existing mature trees saved if possible, ,,~;
particularly the one to the west. Suggested continuance in order to
revise plane saving as many trees as possible, indicating project for
seniors would be better with the trees.
y.
STAFF COMMENTS: Housing -applicant has signed letter of understand Fyn
for 4 affordable units= Requested Condition. No. 2 be added -that
lighting be screened with 2-foot solid material or lattice with
clinging vines to screen lighting from parking onto the adjacent
parking structure.
Engineering -Condition No. 1 amended to read "poet a performance
bond prior to issuance of building permit to guarantee installation
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted CUP
VOTE: 4 yes votes
Hellyer 8 Meese voted NO
Peraza absent
i ~~ I
v
11/04/91
Page 21
s?,'.
::~
i
': I
Y
I^Mry?Rnuw?H,L~yySV~,r ~ -.~, .,. -. ..,, ;<~... r:: ,. ;..,.. - r -., X71-/A1~+,.~`:kFi a,l~`'''~~ '~~'-°
,4~:
- ~ MVf
Y*:J.
7~
I.1~
f'~ ~.4
iv
_ ;'~ ~
!'.N
~,f ~~~.
N r~~
SG
:rJ
~~.
13a. CEDA NEGATIVE DA^,GARA44'ON
13b. VARIANCE NO. 4148
~ ~3+y; ,
~t
yF~ ,r.
'~^ ~;~~
r i~~,'.
~~~
~~'~~4.
. ~~,.
~i~W ~.
;~~+5_ : _
n~ K
,jam~.~
' AIyH.
s" ~~-
~.
"h ~_'
-s~>
°K 5.
rtKv,?r1 tq+5rr}~s~ti~~ ``S ~ n'
~' .ice
1(~
J1~
a
~'~;~:~
r . .,
Grantedd ~ ~~~S.Y,
~~i
CzV[4ER: JASON Y. RHAB.LY, 1842 W. Lincoln Ave., Ste. "F", _ ~ ;y~-~~:
Anaheim, CA 92801 ~~,.
~i, e5
~ ;a ~.
`
L '~~
I,pCATION: 2010 W. Lincoln Avern]e. Property is approximately Y
0.39 acres located on the south side of Lincoln ':'~~
Avenue and approximately 522 feet east of the ~',%
centerline of Empire Street. `~;;
?,;.._
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish 1,828 ~'
square feet of medical office use within an existing 5,850
square foot commercial retail center.
VARIANCB RESOLUTION NO. tPC 91-180 i
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO SE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITIONi 1 person present
OPPOSITION CONCERNSt Concerned about the gsiver of parking, betweaa
law office wad this office there is a set of poles with chain wad
thought removal of that barrier would provide better acceu for
sanitation trucks. Agreed to reciprocal access agreement betwna the
two properties.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS= Agreed to record a reciprocal access
agreement, satisfactory to 8aaitatioa Division.
i _ti;
ACTIONS Approved Negative Declaration j,.
Granted Variance
(Stipulation to remove barrier between adjacent property to
allow access between two properties, wad record a raci~,:bcal
access agreement, approved by the Saaitatioa Divisica.)
VOTES 6 pee votes
Peraza absent ~l
~
~
.
~.
„.,
? i.
;;:.
;~,
' - r:c?:
,r,:;,.
~~ ;ep
j ..
r~;:
' ~~.
fir.
'-. t~.~y
u'S~6Y`.
~r
t ~~~9d'
~,,
;~
~ ~.
a;.pt~ ~~
~r~~:
;tw
y~~
~~ ?.~~,
,~;
~•
I
i
/~,
~`_i
l./
14a. CEt~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-08
i4C. WAIVER OF DUDE REOUIRFR~1'
14d. GUNDI'1'IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 346
r : ~,6
4~i,t-
`
tiq~,
•
'
„yrR
.. c,
~.A
-.
~
~3%`r:
a,49~s
ti~ <~~~:
yFrt
^c%~
-K..AYI
q~,k:
~~
L. -.~
~,~~~
~
~
.. ~^
~
~ '-~t~~~ +d
.
~... ., ~~~.. ..~•:;~. ..,. ..,.WFrv4-•1+*!t1~y.
~'i~
' ~
~Shhd 4'
~
+
..~ ~
''..L~jt 4
`:~t~~io
\$?:i~
~
t
~ •
Approved ' ~'
lw-.r`.+
Granted ;y~,
Granted a
v ~?
Granted 7
s
~~
GZ91~RSt WIHOK PATANARAPELERS, 431 N. State College Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92806 .; t,,
i. d`,?~`
~
AGE1Vl: ALHERTO VAZQUEZ, 11725 Oklahoma Ave., Hollydale, CA ~_
'r
90280 h~~,
LOCA'I'IOIV: 43~ Na~'+h mate Gblleae Bwleva_*+j Property is an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land coneistang of - ;, ,M~~~-
approximately 0.31 scree located on the west side of T:
State College Boulevard and approximately 140 feet
south of the centerline of Sycamore Street. ~
~,a
Fram RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the CL
(Commercial, Limited) or a leas intense zone. ' c
To permit the commercial use of a residential structure with
waiver of interior setback abutting residential zone. I
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC 91-181 ~""
CGNDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-182
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1 person present
'~
OPPO5ITION CONCERNS: Concerned that care would qo through the wall. :'
1'..
PETITIONERS COMMENTS: Agreed to provide wheel stops in garage. ~~"y-
:
~'~ir
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration ,
Granted Reclassification
Waiver granted
CUP granted
(Condition added requiring wheel stops in garage)
~
;
,
~
.
VOTE: 6 yes votes
Peraza absent ''i}~
ti:
I
~ 7 x:
,:
t
y$i.
Jr
-~~
.
.yF
x ..
;
4 .
A y
Sr
ti^ -;
~ t
~
-' +t:.
4
r~
fk
,~
~ s #.
,
r tr
;
at sx.'
.•
h ~},~af'.4~
r~~q~
~v i
d
~ti r i~~
,• ,~ ? - ~}
.., i '
'' ~ 6Y
1 ;
~;
; 4
C
,
I } '•
~;t
`~
S
r
~C
fib T
- h i~
X
rSf C. .
..,~
~~~~ .
r ~WP
;,L~ ~.
?'
l~"d
y~
±
i~
..
n n
. 1t~`~ ~
1
L•
,....
..'
"~
I
}~
l
~`
'r~
€ -,
''
; ~x,~~
15a. C.EDA NEC,A44VE DEUGARA27(kT Approved ~.,-
~ 15b. ~ICk1AL USE PEI~AIIT ND. 3468 Granted _~k~.~L '
i ~
r
^
a A
~ Q9NER: FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH
2219 O
ANAHBIM
@ " ~dx"`~
~ "
y
,
ra
ve.,
~
'!~:
, .
"y ` ~~
' CA 92804 ~
y~
~
~ ~
~
AGQPT: ROBERT DOBERNECR, 143 S. Gain Street, Anaheim, CA
~
~
92804 i
L~~
i~ 5f .<
IOCIf!'I()N: 2219 West Change Avenue. Property ie ~'
approximately 2.36 acres located on the north aide s
~
~~
of Orange Avenue and located approximately 200 feet .
'~
west of the centerline of Hrookhurst Street. ~.r
'
;
;
,
~_~,;,
To permit a child day care center in conjunction with an "~~~`
existing church. ~~~
~. _J ~.,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-183 ,,
r1i;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 0 ~~~~~~~-
•
Yti
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration `- ~.
Granted CUP - t~
Deleted Condition Nos. 2 and 3 -~
_:
VOTE: 6 yes votes ` ~~
Peraza absent 1
~
.
ti
-r
~,:
wt
U,
';' '~r.
-{~
'~i,
.. - ~'
5.'
~ ~~.
~,
t l.i
'v "F.
ti:
i°,'
~ ~ ~=
`_
~~
!
{ ! : u.
~ -,,,r
~"
t xk'
~ s ~ ~ s;:
~, a.,,
d~ ;
~,'t~.
)
7
~~
;f1 4~r;
w
~
t
~
. .. ~ '~,
~~
N ~3~ .
.~~'
`ill
i 3 - _~ ~J~.
(: i [
4
- 9 ~N ~rG e~m ~~~
..
i~~
~I
``r r"
f
.
~ c.~ ~.
~
a i "
,
as >.
.~
,
4~
~
'
'fY,~
t
.
+~C 1.YF
C~~
(~
~
~s~
'
('a~ ~,
`
~w :,~ M
1
U
y
~
,........., .. - .. ^.v..!:~ rWNt Nj?~\413. M,a~ - -~
, .Y
V
?~1H
R~.
r
t~
.
,r
r,rti
+~
yy
t ~s4~
16a. CECJA NE~A'I'IVE DECLAR1f['ION (PREUI(XJSLY APPR7VID) Approved ~
~.~
16b. GY)ND11'IONAL USE PEFIKPP N0. 2029 (REAWERT'I:SID) Granted t
~~~~r
,
CWNER: LOWERY COMPANY, P.O. Box 2276, Anaheim, CA 92814 `!'~~''
~~
LCX.ATIflN: 619 North Anat~.im Boulevalvl. Property is ' r`'
approximately 0.6 acre located at the eoucnweat 3 ~ ~
corner of Wilhelmina Street and Anaheim Boulevard. ~~°
Petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval `~~.
pertaining to parking area lighting. ~ -:
;$
Vhf
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-184 `~.!~
. =;7:
FOLLOWING IS A BUIOWRY OE TBE PLANNING COIOtISS70N ACTION. NOT TO SS ~ ; };3~
~~'
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. - hhi:
~
y ~
y
,
~~
OPP03ITIONi 0
PETITIONER'S CONMENTSS Pointed out other busiseesses is the immediate ~
area with similar lighting. Existing lights never intended to bs at r: ,~
that level, have been number o' complaints.
`~~°'
ACTIONS Granted .'~;.
VOTES 6 yes votes
Persaa absent
!"~~
ti ,
5~
rK:. ~ _ +9+~¢ci~:YA„v,:~~'s r• ns.t x r Y, u, " -
~:,
~`,'
`2
:~;.
~,,
.~Yh
'. !'ri:
;,_ ~,~
~~
»~g;.
Jr
~!:
~ `z~,
;., ~~..
i
hJ,,~a,,
i
;,,(,~
`k y;
~~
~~ .~
.~
.=
-; ~,.
{~~
`~~~~
~ 5 ~~~
,~5 ~.,
4
~~
,•~~~~~.
r
+t L".q
•.'..c ~~~~<
'. t..l... 7~
17.
4 ;:.f
Attorney's
Office to
prepare draft
ordinance.
i
~.!`r.'~
'n'om
<~
r
«~"}N
`~ jFfi
~;
~ ``
'.t~Y
i
. ty~~,1
'
r
+!r
{1:
~~.
s
ys
s
•
-
.
.: `
1
n
v~
~
, q
[ t
~
'
`~~
~
t
~,
z
~1 y
3.
-ai ~r aa.. ~
-._ ,~
`~
rt
e'
w` ,~~
1 at U
~
REEtORTS AND REY.CI~A¢11DATIONS: ~.
~,,~ ~.
A. RF~Ld1SSIFICA'PION NO. 87-88 57 AND Q7NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~0. Continued to v ~,
3006 - RFXXIFST EXTENSION OF TIME: BuPeeh Davikh requests 11-18-91 ~,
one year time extension to comply with condidtions of ~~'~`:
'
approval and review of revised site plan for substantial ,
"y ".
conformance finding. Property ie located at 212 South Beach ;,,~+
Boulevard. ;%~~a.
Staff pointed out filing fee check was submitted when
project as orignally filed, but was never cashed. Would
like agreement from applicant to pay fees.
ACTION: Continued to 11-18-91 in order for applicant to pay -.
.
filing fees. '~~
B. PIdOR~SED Gt3DE AhIEIIVVLY~43V'1' PERTAINING '!b LANI.IgGAPING Approved
~J,~~, instructed
C. Gt~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3255 - REUIB4 OF PRECISE SIQJ Approved,
P2a7GRAM: Tareadia Development requests review of precise subject to
sign program in conjunction with Conditional Use 'rerniit No. conditions and
3255. Property is located at 1752 South Clementine Street. reduction of
size to wall
signs to 4-1/2
feet.
D. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NCxS 14071. ien7a, 14074. 14075. Approved
14083 14084 14085 14086, 14087. 14088. 14089. 14090, see
'-4091 19092 14093 AND 14124 - RECXJES'1' FL)R EXTENSION OF below
~'1ME: The Baldwin Company requests extension of time for
vesting tentative tract maps located within The Summit of
Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2). '
~ .t;
i Z:~
TT 14073, 14074,14075, 14083, 14084, 14085, 14086, 14088, I
14089, 14090, 14091, and 14124 to expire 10-9-92j and TT
14071, 14092, 14093 to expire 10-23-92. ~~~
,y;^.~
5°c'
~hTC
• 1
•
~ i r~r
h :~ ~~
71;
~1
~• y'
~
s r'i,;
r ~::::..
.. ~ ~~.
y~~
r ~ r
F ~~
°kN
~
I'~~
Y cif
~'.
if
i ..-_.....,.. 1'}~s
I ~
!,F a i~
18. DISCUSSION: ~`U~ c,
~~~~
~ A. Instructed staff to arrange presentations from the City of ~`
Orange regarding their renovation of Tustin Avenue] and with ^~~
~
~
the City of Santa Ana regarding their entrances to
d
i
hb
h §.-~
a
'.
y.A
oo
s.
ne
g
or .~
i?ksry,i
B. Meeting on November 13, 1991, 3:00 p.m. for presentation ~-~~.,
i from Anaheim Union High School District. r `~.
I 1 ~ P;i- i.
k
"x ,
C. Joint meeting of December 4, 1991, 10:00 a.m. with sa
~
~
Redevrslopment Commission. e
D. Work Seeaion on December 9, 1991, 6:00 o.m. to discuss ''?n
r
Cypress Canyon. ~~~~;
x{{
Y{ ~.
19. ADJOURNMENT: ~ 'ma
~19N~f.
Adjourned to 3:00 p.m., November 13, 1991, for presentation ~ :.~~
t
from Anaheim Union High School District. $~:
' ,n
Adjourned at 7:50 p.m. ~?>;
k,.
~
f
_
5
~
L.
t
~y
k
~A,
®
1
1 ~L~%.
l
.,
R
,. ~~.~t
~{
~
~
~~
~ '~
~~!
~.
-3 l.~5~~
~~;~
'. ti;
5~ h
I •,
~
f
I.
i.
~1(:
y.
i
~'
CiY.
~~
j~'.
~~ ~ ~ !.1'
I ~~
1 ~i_
i
~N
,
I . X~i
~ , ~~1:
i k
.~:~~)
~5 .
Yl.
,~
~.
~y 5~.
f~R~1'i
~ i ;
~:,
£yr~~ fi.
. ~, 1 RJ~TiW
i<, ,~~z
• "aA ti$~~R.
,:~ M
' '~~
f
rr ~ ' r ~~l
" ~ .S :~' +
~?~,a~'
~ma~~
~~ ~ r
~,`~ f,Y
_ - t~ ,~.
~~~?